I WANNA KILL CHILDREN!

[bug_of_war]

all the kids in little lamplight would've been raped and taken for slaves in any realistic setting. And I'm okey with that, the obviuosly deserves such a fate
Now, I propose three solutions to this problem:

1. Okey, keep the annoying kids, but let them pay the consequense for being annoying kids. Make 'em mortal ;C


3. Let us at least smack the bastards so that they fall to their knees and cry, and then never bother you again. Yeah, the media would probably flip about this more, but then again the mere mention of sex in games make them flip so.. fuck it.

Now come forth and praise my insane ramblings, so I can feel a bit better about myself!

...That's fucked up. No like, more fucked up than normal, even knowing they're fictional children it still kinda scares me that a small group of children that are mostly avoidable make you this mad. No offence, but you're the small group of people that make the rest of us whom enjoy games look bad in the eyes of the public.

 

[Fraught]

No. Have you actually played Fallout 3 or Skyrim?

Yup. I own the complete set of DLC for Fallout 3 (though I haven't finished it all) and own Skyrim twice.

Because if the answer to that question was "yes", you wouldn't be asking us if it's an 'endemic flaw'.

I REALLY hope this is facetious, but....

Actually, yes. If your first response is "this is annoying WHY CAN'T I KILL IT" it might reflect more on you than on the game. It's as rational to blame the game as it is to pull a "no true Scotsman" argument claiming I couldnt play the game because if I did I would automatically agree with you.

No one should live a life where they don't want to beat those kids into submission, dag nabbit!

I hope to hell you're being facetious, but I can't assume that because this is the boilerplate reaction.

I like to think I'm more calm and collected towards other actual people when I can feel more free to entertain the extent of my emotions towards children who game developers intentionally created - unless they're the most oblivious people on the planet and through sheer coincidence - to annoy and provoke the player. I mean, not the only reason, but just bringing it up as an example.

I mean...yeah, truthfully, I did overplay it in my comment, because I tend to deal with annoyance with distancing myself from the source rather than erupting up against it, but y'know. The point still stands. It's acceptable to me for anyone to want to kill them. I mean, it's a videogame, it's meant to be a great release that makes you (most of the time) jump into a world where you matter, and your actions matter.

Taking shit from some little turd in a keep that you can't do anything to gives the same kind of hopelessness real life does when someone bullies you or levies any other unsavoury behaviour your way, and you can't do anything to them. Consequences and all that. So, as a videogame, I would personally love to indulge myself in getting to at least quickly save my game and attack a child whose only purpose in the game (literally only purpose) is to be a douche. There are no real consequences, and it'll make me feel better. And, all in all, I reckon Skyrim is, in large part, wish fulfilment for most of us.

(Oh and uhh...if there's any semblance of a horse you're sitting on because you're "better emotionally-adjusted" or whatever, then don't. I'm as well-adjusted as anyone, I just like to indulge myself in games sometimes when something is there just to provoke me (with a slight hint that said feature may just be there to troll me), despite always going for the nice guy route in dialogue options and plot events where any choice is given.)

*snip*

I feel inadequate as a person to say that I couldn't eloquently put down what I wanted to say, but thank you. This describes how I view these kids so beautifully.

 

[FalloutJack]

I feel the experience is overrated. Nevermind about realism and stuff like that, is there really any useful reason to kill a kid in a game? Aren't the homeless people in the original Assassin's Creed WORSE?!

 

[Movitz]

While the problem is more that children in games are for whatever reason the most annoying pretentious little fucks you've ever seen, even were they not, it really ruins the experience when you try to slaughter a whole town and you end up with a pile of dead bodies, 2 'plot-required' NPCs and 5 children running around impervious.

Yeah, I don't get why Betsheda made it like that, when in Morrowind you actually could kill Plot-important NPC, and then the game just told you that you have fucked everything up, like "that's what you get for just randomly killing and looting, asshole."

I mean it's not even consistent in Skyrim: Some characters have plot armor, regardless if they belong to the main story or not, while other characters that are important to minor quests you can off with not problem, and then promptly be told that you failed that quest.

