Poll: Killers: What's your limit?

[JagermanXcell]

Funny thing is large scale sandbox games like Skyrim or Fallout 3 have no good writing or moral choice system to make you give a crap.
That doesn't mean I don't draw a line, I'm almost never EVER evil in any role playing game. Just can't seem to get the drive to kill anything that doesn't attack me first.
-I'm either a goodie two shoes that kills the badies to protect the innocent!
-Or a neutral logic thinker that settles things with words more then action, only resorting to violence when necessary. (Thank Obsidian for New Vegas)

A game that came close to giving me emotional and world related backlash for killing any and all was both Demons/Dark Souls.
Where if you kill an NPC, you not only get an emotional dying speech from some of the more innocent/good natured NPCs, but you sin: Consequences vary from levels getting harder, to missing out on lore, and worse... you will eventually pay for your sin, for Demons Souls it was dark world tendency, for Dark Souls it was being put into the Book of the Guilty where you will eventually be hunted down and killed by the Darkmoon covenant.

Thats rough buddy.

 

[Zakarath]

Generally, my guiding star is if I've been provoked. If a character's done nothing to me, nor done actions I disagree with, I probably won't kill them (besides accidentally in games with explosives/careening vehicles), but if they attack or insult me, or perform actions I don't like (like killing innocents themselves), their life is forfeit...

Though in some games like Saint's Row 3 or Just Cause 2, it's pretty hard to not massacre your way through the world. Sometimes I try, sometimes I don't.

 

[Spitfire]

It all depends on how well characterized the potential victims are. Are they just a bunch of pixels on the screen, with no depth to them whatsoever, or are they something more? If it's the former: meh, I don't care. If it's the latter, then I might actually try not killing them.

 

[nathan-dts]

I dislike killing animals and civilians, but I'll feel less remorse doing it if they're aggressive or something. Be mindful that the civilians have to have some sort of personality for me to care; I don't feel anything when I run over a pedestrian in a sandbox game. Animals are easier to kill if they're made to look ugly and ferocious, too.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I kill till its boring. thats why I love saints row three. always fun to blow away a pedestrian and then get my helicopter when the police come.

But I know its just entertainment so i dont really worry about my limit.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

I don't usually enjoy having to kill children or animals. They tend to be innocent. You can rationalize killing an adult by saying "Well, that guy's probably an asshole anyway," but you can't do that with kids & animals. Or, you know, kids under 10. Once they hit 10--forget 'em; they're probably assholes.

I don't really have a "Limit," though. I can still kill children and animals and enjoy the game. Especially if they're fucking annoying kids. But that goes back to being 10 or older. That's when kids start to get annoying.

 

[Piorn]

Almost all humans in any game fall right into the uncanny valley for me. Never had any regrets in skyrim and the likes. They don't react properly to register as animals or even humans.
Outside, I feel bad for even swatting a fly.

 

[RicoADF]

I don't kill non combatants/civilians. However I like them to be killable, why you ask? Because then I have to be careful not to fuck up. Toss a grenade without checking and I have dead civilians. My screw up, something I like having to take into consideration.

 

[Vegosiux]

In games?

Well. Basically, "If it annoys me too much, I'll kill it. After I make sure I don't need it for anything else." That's all there is to it.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

I am fine with killing anyone (including children) in games if their deaths help to further some sort of purpose. An example of killing a child being appropriate is the the Walking Dead, where the event is there to help characterize Lee and Kenny. An attempt at pure shock value is incredibly lazy and completely hallow. One of the worst offenders is MW3 with the "No Russian" level, as there is no reason to actually kill anyone and the actual setup of the scene is devoid of any thought or purpose and falls apart when examined with any degree of logic. Why did the CIA not try to intervene when they knew where Makarov was, what he was going to do, and had a highly-trained and heavily armed cover agent whose sole duty was to bring Makarov down? What a game needs to make one of these scenes work is proper context and a sense of purpose.

 

[TK421]

No limit. Just a game. If I am given a choice, I may not kill a character simply because I like them, but in the end, still just a game.

 

[Jak23]

1. Your options are confusing and remind me of the doom difficulty levels
2. If I am playing a sandbox game I have no emotional conection to civilians and so I feel nothing for massacering them.
3. Games are not meant to be taken so seriously man.

Why are you on this site?...

I only kill people if they attack me or are massive d-bags(Grelod the kind).

 

[Evil Smurf]

Why are you on this site?...

I love the community, and where else would I go for gaming news? besides kotaku or IGN.

