I find it amusing only one person in this thread has mentioned the fact that a thief playstyle often requires you to eliminate all the witnesses to a crime, and children can still witness a crime despite being immortal. That's not just immersion-breaking - that's outright screwing up an otherwise legitimate playstyle because some people can't bear the possibility of fictional children dying in a video game.
Extra Punctuation: What Is the Matter with You People?
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Biggest badass real-life Nord type = Egill, the puking Viking (totally different take on respect and discipline)Togs said:
Seriously, the dude was from Iceland ca. 910 CE. Axed his first "enemy" when he was something like 7 years old. Tended to vomit all over bad hosts when he was the house guest. (Bad = not generous enough with the beer)
Didn't we run into this problem with Battlefield 3? DICE decided they didn't want to include civilians in the game. I was perfectly fine with this, but the boards here lit up with people bitching up a blue streak over it.seraphy said:
You can't please everyone. It has and always will be true.
See? That's the solution to the Draugr problem in today's Critical Miss. Oh, sure, they look all big and scary now, but just wait until they're crying for Mommy while fleeing from pre-schoolers.Spot1990 said:
Failing that, buy a child harness and wear the children as armor.
Top that, mithril!
I ran into a Stray Dog in my journeys. It took a liking to me, followed me around. Helped me in battles. I cared for it, healed it if it got wounded. He was my best friend, then he died. I was sad, and angry. It died defending a small settlement from a Dragon. Many people died in the battle, but we were victorious. And at least we saved the children!
Wait... they can't die. Great, now my dog died for nothing.
I think having mortal children would add an emotional layer for some people, even if they are annoying. Something to fight for. While some people just want to slit their little throats for every smartass remark they make. I chuckle, give them a pat on the head and then move on. And finding that same child laying dead on the ground after a dragon attack, it might leave me torn up. I was too late, I couldn't save him. That damn dragon killed an innocent child! This would fuel my anger and make me stronger, ensuring that this would never happen again. NOT WHILE I'M STILL BREATHING!
So that's another potential reason for the mod. But it doesn't matter for me, I've got the 360 version.
Wait... they can't die. Great, now my dog died for nothing.
I think having mortal children would add an emotional layer for some people, even if they are annoying. Something to fight for. While some people just want to slit their little throats for every smartass remark they make. I chuckle, give them a pat on the head and then move on. And finding that same child laying dead on the ground after a dragon attack, it might leave me torn up. I was too late, I couldn't save him. That damn dragon killed an innocent child! This would fuel my anger and make me stronger, ensuring that this would never happen again. NOT WHILE I'M STILL BREATHING!
So that's another potential reason for the mod. But it doesn't matter for me, I've got the 360 version.
You should have downloaded the child killing mod and killed her for that. Cheating is a crime that should be punished with death.DustyDrB said:
Seriously though, I agree with you. The Escapist is a community filled with child haters it seems. Whenever someone reads news about a group saying kids shouldn't be allowed in restaurants everyone seems to agree. I have even seen people whining about there being kids at McDonalds.
OT: I also have problem seeing the appeal in games allowing us to kids. When I play Saints Row The Third and shoot the windshield of a plane ending up flying out on the other side of it to dive several miles to catch a person I threw away before I entered the plane I don't see the logic in the complaints about lack of realism.
Or Skyrim for that matter. After killing a dragon using a combo of magic and sword you don't hear anyone whining about realism.
When you're playing GTA do you complain about the realism after the cops stop following you just because you repainted the car?
If you can forgive that a team of S.W.A.T. stops following you because your car changes colour when they saw you enter the paint shop you shouldn't whine about the lack of realism when there's no kids around.
I think the reason why people want to kill kids so much in Skyrim is because Bethesda have made the most annoying children in the world and then said 'har har you can't kill them'.
For me it's for the hilarity factor. Soul trapping children, using them to forge my magical dragonslaying weapons. Sure i have also collected the souls of various people..i have a black soul gem on my table that contains the still screaming soul of the emperor.
Why are you looking at me like that?