Must be that dumbing down everyone is talking about these days..

 

[Movitz]

Snip.

You better watch out my friend. The writers have agents everywhere, and they'll be coming for you now.

A question: can anyone remember running into annoying kids in New Vegas? Really, I can't conjure up any memory of ever being called a "mungo" through any of my playthroughs, and I've played through that game a lot.

 

[Unsilenced]

I feel the experience is overrated. Nevermind about realism and stuff like that, is there really any useful reason to kill a kid in a game? Aren't the homeless people in the original Assassin's Creed WORSE?!

You could totally stab the beggars, and while they were annoying, there were so as part of gameplay. There was a reason for them to bug you, precisely so that you would be tempted to stab them, taking damage and potentially blowing your cover.

Meanwhile, the grand majority of kid characters in these games serve no purpose. They don't effect gameplay, and are in fact effectively exempt from it. They're a thing in the world that was put there, not to serve any purpose, but just to be there. Watching. Waiting. Making smarmy little shit remarks as if they know you're powerless to stop them.

You know, come to think of it, they kind of actually do act like a bunch of immature little brats would act given the god-like power of immortality and utter immunity to consequences from adults.

I take back everything. A+ writing.

Yeah, I don't get why Betsheda made it like that, when in Morrowind you actually could kill Plot-important NPC, and then the game just told you that you have fucked everything up, like "that's what you get for just randomly killing and looting, asshole."

I mean it's not even consistent in Skyrim: Some characters have plot armor, regardless if they belong to the main story or not, while other characters that are important to minor quests you can off with not problem, and then promptly be told that you failed that quest.

Must be that dumbing down everyone is talking about these days..

Mavin Black-briar was actually the first immortal NPC to taste my disappointingly ineffectual wrath. I don't get why she was essential. I had already beaten the the main quest, every DB quest, every thieves guild quest, and even the quests for the bloody mages guild.

"If I get upset I call the thieves guild. If I get angry I call the dark brotherhood"

Nobody should be able to say that to the dragon-born kajiit assassin who runs both of those associations and walk away with their head on their shoulders, damnit!

This, of course, ties in perfectly with my earlier theory...

 

[The Forces of Chaos]

This reminds me of when I played Warcraft 3, as Arthas during the first Scourge Mission. You were able to butcher children, man and woman as the Death Knight. None were spared till they patched it. But people put in things like this then patch it out when people complain like bringing down the twin towers in Red Alert 2.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm as well-adjusted as anyone

That's not what you're describing. I mean, you can call that me being on a "high horse," but I would rather call this an observation of reality rather than any claim of my superiority.

I'm (mostly) human. I have my own foibles. But that doesn't mean that you're well-adjusted or even that this should be an issue that is automatically okay.

 

[Fraught]

I'm as well-adjusted as anyone

That's not what you're describing. I mean, you can call that me being on a "high horse," but I would rather call this an observation of reality rather than any claim of my superiority.

I'm (mostly) human. I have my own foibles. But that doesn't mean that you're well-adjusted or even that this should be an issue that is automatically okay.

Okay. Let me clarify.

Well-adjusted in the context of normal human society? Yup, I am, inarguably (even though I feel uneasy saying this, seeing as how arrogant is seems :l).
Well-adjusted in a constructed fantasy world of code? Uhh...I guess you can say that I'm not, but it's like that for almost everyone. Games are, in large part, an emotional release. Nothing from what I live out in games seeps into my behaviour in any major way. With or without the easy hatred I dole out at these kids, doesn't matter.

And I feel a lot easier when I don't restrict myself with how I think others will judge me for feeling that way, 'cause I don't broadcast my frustrations and anger at game characters to other people that often anyway.

And I do think you can be well-adjusted with some strong emotional "foibles" regarding tolerance to some snarky kid's bullshit, if you still have adequate self-control and restraint.

 

[Something Amyss]

And I do think you can be well-adjusted with some strong emotional "foibles" regarding tolerance to some snarky kid's bullshit, if you still have adequate self-control and restraint.

If your reaction is "someone's being snarky, I want to kill them" especially to children who have little to no experience to know better that's no describing a well-adjusted viewpoint.

Wanting to kill someone but not would not fall under typical social behaviour.

 

[Fraught]

And I do think you can be well-adjusted with some strong emotional "foibles" regarding tolerance to some snarky kid's bullshit, if you still have adequate self-control and restraint.

If your reaction is "someone's being snarky, I want to kill them" especially to children who have little to no experience to know better that's no describing a well-adjusted viewpoint.

Wanting to kill someone but not would not fall under typical social behaviour.

I'll put 'behaviour' and 'thoughts' under two different roofs.

Also, I know you're set on thinking I'm not "well-adjusted" (though apparently we have very different outlooks on what that actually means in a societal context), then uhh..."to children who have little to no experience to know better"? They're...programmed to act that way, by adults. They're characters in a video game, Zachary. I'm well-adjusted to at least comprehend the distinctions here. Also, snarkiness floating amidst an actual person's other behavioural habits does not make me want to kill them. Children who are programmed to have being snarky and rude in them, however, kind of do.

I guess if I had to choose one short sentence to reply to you with, I'd use this: "There is not a single kid in the world that I want to kill". I recognize the development of a child, and all it may go through, and have gone through, as an actual person. I recognize mistakes, and misjudgments. I give people far more chances than they deserve, because I'm never one for vindictive confrontation, and not one to want to stay in a phase where that's the only option between me and said person. I find more forgiving in people than I rationally think I should, because I'm a sucker for acceptance and harmonious co-existence. And, despite finding kids annoying sometimes, I do envy their childish gaiety and imagination, and think, in regards to their future, most often about how I can tell them about ideals I have that I think will hopefully influence them towards an adulthood as a better person.

So uhh...there's no reason to tell me I'm not well-adjusted. I have no desire to kill any person I've ever met, or know about. I do, however, want to kill representations of two kids who were put into a video game, written and modelled and presumably voiced (seeing as it is Bethesda) by fully-grown adults, either as the result of a stunningly haphazardous judgment call, or genuine desire to provoke.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

And I do think you can be well-adjusted with some strong emotional "foibles" regarding tolerance to some snarky kid's bullshit, if you still have adequate self-control and restraint.

If your reaction is "someone's being snarky, I want to kill them" especially to children who have little to no experience to know better that's no describing a well-adjusted viewpoint.

Wanting to kill someone but not would not fall under typical social behaviour.

Oh, come on. We are talking about a video game here. In any open world game where I can attack anything, I kill people for slight insults all the time. I also occasionally save and then go on a mad killing spree. A lot of people do. Hell, the Saint's Row series assumes that the majority of people playing their games act that way. So I'm confused about why you are worrying about anyone here. Being trigger happy in a game doesn't mean anything.

 

[Unsilenced]

I honestly find it hard to believe that gamers in general just have a massive problem feeling empathy for children. I mean, look at Clementine. Everybody loves Clementine. I couldn't even bring myself to say mean things to her in an "Asshole Lee" playthrough, never-mind hurt her. I felt worse about telling her her parents were dead then I did about being personally responsible for the death of the parents of every last brat in Whiterun. Go be Batman you little shits.

Even Duck, who was supposed to be kind of annoying, evoked more empathy from me than any of the kids in Skyrim or Little Lamplight. I felt like a complete bastard for not giving him a high-five that one time. If one game can make me feel guilty about a high-five while another makes me gleeful about murder, I don't think the problem is on my end.

Actually, come to think of it, the faceless, dialogue-less little sisters in the first two bioshock games were more sympathetic. I actually felt bad when I failed to protect one during that escort mission, which is surprising given that I usually just get pissed off when escortees wander up and try to hug the things out to kill them.

To me the problem is that the child characters in the games don't act/feel like children. They feel like tiny, spiteful dwarves who have been given the power of immortality and are dead set on abusing it as egregiously as possible. It's like they're written from a short list of "things about children," the writers never having actually met one in their lives.

-They're short
-They're annoying
-People aren't supposed to hurt them

And boom! Everything they need to write every child character, ever.

 

[Vern5]

I'm reading a lot of comments about "The children aren't well written because they're annoying", which is fucking insane.

I teach Elementary school kids. Most of those kids were annoying little bastards. Don't get me wrong, every now and then you would run into children who were ideally intelligent and respectful but, for the most part, they were all Little Lamplighters.

The kids from Fallout 3 were written perfectly. These kids are used to killing slavers and Super Mutants so of course they are not going to think much of anyone who comes their way. Bad attitudes coupled with hard lives and childish instincts makes for really condescending brats.

The really sad thing about this whole thread is that there are so many people admitting that virtual children can get their blood up. What sort of self-respecting human let's a child get to them?

 

[Unsilenced]

I'm reading a lot of comments about "The children aren't well written because they're annoying", which is fucking insane.

I teach Elementary school kids. Most of those kids were annoying little bastards. Don't get me wrong, every now and then you would run into children who were ideally intelligent and respectful but, for the most part, they were all Little Lamplighters.

The kids from Fallout 3 were written perfectly. These kids are used to killing slavers and Super Mutants so of course they are not going to think much of anyone who comes their way. Bad attitudes coupled with hard lives and childish instincts makes for really condescending brats.

The really sad thing about this whole thread is that there are so many people admitting that virtual children can get their blood up. What sort of self-respecting human let's a child get to them?

You could say the same of killing any character for non-utilitarian reasons in videogames. They're just lines of code, why should you feel violent towards them?

The answer of course is because it's a videogame. If I wanted to interact with people I didn't feel morally ok with bricking in the face with rock-it propelled nuka-cola bottles, I'd go outside or play a game not full of one-dimensional gits. And it goes both ways. If there's no reason to get worked up over annoying characters in videogames, what's the point in getting worked up over people killing them?

I'll admit that for some of the kids, like the rich spoiled ones in Whiterun, it does make sense for them to be kind of brattish. By the same token though, my character is (at least in some of my playthroughs) a ruthless assassin who kills unquestioningly for coin, favor, or even just the sport of it, but there's literally no action she can take whatsoever that will hurt or scare the kids in the game. She can't even tell them to fuck off or shake a dagger at them. The only response that this utterly despicable, sociopathic mass-murderer can offer to being insulted by a kid is to maybe play tag with them. And the kids know this. I swear they have OOC knowledge of the player's helplessness. As she stands there, soaked in the blood of 50 guards and maybe a dragon or two, gore clinging to her spiked armor forged from the bones of Alduin himself, the little shits pipe up about how she should lick their (recently murdered with a broadsword) father's boots.

I've met some pretty snotty kids in my day, but come the fuck on. Even the generic, infinitely respawning guards will acknowledge your particularly bad-ass or terrible feats if you're, say, an infamous assassin, god-like arch mage, or broadsword-wielding werewolf. Not the little snotfaucets though. No siree. How's that boot coming?


And even if you think it's morally reprehensible for any player, regardless of how they're roleplaying (or not roleplaying), to want to kill, scare or injure a character-of-small-height-value, there's still the fact that they're LITERALLY FUCKING INVINCIBLE. TO EVERYTHING. THEY JUST SIT THERE GETTING A NICE LITTLE TAN WHILE A DRAGON BREATHES FIRE ON THEM, TELLING IT THAT THEY LIKE THEIR FUCKING STEAKS FRESH.

And then there's lamplight, where the Enclave apparently just gave the (irradiated, probably mutated) kids bloody chocolates or something so they could pass and skipped on through without so much as upturning a pebble. Because we all know how much the Enclave <3 muties, amirite? They're such nice, lovable fascist genocidal murderers. They would never hurt a kid except for that time they totally murdered an entire vault and that time they tried to unleash biological warfare on the wastes and all the other times where they basically just murder the fuck out of literally anyone they come across.

