Extra Punctuation: What Is the Matter with You People?

[BlackWidower]

I'm surprised Yahtzee would take this stand. The man who often preaches the fact that how you act in a game is often very different to how you act in real life.

So, why shouldn't you be allowed to play as a child rapist in Skyrim? Of course he's right. Restrictions are okay, but so is modding. Being allowed to seduce the children makes little sense, they should be programmed to simply not be interested. But killing or raping them is wrong whether or not they're children.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

I can get why you can't kill children in Skyrim. As far as I've gotten, you can't be KOTOR-dark-side-evil, at least not in the story sense. I know I killed a few innocents with no names, but that's about it.

However I absolutely can't get why you couldn't in "Fallout 3". You could be a slave trader in "Fallout 2". Heck, you could annihilate an entire town with a nuclear device in "Fallout 3", but killing children is where the devs draw the line? And yes, that town had children by the way.

That reminded me of an incident I had whilst playing "Fallout 2" back in the days when it was still new. I was never a child killer by choice, however one of my stray bullets, well strayed and ended a life of a six-year old. A total accident, as I was trying to shoot a guy 90 degrees to the side of that kid, with the kid being about a hundred feet away.

That child's prostitute a mother then started screaming and charging at me, her death was entirely my choice. The death of that child at my hands was one of the most powerful experiences I had whilst playing a game. It truly brought out the dread of that barren world. A world of cruelty, inhumanity and "moral bankruptcy", where nobody's clean, not even the protagonist.

I think that there is another reason why child murder shouldn't be exempted from games. It reminds us that murder is a monstrous act. Interplay interpreted it well in their Fallout-series: once you'd become a child murderer or a slave trader there would be some very dear consequences. In the first case a bunch of mercs would once and again appear on the world map to claim their reward for claiming a head of a child murderer and these guys were tough and well equipped. In the second case, if you would choose to become a slave trader that would forever screw your relationships with the democratic NCR, since you had a slaver tatoo on your forehead, "Inglorious Basterds" style.

In short, you could permit child murder, but don't make it consequence free. Children make great collateral damage. For what I see it, a murder is a murder, it is also a thing that games make you do 90% of the time. Killing a child with consequences once in a while could remind you that genocide isn't all it's cracked up to be... and killing a child from the shadows with no witnesses (or perhaps disposing of witnesses) would teach you that some people get away with it, you know, if you want realism and shit.

 

[Limos]

The reason that unkillable children ruin immersion is that enemies still aggro them and they didn't bother programming them to run the fuck away. So you get invincible children standing around in the middle of an epic dragon battle getting chewed on while saying "Oh look another adventurer here to lick my father's boots."

No, fuck that. I would rather have no kids than have invincible kids. They are so fucking annoying.

 

[cefm]

It's more of an extreme litmus-test of whether or not a game is truly "open" and allows you to "do anything". From a game-play perspective it's totally f*ing annoying when you are able to hit your allies, kids, townspeople, guards, dogs, etc. with attacks when you DON'T want to because it can totally screw up a quest and cost you some serious coin to pay off the fines. I hated the crappy lack of targeting in Oblivion which had me hacking the subject of my quest instead of the attackers. But if you're looking to test the edges of an "open sandbox" that's one logical test - are the kids target-able?

Other tests would be "can you cut down the trees?" or "can you dig a hole through a mountain?" or "can you block or divert the couse of a river or stream?" or "can you start a forest fire?" or "Does my character defecate/urinate?" or even "If I eat enough beets will my character pee pink?". These are all tests of the "sand-boxiness" of the world, and in almost all cases the answer is "no". So when people harp on about not being able to hit kids with attacks but aren't equally concerned with other instances of less-than-reality in the gameplay, I can only conclude they're creepy lunatics.

 

[Bodyless]

How do you know that immortal children and mandatory undergarments are actually meant to be in there? These were invented to appeal laws and reduce age restrictions in the first place:
Fallout 2 US -> Fallout 2 UK children made invisible
Daggerfall (yes you dont need a nude patch for that) -> Morrowind
As a sensible adult, one could argue that these patches turn the game into what the devs wanted to make, if it wasnt for the legal consequences and publishers.