Why are you looking at me like that?
Because their so fucking irritating in Bethesda games. Hell, you have a quest about doing something for a kid, and hes still a punk ass. In RPG's it gets annoying being a villain and killing EVERYBODY, only for one to walk away from it all like nothing happened.
Wait a minute, didn't he complain way back when in his Fable 2 review that he COULDN'T kill children...Yahtzee you're entitled to your opinion but some freaking consistency would be nice.
Also I find it odd that Yahtzee finds it joyful to tie people to the back of a jet in Just Cause 2 and take off but once someone gets too young, ohh suddenly we're going too far. Not to mention modders seem to be less interested in creating an interesting and immersive game and seem more interested in breaking down as many walls as possible and creating as many bizarre creations as possible. Hell, I can't help but wonder why Yahtzee is focusing his energy on them anyway.
Also the ability to go around screwing random people...we don't need to give fox news more ammo thank you very much. They still haven't forgotten Hot Coffee.
Also I find it odd that Yahtzee finds it joyful to tie people to the back of a jet in Just Cause 2 and take off but once someone gets too young, ohh suddenly we're going too far. Not to mention modders seem to be less interested in creating an interesting and immersive game and seem more interested in breaking down as many walls as possible and creating as many bizarre creations as possible. Hell, I can't help but wonder why Yahtzee is focusing his energy on them anyway.
Also the ability to go around screwing random people...we don't need to give fox news more ammo thank you very much. They still haven't forgotten Hot Coffee.
Face it invulnerable children suck, it messed up the gameplay and any type of open world feel to it.
1st (facebook) comment, and it points out Yahtzee's hypocrisy.
2nd comment, says we aren't meant to take anything he says seriously.
I disagree with comment #1 since it's a hypocrisy argument, and those are simply fallacies (Mr. Croshaw can change his mind over time. He's not on trial here.)
I agree with comment 2 to a degree, but while "Comedic" applied to his video, it doesn't really fit the tone of *this* article. Barring severe disconnect with intent, I think we can safely assume that Mr. Croshaw is treating the topic of Digital Child Murder and Shock-Deaths with the seriousness it requires.
Anyway...child murder mods. This was a hot-button issue back in Fallout 3, and there, one could argue that the developers were intentionally goading someone to mod that into the game given how incredibly obnoxious they were.
Now it's a topic in Skyrim.
The most frequent defense for the child-murder mods is comparing it morally and boiling things down to the degree of their depravity.
Where one draws the line is based on personal morals and subjectivity. Some of us are offended and disgusted by the murder of digital children. Others are desensitized, callous, or even (secretly, if the halo-effect still works online) eager to kill them.
And that's just keeping this within the contexts of PURE FANTASY. (ignoring that whole "Save the Childrens from Video Games"-movement we put up with in reality)
I get no jollies from murdering digital children, and I frankly don't think it's integral to (nor does it enhance) the experience of any game. However, it's impossible for me to logically argue against someone who gets off on that, because it's still morally-subjective.
And lo'. Controversy is born.
Rather than jump into the vortex of circular logic and argumentation that comes with this sort of controversy, I'm just going to observe.
2nd comment, says we aren't meant to take anything he says seriously.
I disagree with comment #1 since it's a hypocrisy argument, and those are simply fallacies (Mr. Croshaw can change his mind over time. He's not on trial here.)
I agree with comment 2 to a degree, but while "Comedic" applied to his video, it doesn't really fit the tone of *this* article. Barring severe disconnect with intent, I think we can safely assume that Mr. Croshaw is treating the topic of Digital Child Murder and Shock-Deaths with the seriousness it requires.
Anyway...child murder mods. This was a hot-button issue back in Fallout 3, and there, one could argue that the developers were intentionally goading someone to mod that into the game given how incredibly obnoxious they were.
Now it's a topic in Skyrim.
The most frequent defense for the child-murder mods is comparing it morally and boiling things down to the degree of their depravity.
Where one draws the line is based on personal morals and subjectivity. Some of us are offended and disgusted by the murder of digital children. Others are desensitized, callous, or even (secretly, if the halo-effect still works online) eager to kill them.
And that's just keeping this within the contexts of PURE FANTASY. (ignoring that whole "Save the Childrens from Video Games"-movement we put up with in reality)
I get no jollies from murdering digital children, and I frankly don't think it's integral to (nor does it enhance) the experience of any game. However, it's impossible for me to logically argue against someone who gets off on that, because it's still morally-subjective.
And lo'. Controversy is born.
Rather than jump into the vortex of circular logic and argumentation that comes with this sort of controversy, I'm just going to observe.
I can sort of see how the law's line was put right there (it's quite funny, when you think about it-adult deaths are okay to depict but kids' aren't?) as there are hundreds of other outdated, naive and pointless laws out there.
What I can't see is what changed Yahtzee's opinion. Did his morals and consciousness ambush him and keep him at gunpoint while he wrote the article? Did he suddenly become a father? I'm honestly curious since this is the first time I find myself disagreeing with his opinion.
What I can't see is what changed Yahtzee's opinion. Did his morals and consciousness ambush him and keep him at gunpoint while he wrote the article? Did he suddenly become a father? I'm honestly curious since this is the first time I find myself disagreeing with his opinion.
For me it's just that it's more immersion breaking than anything. I was playing Skyrim last night and while I'm working at the forge in Riverwood a battalion of Stormcloak soldiers show up and just start straight up murdering the shit out of everyone. Needless to say this pissed me off because they also killed my supplier of Iron Ingots while they were at it. While all this is going on a Blood Dragon and a Frost Dragon show up and start attacking. So I pull out my bow while the epic music starts slowly building up in the background and get to work poisoning my arrows, finding a decent sniping spot and keeping an eye out for any potential cover. Needless to say, it felt like quite a kickass moment.Yopaz said:
So after this battle involving a battalion of soldiers, innocent townspeople and two dragons is over I take a moment to survey the damage. This little village that I frequented quite often is now deserted. Empty. They even killed the dog! I think about how just a moment ago I was shopping, forging weapons and helping people out...and know they're all dea-
"I'm not afraid of you..even if you are my elder"
FUCKING KIDS!!!! Did you not see the shit I just pulled! Two dragons! Loads of soldiers! Dead by my hands! And you wanna talk like that to me you little punk?
My way of thinking about the whole thing is to either make them obey the rules of the game world like every other NPC or just don't include them at all. They barely add anything to the game save a quest or two out of hundreds of quests.
I haven't played through MW3's campaign yet, but I doubt I'll be as shocked when someone explodes in front of me. Probably because I'm playing a game where 90 percent of the time I'm shooting people. Sure most of them are faceless with their gas masks and balaclava's, but it still doesn't take away the fact your killing people, simulated people. I admit playing Skyrim and having kids mouth off to me constantly does make me want to punch them, not kill them...maybe...depending on my characters alignment. Making a moment, or a freedom, in any game to be shocking strictly for the sake of it, is kind of asinine.
It is interesting to see how people make the distinction between killing children and killing adults, especially when you are made to go after hundreds of people over the course of the game, not all of which are entirely evil people.
When wielding a child, you have an additional 10% chance to stun your opponent when you hit them.
Perk: KinderguardSpot1990 said:
When wielding a child, you have an additional 10% chance to stun your opponent when you hit them.
