Extra Punctuation: What Is the Matter with You People?

stef1987

New member
Jan 11, 2011
43
0
0
huh, I didn't knew you couldn't kill children in Skyrim.
Never tried to

I did notice you can't kill jarls and some other characters, or maybe only when they're part of an active quest or something ?
that annoys me, because often there are people that are fairly evil, yet I can't kill them, instead I have to do something for them, or just leave a quest uncompleted :s
 

Xakk Zeliff

New member
Mar 21, 2012
9
0
0
Sometimes I think the writer's strike - remember that? - somehow crippled every market for which we use writers. It's silly, I know, but it seems like writing has been getting more and more shit recently. Like all story departments are made of the same people who produce Fear Factor. Either they're entirely hiring at their lake houses, or someone's got the writers' hands tied with barbed wire after first draft.

As for the kid thing, I seem to remember that Little Lamplight was protected by many vicious dogs - realistically even in game terms, as I had to resort to my unique flamer to kill one, but they were killable. I wonder what that means.
On topic, cmon. It's a video game, have you forgotten where these came from? Shoot everything that moves, or it will kill or impede you, or you can get something out of it. I'm pretty sure there's no definition of progress which included the idea of suddenly restricting previously free actions. We could always kill everything before, whether it was a cute little bunny, or a tragically mutated cancer patient. Doesn't matter, let some god sort em out.
Further, to be more specific to the topic, I kind of hate most NPCs. Because they don't do much of anything. They're moving window dressing, from go bot fleeing civilians in a shooter to the meat-chest roombas in a Bethseda game. Fable, especially 2, is an exception because it's people have homes, jobs, families, opinions. But in Fallout they only exist to walk back and forth, on their preprogrammed routes with their preprogrammed actions and quips. They're almost immune to manipulation, except that a weapon reliably causes them to do something new and exciting when applied. Additionally, in many cases NPCs can be an obstacle, catching the player attempting something stealthy, or cluttering the compass with lots of blips. Easiest solution? You guessed it. Then we have the children. Same problems, but no solution, because you can't kill kids.
Let me leave off by pointing something out. In F3, we had the Mesmetron, which gave a host of new ways to make otherwise repetitive enemies and NPCs interactive. Except it could not, despite being potentially nonlethal, be used on kids. Because enslaving kids is monstrous...oh wait. You can sweet talk a young girl, specifically one of the least annoying children, out of the cave into the hands of slavers.
 

Katya Topolkaraeva

New member
Dec 9, 2010
44
0
0
Personally, if there was sex in a game i would absolutely insist on getting the mod that lets you poke children! For the same reason that i got the mod that lets you kill children in Skyrim: because there is no logical reason why if i can kill everything else i shouldn't be able to. (also because they are super annoying)
 

ReinWeisserRitter

New member
Nov 15, 2011
749
0
0
This coming from the same person who complained they couldn't kill their children in Fable, eh.

I've no doubt your videos are supposed to be there to shake people up and startle them to an extent, with some of your personal opinion mixed in, but that wouldn't make you any better than what you've complained about in Modern Warfare games, either, because then you're just doing it either because you think you should, or because you think other people think you should. If you mean it, then at least it's honest, but then it contradicts what you said here, and indeed what you often say in your side columns.

It's not like I'm unaware that everyone's s hypocrite (or that I'm digging up an old article here), but it comes off as particularly absurd when a man who understands that perhaps as well as anyone is as guilty of it, while using his position of influence to berate others for their own seal beating, and he himself is wielding a club.
 

Mr.Governor

Senior Member
Nov 10, 2009
201
0
21
Yahtzee said:
"And I decided that it was time to murder my entire family,this was the point where I discovered that you can't kill children of course.So much for total freedom,eh.What? So it's alright for someone else too shoot me in the face and throw me off a building while I'm a kid but the moment I try to spread the love,then ooh we're suddenly getting off message"
Straight from his Fable 2 review,gj
 

ZeroFarks

New member
Nov 30, 2012
65
0
0
I think Fallout 1 (or was it 2?) handled this issue the best way: Yes, you could kill kids. Like the annoying buggers who kept trying to pick your pockets every time you walked past, for instance. Or they could simply get caught in the crossfire of other fights by accident. Regardless, point is, the player could bump them off.

But there were consequences: There was a hidden "perk" called "Child Killer" and once you got it then everyone in the world started to hate your guts. Wanted posters with your face would appear all over town and bounty hunters would constantly come looking for you. Your allies would abandon you & some people would refuse to so much as speak to you ever again.

Which meant that any decent character would try to avoid killing the little miscreants, whether by accident or design. Once the most truly psychotic "not give a flying fark" loners could pull it off and live to tell about it. Which, if you think about, is fine. One would expect a psychotic lone murder-machine to kill kids as readily as anyone else. One does not expect it from a hero. Both bases are covered, both paths are clearly laid out. Realism is attained, the options & possibilities are there but no one can say that the immoral whack-job isn't suffering for their sins.
 

MaddKossack115

New member
Jul 29, 2013
84
0
0
Ironically, I think the "censored" version of the "shock moment" of MW3 proved MORE shocking than the "uncensored" version - instead of cutting away to that stupid tourist family catching the chemical bomb attack on camera by ironic accident, the player finds the chemical bomb in the truck he and his squad chased - just as it goes off in his face. It packed the same punch as the nuke from the first Modern Warfare in the "your character can be killed off just like that", but also held more of an implicit mortality rate than the uncut version - we only see the mother and kid, and presumably the dad operating the camera with the later, but with the former, not only do you die, but so does Gaz/Ghost (again), the other guys in your squad, the police officers thinking the whole thing who gathered around thinking the whole crash was just a pullover gone wrong, AND the crowd of British civilians that the police officers were holding back from the crime scene.

So, not only do we realize that virtually ALL of the characters we saw on that screen would've likely died as a result, but the fact the bomb goes off when you open it up gives a nagging "Nice Job Breaking It, Hero!" feeling - if you hadn't opened the box, the bomb wouldn't have gone off, and everybody (or at least, the people in your immediate vicinity) would've been spared the Russian gas attacks. Makes you wonder why they didn't scrap the "family dies from gas attack" scene and just stuck with the "you and everybody around you dies from gas attack" scene... I guess it was felt more "impactful" for American citizens (i.e., designed to be biased to the almost all-American audience that actually buys COD for the story modes, and not just the multiplayer brawls everybody else in the world is looking for), going under the logic "HEY! You probably are a husband/wife/kid, and your family likes to go on vacation, right? Well, it'd certainly be a shame if TERRORISTS blew up a bomb where you were vacationing, now wouldn't it?".