 

[Lunar Templar]

no limit, but ...

i tend to not go after civilian targets, not for any moral reason, they're just boring kills, if its a game like Prototype, yeah I'll grab one for a health boost but other wise, i prefer targets that can fight back, it makes the insane laughter that some times follows much more satiating,

not kidding btw, i do laugh sometimes was i'm murdering things in game

 

[HellbirdIV]

I do what I want!
That should have been an option.

There is. The "Kill 'em all" option doesn't imply you will kill everyone, but rather that you could kill anyone if necessary.

... in videogames, I mean.

That's why you should read the OP before voting/posting, yeh?

 

[pure.Wasted]

Why did the CIA not try to intervene when they knew where Makarov was, what he was going to do, and had a highly-trained and heavily armed cover agent whose sole duty was to bring Makarov down? What a game needs to make one of these scenes work is proper context and a sense of purpose.

A lot of criticisms could be weighed at MW2, deservedly, but I think this is a bit of a stretch. There are a hundred different explanations for why they wanted the CIA plant to do as he was told, from "we don't know where Makarov is hiding his resources" to "we want his entire network of associates who'll scatter if we make a move" to "we don't know the extent of his plan, which might go into action even if he's captured." I really don't think having a 5 second clip of General Shepard mentioning this would have made a big difference.

BTW, the CIA aren't really known for making all the right calls. Bay of Pigs, anyone?

 

[dyre]

Depends on what and how much I'm roleplaying.

High amount of roleplaying as a good person: as a paragon represents-everything-good-about-humanity starship commander, I'm not shooting kids, civilians, or even bad guys if I can help it.

Low amount of roleplaying as a morally sketchy person: as an Eastern European immigrant in a world where death means waking up in front of the nearest hospital with a few dollars less than before, the only reason I'm not running over kids in my stolen car is because there don't seem to be any

BTW, the CIA aren't really known for making all the right calls. Bay of Pigs, anyone?

That was really JFK's call, along with the last minute decision to not provide the expected air support

 

[recruit00]

For the most part, if I am doing an evil type playthrough, I will kill pretty much everything that moves.

One exception.

I played Fable TLC over Christmas break and went for a Sith Lord build. I was thinking about killing the Guildmaster because of his stupid comments and I typically go full evil. Then, I go to the Guild and everyone is worrying and he has a town full of guards protecting him. I kill them and get to him. He then starts to talk. Jack of Blades is using you to bring chaos, this is a terrible idea, I saw you as a son. And you know, despite how much I didn't care for him, I couldn't kill him. He made such good points and I couldn't do it. He was innocent and I was a pawn. I took up his offer and went and fought Nostro.

That's right. Fable, of all games, gave me a moral decision and it was GOOD. Take that, people!

 

[Strazdas]

There is no limit.
distinguishing kids above adults is stupidity to highest degree.

No it's not it's common decency, children by definition are innocents. Their live's are also always brimming with potential an by the construct of being a "child" they have not lived very long. So it's only natural to value their live's above that of an adult.

I'm 21, if you can't see why if I'm trapped in a burning car an there is a 5 year old trapped in the car as well, why the 5 year old should be given priority an saved first, then that's pretty screwed up.

Hence why some people find it very distasteful to witness a child's death in any medium as it's considered one of life's truly terrible tragedy's.

WRONG.
Children are not innocent by definition. there is nothing that makes them innocent just because they are children. it is common decency to treat everyone equal. giving children proprity is the opposite of that.
It is true that they have longer amount of years in front of them, however that hardly equal to potential. if we value lives by the amount of years left of the counter, then all elder are useless. sorry, i dont subscribe to such wicked logic.
If you are trapped in a burning car you will act like any other person ever - try to save yourself ignoring everything else. thats human instinct and has nothing to do with it. Noone should receive priority in such situation. they should start with a person more likely to survive and be rescued in time, because 1 life saved is better than 0 lifes saved.
People find children death due to social engineering such as you have shown in your post, which are illogical but are implanted to us by generations of brainwashing. they are useful to us for extension of our family due to child more likely having a chance to have more children and therefore they survived, however in the modern age this need remains obsolete as we no longer have massive newborn death rates and the automated "Save the children" instinct is no longer necessary.

 

[Boggelz]

Dogs. Give me any human in a game and I can probably kill them (if in a combat context. Civilians are different if they are characterized.) Whenever I hear a dog whimper its last breath I die a little on the inside. Seriously, developers, don't make me kill them.