Honestly, for most of the kids in these games, if they were killable, I probably wouldn't want to. I might even be protective of them. But when a game bends over backwards, shunning game-play, immersion, and even lore to keep a character intact, their face demands my sword.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I'm reading a lot of comments about "The children aren't well written because they're annoying", which is fucking insane.

I teach Elementary school kids. Most of those kids were annoying little bastards. Don't get me wrong, every now and then you would run into children who were ideally intelligent and respectful but, for the most part, they were all Little Lamplighters.

The kids from Fallout 3 were written perfectly. These kids are used to killing slavers and Super Mutants so of course they are not going to think much of anyone who comes their way. Bad attitudes coupled with hard lives and childish instincts makes for really condescending brats.

The really sad thing about this whole thread is that there are so many people admitting that virtual children can get their blood up. What sort of self-respecting human let's a child get to them?

Little Lamplight itself was completely stupid. How are a bunch of children fighting a two front war with Super Mutants and slavers while constantly kicking kids out when they hit a certain age? And no, those kids weren't realistic. Kids in Thieve's World are portrayed realistically. Namely, how dangerous it is to be a kid in a mostly lawless world. Orphans largely stay out of sight, out of mind. Kids never go anywhere alone for fear of sexual predators. Kids certainly aren't going to badmouth a walking armory for no reason. Children are smarter then they are given credit for and can adapt to harsh situations.

 

[Alistar_Helloise]

Lol u funnny TC, but I disagree with you.

Big NO to killing children in games. Programmers put into the game a certain code of ethics.

For example, Corvo cannot hurt Emily in Dishonored.

Should you try to kill the loyalists in Dishonored like a random murdering psychopath the conspiracy is dissolved.

You cannot kill children in Skyrim because be honest, killing a child because you are angry?

Look, some children are annoying as F**** I get that, but murdering them? Bro, not cool.

You were a child too, and I guarantee you were annoying as **** Every child is annoying as **** at leas thirty times, fact. No child is perfect.

Does that mean you should have been killed? I should hope not.

If it's about sending a message, then I want nothing to do with this message of child killing.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Doublepost

 

[Terminal Blue]

I have to say, no.

There's a time and a place to argue ethics and I think it's a respectable ethical argument to ask why killing a child is worse than killing an unarmed or helpless adult who is just going about their business, something which open world games don't seem to have much of a problem with.. but making it possible to kill children in games is just going to alienate a huge section of the audience and invite enormous backlash and negative PR at a time when people are already searching for something to blame every time some idiot goes and shoots up a school. It's not worth it for games to do that.

If you want to mod the ability in, do it. Just don't expect developers to stick their necks out in order to service your slightly neurotic desire to be a dick to fictional people.

Besides, I find kids in real life annoying. It doesn't mean I want to hurt them. Children are children, they aren't fully responsible for what they do or say because they don't understand human culture in the same way adults do. The way they get over this is by being socialized into a culture in which human behaviour is sociable and caring. Any notion to the effect that beating children into a pulp will make them behave better is frankly disturbing, and ruins real people's lives every day. So no, I also have to say that I'm not down with perpetuating that idea, intentionally or otherwise.

And then there's lamplight, where the Enclave apparently just gave the (irradiated, probably mutated) kids bloody chocolates or something so they could pass and skipped on through without so much as upturning a pebble. Because we all know how much the Enclave <3 muties, amirite? They're such nice, lovable fascist genocidal murderers. They would never hurt a kid except for that time they totally murdered an entire vault and that time they tried to unleash biological warfare on the wastes and all the other times where they basically just murder the fuck out of literally anyone they come across.

To be honest, I think little lamplight itself is an okay idea, but it was incredibly stupid to put it in such a plot-critical place, particularly one surrounded by super mutants, radiation and other major hazards.

That said, the Enclave just appearing was a plothole which I suspect you weren't meant to pick up on. I don't think anyone on the dev team actually considered how they got in. It's possible they have detailed schematics for all the vaults and managed to find another hidden entrance, which would explain why they basically drop in from the ceiling.