 

[internetzealot1]

Everyone has their limits. I guess we've found Yahtzee's.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

I'm not saying that there are some IRL violent people here and games are to blame, I think i've put myself across in a less than ideal way...

Fact is, as far as I see it, if seeing dead kids is something you need to have a game world feel complete, you're a pretty desensitized individual. And that is what I'm trying to say.

And you are wrong.

(snip)
Listen. Every single game-world invites to specific kinds of action (like GTA invites you to go on a kill-frenzy rampage), and there is no universal rule that says that child-killing in games are wrong. It differs from game to game. Modern Warfare 3 did it in a cutscene (not to mention the airport level from the previous game).
(snip)

Finally there is the point of story consistency (note: not 'realism', CONSISTENCY, which is what creates immersion). As someone pointed out earlier, when a dragon attacks a village, your first thought should be "Get the women and children to safety", not "Lets use the children as a diversion while i pump the dragon full of arrows". Immortal children also raises several questions that breaks consistency, like for example why no-one would use them as a fighting force since they are basically untouchable. Even if you were a good king who wouldn't want to use children that way, sooner or later one of your enemies is going to. It raises questions, questions that the game can't answer, which equals broken immersion.

I'm with you on this one: pretty much all games are ROLE PLAYING games, i.e. games WHERE YOU PLAY A ROLE. The role isn't a reflection of your personality, it's A ROLE. There's a difference between acting out what you think the character you're playing would do and what you would actually do in that situation. Barring young impressionable children (who shouldn't be allowed to play these games without an adult putting it in context, or perhaps at all), you would have to have some preexisting form of mental instability to confuse yourself with the character you play.

Yahtzee went on about how killing children isn't allowed by the roles Skyrim lets you play, but if that was the case then they wouldn't have the dark brotherhood questline where you kill and torture innocent and defenseless people for profit and fun. (And this is from the character's perspective, not the player's, as the dialogue options imply that you're character enjoys killing people.) Am I supposed to accept that a dark brotherhood assassin who goes on and on about how good it feels to tear out the intestines of innocent defenseless people is somehow going to draw the line at children? That's just stupid. In fact, I could have sworn there was a little piece of NPC dialogue where they described how they assassinated a child (I think it was in Oblivion). Hell, anyone who played the dark brotherhood storyline in Oblivion will know that it revolved around some sick stuff:

Spoiler

It revolved around the actions of a traitorous member of the brotherhood. This person's mother was killed before him when he was a child by Lucien Lachance (a speaker in the Dark Brotherhood), which caused him to became obsessed with destroying the Dark Brotherhood and killing Lachance. For god's sake, the traitor worshiped the severed rotting head of his mother on an alter in a basement with a bunch of dead bodies. His betrayal forced your character to perform the ritual of "Purification" on the Cheydinal sanctuary, which meant hunting down and killing all the NPCs who were actually made out to be the friendliest and perhaps the most likable characters in the game. (It was actually kind of heartbreaking when the one Khajiit who had been antagonistic to your character up until that point apologized and said that he wanted to be friends, unaware that you had been ordered to kill him.) His eventual plan was to destroy the DB by killing the Night Mother.

The Night Mother was originally a member of the Morag Tong (a much older organization of assassins) who was told by Sithis (supposedly the primordial destructive spirit of the empty void in which everything exists) to start a new organization of assassins. She formed this new organization (the DB) when she killed the 5 children she was impregnated with by Sithis. The townspeople, horrified by her act, burnt her alive, but her spirit was sent to the void where she could communicate to the "Listener" of the brotherhood through her corpse. Much of the plot of the DB in Skyrim revolves around your character embracing and speaking to the ancient corpse of the Night Mother.

So all that stuff is perfectly alright, but killing children isn't? How about some freaking consistency.

I understand it in a game like Fable, which doesn't try to be dark (except for the random Cthulhu wannabe in #3, but that just made the game seem schizophrenic considering you could fight him in a chicken suit). But you need to have some consistency in the game. If you allow the player to play as an evil twisted murderer then you have to allow them to play that way, or else you'll destroy immersion. If you're going to allow a character to be really depraved and evil, then you probably shouldn't even have children in the game if you have a problem with the player killing them.