Alright Escapist, when did you kill off Yahtzee and replace him with one of your EscapeBots? You've made a serious logical error this time, in his review of Fable 2 Yahtzee complained about his inability to not kill children, and in that case he didn't even have a real reason besides boredom! In Skyrim, the kids are quite often annoying fuck. Even a snarky 300-year-old vampire is unkillable just because she looks like a kid. This preposterous Yahtzeebot has forgotten the most important reason for killing children in games; we fucking want to. They aren't real, and they're pissing me off, so there's no reason I shouldn't be able to kill them. I don't wouldn't want to fuck them (or any NPC because that's weird h-game shit, but I guess we're making "perverted" a given characteristic of our hero) It's been said before, if someone is willing to kill at all, there's a very good chance they won't care about the size of his victims, but I would hope that a vast majority of those who want to have sex with someone aren't automatically child-rapists. The real Yahtzee would have never relied on such an obvious apples-to-oranges fallacy. No I do not want to kill children. I don't want to kill anyone, in real life. But this is a video game and who gives a shit? Besides myself of course, because these shit-eating brats are filling up what should be a perfectly empty graveyard of a town with their stupid banter (along with the ten-trillion NPCs the game has infuriatingly decided are too important to let you kill.)
Hold on, did Yahtzee "every healthy womb in the world should float into the sky like greasy etc. etc." Croshaw actually just chastise people for wanting to kill children? I think I need to have a lie down.
All sarcasm aside, I can't really see the point of going to all that trouble, either. If a game gives me the option to kill children, then I may do so, if I find it's the most convenient thing for me. If not, then what am I losing? Since the game was designed without child-murdering in mind, I clearly do not need to murder children to get the maximum possible enjoyment from the game. What's the big deal?
All sarcasm aside, I can't really see the point of going to all that trouble, either. If a game gives me the option to kill children, then I may do so, if I find it's the most convenient thing for me. If not, then what am I losing? Since the game was designed without child-murdering in mind, I clearly do not need to murder children to get the maximum possible enjoyment from the game. What's the big deal?
Sorry. Yahtzee's articles are normally enough to convince me on an issue, but when it comes to child-killing. Nope.
To explain in terms of Yahtzee's "Not all roles can be available to you"-argument: When one of the roles available to you is "horrible indiscriminate murderer of innocent men, women, beggars and wildlife", it creates a dissonance when there is something you can't kill.
Even if those things aren't normally morally acceptable to ki- Hold on a fucking moment there. Since when did it become morally acceptable to kill defenseless adults?
This game lets you decapitate innocent people and carry their heads with you to store in your home where your thane is honour-bound to stay with the faces of their dead friends and relatives watching them from the walls to which you have crudely nailed their heads with arrows, but when you complain that there being immortal characters in the game feels odd and artificial the answer is "You can't have the option to kill children. That's just disturbing."
Fuck off, I'm not buying it.
I don't think the love-making mechanic simile holds up either. You don't necessarily hurt people by having sex with them, so if the game included a mechanic to sex npcs up, I would not expect it to include a mechanic that would let me sex the children.
If the game included a rape-mechanic, however, I would expect it to also be possible to rape children, yes.
The only argument I accept is "kids in fantasy don't die because they have to grow up to be heroes".
In fact, I'd be okay with not being able to kill children if you were only allowed to hit them into that 'damaged' state that quest-essential characters enter when they should have been killed.
To explain in terms of Yahtzee's "Not all roles can be available to you"-argument: When one of the roles available to you is "horrible indiscriminate murderer of innocent men, women, beggars and wildlife", it creates a dissonance when there is something you can't kill.
Even if those things aren't normally morally acceptable to ki- Hold on a fucking moment there. Since when did it become morally acceptable to kill defenseless adults?
This game lets you decapitate innocent people and carry their heads with you to store in your home where your thane is honour-bound to stay with the faces of their dead friends and relatives watching them from the walls to which you have crudely nailed their heads with arrows, but when you complain that there being immortal characters in the game feels odd and artificial the answer is "You can't have the option to kill children. That's just disturbing."
Fuck off, I'm not buying it.
I don't think the love-making mechanic simile holds up either. You don't necessarily hurt people by having sex with them, so if the game included a mechanic to sex npcs up, I would not expect it to include a mechanic that would let me sex the children.
If the game included a rape-mechanic, however, I would expect it to also be possible to rape children, yes.
The only argument I accept is "kids in fantasy don't die because they have to grow up to be heroes".
In fact, I'd be okay with not being able to kill children if you were only allowed to hit them into that 'damaged' state that quest-essential characters enter when they should have been killed.