Extra Punctuation: What Is the Matter with You People?
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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).OniaPL said:
Thank goodness for my mod and mininuke launcher
WTF? Dammit there's one in THIS GAME TOO?thiosk said:
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.
Poor show, Mr Croshaw. I expected better.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.Metalhandkerchief said:
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."
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."
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.irishda said:
You can't 'establish' a reputation for killing innocents anyway - everyone will simply attack you.
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.irishda said:
Indeed!SkellgrimOrDave said:
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: