Extra Punctuation: What Is the Matter with You People?

[thiosk]

I *do* want to brain that little snot in Dragonsreach...

but I won't go and mod the game to do it.

 

[oktalist]

Games with mortal children are more challenging for those of us who like to avoid killing children.

Do you see?

 

[antipunt]

I admit, I got that Skyrim mod myself =/

In Fallout 3, I was annoyed by children in Little Lamplight. My character was a complete asshole, who didn't give a fuck about the children, they didn't let him pass, so he used force. But noticed that they were invulnerable.

I doubt you were alone in this regard. GOD THEY WERE ANNOYING. It was like the devs were flaunting it in your face (you can't kill them just BECAUSE. Oh btw, they're going to be extra annoying too).

Thank goodness for my mod and mininuke launcher

I *do* want to brain that little snot in Dragonsreach...

but I won't go and mod the game to do it.

WTF? Dammit there's one in THIS GAME TOO?

 

[Batou667]

Well, I think Yahtzee is rather late to the discussion as this has been chewed to death in at least two threads. I also think his rape analogy is rather ill-placed - this is a swords-and-sorcery game, and having NPCs who are outright immune to the aforementioned swords is a jarring inconsistency in the admittedly rare event of you taking a swing at a kid. IF Skyrim was a hentai game (it isn't) where you can seduce every man, woman and animal you stumble upon (you can't), THEN we can have a discussion about whether children should be fair game too.

Poor show, Mr Croshaw. I expected better.

 

[q_tf]

That's a BS imo,
A HUD doesn't interfere with immersion, especially not if it's as minimalist as Skyrim's, it's part of your tools as a visitor to the video game reality. The world of Skyrim tries to emulate certain aspects of the real world (and enchances some of them), such as the cycle of life and death which is broken due to the fact, that kids won't die.

 

[Knusper]

Well as pointed out before, you have said you wanted to kill kids in Fable 2. Furthermore, this isn't us playing as ourselves, but creating another personality. Really though, this isn't a matter of not being able to kill children, but that they can't die at all.

 

[irishda]

None of these refute his main point of "there are roles which your character will be unable to assume due to the nature of the game". The developers didn't want the players bogging themselves down murdering any child that insults them because they didn't want the players establishing themselves as some sort of child-murdering psychopath. It makes more sense for the character to retain some sort of moral line that he won't cross, otherwise there's no point to having him save the world anyways. Why fight these dragons if they can do a far quicker job of massacring the hapless populace than he can?

No one's also refuted his "this isn't murder for the sake of realism, because this isn't a realistic game" point either. You're in a "swords-and-sorcery" game. Magic, ancient gods, impossible creatures; this is not a game where someone's going to say "wow just like real life". (you can decapitate people with a mace for god's sake. the only way to duplicate decapitation with a blunt object in real life is if either your head or the object is traveling 60 mph) The fault does lie with Bethesda though. They should've thrown in some dialogue at the beginning that says "Oh, by the way, the goddess whats-her-face has placed her blessing on all children everywhere until they're 16 so that they cannot die."

Christ, I don't recall everyone watching Lord of the Rings and crying "bullshit" when those two kids escaped on horseback, even though the little girl said the horse was too big for them to ride.

 

[kuolonen]

Well I do have a counter-question for you Croshaw, what the hell is wrong with you? You played MW3. How many war orphans have you created? How many sons and fathers have you killed?
Oh right. They are over the age of 18 so their value as human beings is nil. How silly of me not to see this.

I love the comparison of "if child killing is okay, then should child f***ing be okay?" Makes me feel like I just read Fox article. Bravo. It's really wonderfull isnt' it though? With argument he will really win people over to his side in this.

But lets think on that for a moment. It implies, that we feel killing a child is less horrible than f***ing one. Let that sink in for a moment. If you feel theres nothing wrong with that moral system, you might wanna ask a lawyer which of the crimes nets you more prison time. And before anyone flames me for that statement, let it be known that I personally support death penalty for pedophiles and murderers. In real life.

I hate you Yahtzee. You sold out. Back in the day in Fable1 you would, and I quote, "set out to be the evilest bastard who ever lived". Now youre all prolife and shit. What happened to you?

 

[Eternal_Lament]

we were watching a movie where they basically built up this scene where a baby in a carriage would fall down a flight of stairs and die, but in the end is miracously saved by this guy who just killed 3 people in that area (he was a hitman) in a way that could only be explained as "Cliche Heroic Moment".

Was it "Battleship Potemkin"? It's a Russian movie from 1925 that only pretentious people still like or force into education because they refuse to let go of their misinformed interpretations of what that scene really meant. (Some of the theories are just crazy)

Anyway, as you can see under, before that scene even happens (the baby scene) another actual kid gets shot. In the back.


The simple explanation is this: in 1925, people were simpler-in-the-brain and this was how you shocked people back then, and was considered "hip" and "edgy". That's all their is to it. All forms of media will have elements capitalizing on the shock&awe bullshit, in 1925, in 2011 just as in the last days of mother earth comes along to snuff out this horrible race of creatures called humans.

No, but we did watch that movie at the same time. In fact, I compared that scene to the other scene we watched. I noticed, as well as my TA, that even if it was for shock purposes that showing a kid dying was more likely to happen in the earlier years than in later years, mainly because if given the opportunity there is a sense of Hollywood trying to make their main characters, no matter how despicable and immoral they may actually be, to still align with good or to draw a line in terms of how far they'll go. The reason the scene I mentioned earlier pissed me off was that it was obvious that the scene served no other purpose than to show that the hitman, a guy who is payed to kill people, has a line that the average movie-goer can relate to.

 

[SkellgrimOrDave]

Game of thrones kills or has violence towards children and is much better for it, why?

Because it's realistic and it's not gritty, it's just bleak, as things are allowed to be. I want to have a world in Skyrim that feels like it has genuine terror, bleakness and darkness, to make the heroic moments and victories all the better, I don't want to have "Oh no, a dragon! but never mind, the children will survive and run around all the time after we're burnt as a crisp!". I want a scene of desolate slaughter, innocents and warriors lying burnt and dead in a bandit raid or dragon fight. It's the extremely jarring nature of the chilren just running around afterwards that annoys me so. I don't download the killable children mod so I can fulfill some sick fantasy about shooting a pre-pubescent sprog in the face, i'll download it so that there are consequences to something like a massive war other than "Well shit, people died."

 

[Levethian]

None of these refute his main point of "there are roles which your character will be unable to assume due to the nature of the game". The developers didn't want the players ... establishing themselves as some sort of child-murdering psychopath. It makes more sense for the character to retain some sort of moral line that he won't cross, otherwise there's no point to having him save the world anyways. Why fight these dragons if they can do a far quicker job of massacring the hapless populace than he can?

I doubt the decision by the developers was led by role-playing considerations. More like Bethesda would have been railed against had they allowed the player to kill children.

You can't 'establish' a reputation for killing innocents anyway - everyone will simply attack you.

No one's also refuted his "this isn't murder for the sake of realism, because this isn't a realistic game" point either.

Skyrim is grounded in a reality where death can occur, where innocents suffer at the hands of dragons and villans. The experience is lifted by the depth of that suffering - not for the players perverse enjoyment, but to drive the player onward to see that justice is done. And stuff.

I want to have a world in Skyrim that feels like it has genuine terror, bleakness and darkness, to make the heroic moments and victories all the better; I don't want to have "Oh no, a dragon! but never mind, the children will survive and run around all the time after we're burnt as a crisp!".

Indeed!

 

[DPunch4]

If Skyrim allows me to sell drugs to kids, why can't I kill them?