 

[TheWizardWhoDunIt]

Yahtzee's pretty right. What a lot of people are forgetting is that all games are trying to achieve a sort of narrative; games aren't tools for you to escape from your daily lives into some fantasy world. Getting the player sucked into a game and the game's world should not be the objection of a conscious, moral, and talented game designer. I would say that's unethical if someone did. Rather, the goal is to make the player say the game is pretty good and maybe make a statement. Perhaps the designer just wants to tell a good story to someone and make someone's evening go smoothly; maybe the designer wants to inspire future generations of producers. In that way, the designer must be careful to craft a coherent narrative for the player in order for one to experience these pleasures and other feelings the designer wants one to feel.

When Yahtzee defines the word "immersion" it's not about putting yourself in the avatar's shoes. "My own definition of immersion is the point when you have stopped noticing the actual nuts and bolts of the game and can enjoy the experience as intended." 'Intended' is the key word in that sentence. Some people have valid arguments, in that Skyrim's 'intended' purpose is for the player to create some sort of mythology around them (although killing children is not considered a feat legendary heroes do). I still don't think Yahtzee is wrong, and this is why.

Yahtzee, I think this is what you have to do: Admit that killing children is in poor taste, but concede that by disallowing players to do so is also simply a problem game designers have simply been ignoring for too long. Give examples for ways for designers to avoid this, and list examples of great games where designers do avoid it (Infamous series is a good example). However, you must also say that those people who hack the game--make real, non-leisurely, effort--in order to kill children are really just weird as hell. Make a distinction between those who act poorly in games as a result of leisure and those who act poorly in a game as a result of intending to do real, substituional harm. Then make a joke about murder or something, usually pertaining to yourself, you lovable, lovable killer.

 

[hooksashands]

Strangely enough, the dragons are programmed to attack children. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NUHJkSNid8]

 

[Raioken18]

I think the thing that bothered me about not being able to kill children was context. I've done two playthroughs, on as a goody two shoes like saint that sided with the Empire, and another psychopathic thief that joined each faction, pretending to be friendly then murdering entire towns.

Now the reason this is important is because one of the most commonly used tropes in superhero mythology is that villains kill the parents and allow the child to live, it always bothers me especially since half the time the child in a known potential threat. So after killing everyone in... I think it was Whiterun, I saw this child that had bragged about her fighting skills, yet was hiding in a corner. I thought to myself... if I let her live, there would be the potential for her to go Batman on my ass years later.

But... it's not like it ruined my game, I figured that it would be more sadistic to just let those children live unprotected with monsters and bandits surrounding their town. You also can't kill some of the storyline characters like the jarl and his associates.

 

[xdiesp]

The killing of civilians and children IS modern warfare.

Wikileaks a couple months ago uncovered a case of US marines executing a family and ordering an airstrike to level their building to cover up their tracks. Try that as the shock scene for MW4.

 

[laserwulf]

*dons armchair philosopher fez*
Although I understand the desire of a developer to shape the experience though the available actions in-game, the ability to do evil things in a game world makes 'good' choices meaningful. In any game for that matter, are you the "good guy" because the game says so, or because you're avoiding killing civilians and going out of your way to help NPCs because it's the right thing to do?

 

[The Deadpool]

Wanna know the difference between child killing and child raping?

Child killing has been in games before. Older PC games allowed it. People have grown used to it. Hell worrying about getting the Child Killer reputation in Fallout 2 made slaughtering a town a huge decision (Odd that killing 1 child is more damaging that killing a hundred adults, but oh well).

 

[Arakasi]

I think Yahtzee missed the point of the mod.
The main point, is that dragons could easily fire-breathe all over a town, potentially killing all the adults, but if it fire-breathes a kid it just goes right through them, it's really immersion breaking.
It's not that I want to kill kids, it's that I want them to die when they should, like everything else.

As for the rape example, horrible analogy, you don't see a rape option for the adults either so having it for the kids would just be stupid.

Besides, there is already implied child death (e.g. Helgen), so what's wrong with seeing it?

P.S. I find it amusing that this is in Yahtzee's profile : Interests: Being a professional troll, setting fire to childrens' dreams and your mum.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

The dragons are only attacking because they know that they're doomed to extinction the moment after parents realize all they need to do is start arming their utterly invincible offspring. Wouldn't you strike out to protect the future of your species if you were surrounded by potential enemies who could pop out an invincible killing machine every eight years with a 4-6 year shelf life that they could spend killing dragons?

