Poll: Killers: What's your limit?

[loa]

The whole point of fiction is that there is no "line", that you are pretty much free to explore whatever the heck you want, be that nuking an entire city of innocents or playing as a 1 year old child prostitute soldier robot who has to torch adorable space bunnies with a flame thrower.
If I want "lines", I'll go with real life thank you very much.

 

[Sansha]

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.

I'd have to agree here. I've seen countless examples of gore, death and violence, mostly thanks to CharonBoat, but one time I stumbled upon a video of a child being run over by an SUV and it seriously traumatized me, more so than anything else I've seen.

 

[BrotherRool]

I won't play a game that lets the PC violate someone or deliberately choose to have someone violated (and there's been two AAA games in recent years that have done this. _two_)

Really? What games are those? It's the first I've heard of it.

In Dishonoured one of the 'pacifist' options is to sell one of the lady bosses as a sex slave. In the Witcher a witch is about to be burnt alive which will basically happen or not happen at your say so, in exchange for you not letting her be burnt alive you can have sex with her. Of course you can also have sex with her and then call her a whore and still have her burnt alive. I'm pretty sure the developers aren't even aware it counts as sexual molestation because the dialogue is something like 'I've always wanted you for the first moment I saw you' but considering some of the game mechanics and general dialogue in the Witcher, I'm really not that surprised they don't know that.

Like No Russian wasn't doing it to be smart, it was doing it because it was an idiotic game courting controversy and trying to ape a legitimately clever moment in Modern Warfare with no understanding of what made that moment good or powerful. Like a monkey seeing someone use a gun and trying to stick it up it's nose.

I have to disagree here. The aping of Shock and Awe was done when the player characters were killed while in first person - No Russian actually had a very good reason in the story, I felt. The Russians believed the US perpetrated the attack, and well... In a sense you did, as the player - by putting the player in the position of taking part in the massacre, it does feel like the Russians want the player dead because it's the player's fault.

Okay that's fair enough, I know the reasons for it happens but I've only watched someone else actually do it, I didn't realise it emotionally connected very well and its nice for a game to try something more out of the box like that, if it works like it's meant to. I'm sorry for slighting it when I didn't know what I was talking about (I did play the Witcher though although not much farther than the part I mentioned, and Dishonoured because I'd heard some women complain about the game and asked someone who had played it whether it would break my rule and they explained about the event (also for the record, you can do pretty awful stuff to the guys too in Dishonoured, its just this particular thing I don't enjoy at all, more so than most other events because it's easier to come into contact and see the destruction it causes to people, compared to see, blowing up the nuke in Megaton, which is almost cartoony in its surrealness))

 

[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?