Extra Punctuation: What Is the Matter with You People?
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I have never played the bad guy in a game where it's available to me. But, the ability to kill kids makes the game more immersive when you can kill pretty much every other living thing in a game.
The ability to anally conquer all the little boys in town is also realistic if that is what you are into, but it's not the same thing at all. For instance (cover your eyes if you don't know what reality is and I'm about to take away your innocence), kids die everyday. They fall off cliffs, get hit by cars, starve to death, get beaten to death, die of cancer, die of AIDS... essentially, it's a trait of living things and children are no exception to this. I'm not for murder fantasies of kids. But if I'm being attacked and in the act of self defense I can accidentally strike my horse dead, why not kids?
The problem for me is that it being a moral issue (which actually means in concerns you specifically and not all of society), we should be left to decide for ourselves. So, the annoying bit is where they make the decision for us. It's the belief that given the choice, we would choose to kill the kids for fun. If they didn't want to break the immersion, they simply do not put kids into the game. It's that simple. When you are galavanting around Skyrim, being attacked by dragons, wolves, giant spiders, undead things, wizards, vampires, etc., you are not going to all of the suddenly stop and say, "wait a minute, where are all the feral children I should have to fend off".
When I had beaten Fallout 3, and was just running around, I took that perk that made you explode in a nuclear explosion, for fun. I would then walk into a town proceed to piss off the townsfolk and wait till my health dropped low enough for mushroom cloud mode. It was annoying finding survivors of my sorry radiation induced accident. It then became no fun. It would have simply been better if children could have been killed, but their bodies immediately disappeared, we could even pretend the little darlings got snatched up by god and taken to heaven.
Edit: This whole argument comes from the logical fallacy that children are a more important form of life than adults. It's not true in terms of value or worth. It is literally the same thing to kill a child as to kill an adult.
The ability to anally conquer all the little boys in town is also realistic if that is what you are into, but it's not the same thing at all. For instance (cover your eyes if you don't know what reality is and I'm about to take away your innocence), kids die everyday. They fall off cliffs, get hit by cars, starve to death, get beaten to death, die of cancer, die of AIDS... essentially, it's a trait of living things and children are no exception to this. I'm not for murder fantasies of kids. But if I'm being attacked and in the act of self defense I can accidentally strike my horse dead, why not kids?
The problem for me is that it being a moral issue (which actually means in concerns you specifically and not all of society), we should be left to decide for ourselves. So, the annoying bit is where they make the decision for us. It's the belief that given the choice, we would choose to kill the kids for fun. If they didn't want to break the immersion, they simply do not put kids into the game. It's that simple. When you are galavanting around Skyrim, being attacked by dragons, wolves, giant spiders, undead things, wizards, vampires, etc., you are not going to all of the suddenly stop and say, "wait a minute, where are all the feral children I should have to fend off".
When I had beaten Fallout 3, and was just running around, I took that perk that made you explode in a nuclear explosion, for fun. I would then walk into a town proceed to piss off the townsfolk and wait till my health dropped low enough for mushroom cloud mode. It was annoying finding survivors of my sorry radiation induced accident. It then became no fun. It would have simply been better if children could have been killed, but their bodies immediately disappeared, we could even pretend the little darlings got snatched up by god and taken to heaven.
Edit: This whole argument comes from the logical fallacy that children are a more important form of life than adults. It's not true in terms of value or worth. It is literally the same thing to kill a child as to kill an adult.
Yeah, I'd say that makes sense. If they explained why the children don't die it would be a lot less... immersion-breaking, I guess.Spot1990 said:
The Witch King wouldn't dare attack kids. No living man can kill him, but two ten year olds? They'd curb stomp his ass.Spot1990 said:
What's worse about killing children in a video game than killing adults? People in Skyrim go on murder sprees all the time (I included), and somehow the murder of fictional adults is so much better than fictional children?
I just like to fucking behead people in my games in the best and funniest way possible, before trying to creatively pose their in the most hilarious positions possible. It's a bloody game, so I don't see what harm is being done. I kill whatever the hell I want, and I don't see how trying to impose a morality upon the player is going to make the player a better person, and the game immediately more socially acceptable.
I just like to fucking behead people in my games in the best and funniest way possible, before trying to creatively pose their in the most hilarious positions possible. It's a bloody game, so I don't see what harm is being done. I kill whatever the hell I want, and I don't see how trying to impose a morality upon the player is going to make the player a better person, and the game immediately more socially acceptable.
I'd just like to point out that in one of The Witcher books there's a moment when a bunch of well characterized children (teenage, but children nonetheless) are brutally killed, and last one of them is forced to watch all of her friends get decapitated by bounty hunter who did that. And it's much more detailed and much darker than it may seem from this post.
This is the first time I considered something that Yahtzee wrote utterly wrong and fantastically simplistic for someone who otherwise writes about grey zones and morality so well.
Frankly, I am disappointed in seeing such prudish arguments in your pencil-mouth, friend.
Frankly, I am disappointed in seeing such prudish arguments in your pencil-mouth, friend.
Now, I haven't played MW3 so I can't say much but I'd be a bit undisturbed as well if child #329845683 was killed gruesomely just because one should "feel disturbed".
If, however, there would've been a segment where you rescue the child (or in any way have it tag along, while you BY YOURSELF) and have to get past some pockets of enemies in a sneaky manner. Failing to sneak by a pocket would mean that one would have to shoot them and hope that they don't hit the child while it cowers behind the wall.
After the whole ordeal of sneaking past every bunch of enemies (with the occasional hushes) one gets to a place where there are some civilians taking shelter. The player then hands over the kid with all the sentimental hand touching (and/or hug) half of the room gets blown to bits (without taking away control from the player (preferably) and the child is one of the casualties.
If done correctly one might actually feel for the loss because one worked to actually save this life (storywise) and then BOOM, all ones' invested work is gone. That's what might actually impact something in some way, not just staging it all up out of nowhere and then move on as if it never happened.
If, however, there would've been a segment where you rescue the child (or in any way have it tag along, while you BY YOURSELF) and have to get past some pockets of enemies in a sneaky manner. Failing to sneak by a pocket would mean that one would have to shoot them and hope that they don't hit the child while it cowers behind the wall.
After the whole ordeal of sneaking past every bunch of enemies (with the occasional hushes) one gets to a place where there are some civilians taking shelter. The player then hands over the kid with all the sentimental hand touching (and/or hug) half of the room gets blown to bits (without taking away control from the player (preferably) and the child is one of the casualties.
If done correctly one might actually feel for the loss because one worked to actually save this life (storywise) and then BOOM, all ones' invested work is gone. That's what might actually impact something in some way, not just staging it all up out of nowhere and then move on as if it never happened.
That shit is fucked up. It's just a game and all, but why the fuck is that guy spending his time posing headless, naked bodies? It takes commitment to want to decorate your house your own way in that game, and he did in the most twisted fashion.CopperBoom said:
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.
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'.