They're all just tragically misunderstood.

 

[Athinira]

You're the kind of person that will make completely obscene jumps in logic and reason to prove their own point, without even listening to what drivel is coming out of their mouths/keyboards.

Seriously, listen to yourself -

Oh, this is irony.

Typically the people who come up with what you just said only did so as an excuse because they actually can't figure out a way to counter the logic in the first place, no matter how hard they try, so it's much easier to dismiss it as "completely absurd".

I'm listening to myself, thank you very much, and i even reread my own post, and i stand by my point: The children in Skyrim is no different than the cops in GTA. They set themselves up as someone who deserves to get axed in the face for several reasons.

So to answer the last part of your post:

Seriously, listen to yourself -

"And in Skyrim, the children happen to be set up as a kind of antagonists"

the children happen to be...antagonists. What? No really, WHAT?

"the game gives you two heavy incentives to kill the smug pricks"

Again. What? Are you sure you're enjoying this epic fantasy quest where the antagonists aren't children, they're undead, giants, monsters, evil men and dragons? Because it sounds like you'd be happier playing Saints Row...

...I'll reply right back: Seriously listen to yourself, because you sound like someone who has become emotionally attached to a bunch of pixels.

You are just like the 238967360893 people i have seen argue who resort to that kind of arguing because they just can't counter the point to begin with (and no, they weren't all arguing with me).

And i enjoy Skyrim, thank you very much. And no, i didn't install the addon in question, but that doesn't mean i understand others who do. And no, i wouldn't be more happy playing Saints Row instead, i actually despise that kind of game. I don't enjoy GTA very much either, but having played it, i just used it to make a point.

 

[Nightwolf214]

I don't think it's the fact that people want to kill children outright, it's more a case of unrealism in video games. I mean come on, every one can die, but not children, thanks to programmed immortality? If I'm going to play a video game where every and any NPC can be killed at will, why is it children get spared? It's a bit of an irk, where many people play games because they're immersive, it just throws this monkey wrench into the system.

 

[Strazdas]

I think the notion of "kill children in RPGs" come form fallout 2, where you had immortal pickpocketing children runing around. they kept stealing your stuff and you couldnt do a thing about it. Also in europe they were moded out to be also INVISIBLE IMMORTAL STEALING CHILDREN. take that.
also, how do you like to have wiped out whole city, burned the building and sitll have 5 children run around like nothing has happened? thats simply silly. Had they went away, ran way or whatever dissapeared it would have been fine with being immortal, but they just have to stroll about in the streets like they are the boss.

a few months ago you talked how "going around the game mechanics" was a thing to be longer for, now you praise game mechanics. ironic isnt it?

 

[Marik Bentusi]

I thought that comparison to the romance options was pretty rubbish. There's no in-universe reason for why kids are completely unaffected by the gameplay-effects of the mayhem (storytelling doesn't spare them tho, they're getting emotional scars left and right), just as there's no in-universe reason for why perfectly innocent civilians are immortal.

Yet you can harm one but not the other, just because of their age. I just don't get it.

With romance it's another thing because of the age of consent and laws, so being able to marry children, pets and dwemer modules wouldn't add to the realism and it wouldn't make sense in-universe - just like the immortal children. And before you go on about sex or rape, there's no option to do that to anyone universally, so that's a global gameplay restriction nobody is this picky about.

If you're not going to apply the same rules to children as to any other NPCs, then why include children at all? It's like they're standing with one foot in the universe, the other being pulled by soccer moms.

 

[ExileNZ]

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with him.
But I also agree that invincible kids standing in the middle of dragon breath has to go.

So, here's my solution. Rather than the gormless little shits standing in the middle of a fire and calmly surviving, throw in some of that AI from racing games - have them run out of the way and hide behind walls, not just from dragons but from any attacks.

Mod that in and my immersion won't be ruined by 'invincible kids'.

Until then, you can expect to see me with the child-death mod, because I'm a sucker and I want to waste half my game time reloading quicksaves until I can clear out a village without losing a single, precious child.

That said, I haven't got Skyrim yet. I haven't even played Oblivion, so first things first.