Previous Elder Scrolls games didn't even have children (at least, Oblivion didn't, I can't speak for the rest). It's a good idea in theory (immersion! children! like in real life!), but it's screwed over when the kids do nothing but be snarky to you, and are invincible to boot. That breaks the realism quite a bit.naam said:Wait, people actually think this inclusion morally was a good idea?
I must have missed some kind of child-torture simulator in previous elder scrolls games that this is necessary?
Not in my experience. I have dens in several towns where I don't own a house now because random NPC merchants just ran up to a Dragon, iron dagger in hand, bold as brass, and started kicking the shit out of it only to get torn to pieces and thrown aside in a broken huddle.The_Blue_Rider said:I love how everyone keeps pulling the "its so immersion breaking when a Dragon burns down a village and children are unharmed", i say to you, thats bullshit, Dragons only attack Villages if you are in them, and when the Dragon attacks, all the non combat NPC's run away while the Dragon focuses on you and the Guards, theres a very small chance the dragon will even get the opportunity to attack them in the first place
How about there are no essential characters, sans perhaps main quest related NPCs which are only killable by the player, not other NPCs. As a compromise why not make it so that only NPCs can kill children, I'd be satisfied with that. That way dragon attacks pose a threat to NPCs without leaving behind immortal children in the world and players don't get to do any of the killing for a media outlet to report on.Jonluw said:I would like to see what the different sides in the debate think of a compromise:
Let's say the game was released without the option to kill children. Fine. The children would, however, react to your blows in the same way that quest-essential characters do: by falling to their knees and recovering for a while before returning to health.
good question.SirBryghtside said:Hm... what if there was a quest with a choice between killing a child and, say, a plague befalling an entire town? What would yo think of that? This isn't from Skyrim, obviously, it's just a Skyrim-esque example.jack583 said:look at it this way:
immortal or not, there are players that will try to kill whatever they can.
if the player chooses to try and kill a child, then the player is wrong, whether the kid is killable or not.
allowing kids to die in games is only wrong if the game FORCES you to kill one.
if there is a (side)quest that requires the player character to kill a kid, THEN the game is wrong.
as long as it is a choice, it's not wrong.
because then it's just like the real world.
in the real world, i have the CHOICE of killing.
i just choose NOT TO.
the option to kill doesn't make the world wrong.
but me choosing to kill would make ME wrong.