Poll: killing in-game kids?

[Wargamer]

For me, it's a break in reality.

Part of why I like RPGs like Fallout is living with the consequences. Not just me, mind; I like OTHER PEOPLE to live with the consequences of their actions. Or not, as the case may be.

So let's go to Little Fucking Lamplight, home of the smart-mouth bastard who needs to learn that being Ten Years Old does not let you talk shit to the woman with the plasma rifle and the blood of a hundred bounty hunters still drying on her combat armour. I want to kill the smarmy little bastards. I want to kill them because, well, because that's who I'm playing as. Red does not take shit from anyone. Red has daddy issues, and a sociopathic personality that makes them EVERYONE'S issues. Red was a Slaver up until the point someone said the wrong thing, and now Paradise Falls is decorated with the butchered corpses of every last Slaver in the place.

I want to add the skull of every smart-ass who ever talked back to me into that collection, Kid or not.

 

[Tiger Sora]

I'm on the fence on this.

But I did laugh hard at that Skyrim mod vid where the guy mauls the kid as a werewolf in Solitude.

 

[Slash Dementia]

I don't mind at all. All it is is pixels on a screen. I throw morality out the window when I'm playing anyway--unless it's one of those games like Mass Effect or Knights of the Old Republic.

 

[JesterRaiin]

I refuse to acknowledge arguments of people who cry about game violence, existence of killable kids characters, improper features like nudity and do nothing to end "Street children" phenomenon.

It's hypocrisy in the purest form so to speak.
It should be cured before it spreads.

Those two things are completely unrelated. What about people who want sexuality to be given the same protection from discrimination that race and gender have in the job market? Are these people being hypocritical if they don't do anything to help end world hunger and cure cancer?

Depends on the point of view.
Mine was and is as follows : there are much better activities than debating over existence of killable models of smaller people often called "kids". We can't consider ourselves serious if we're trying to prevent our kids from - i don't know what - by censoring some game content while we do nothing for those living and actually dying in slums. Especially if we're talking about games that aren't PG-rated for Christ's sake !

 

[Unesh52]

Depends on the point of view.
Mine was and is as follows : there are much better activities than debating over existence of killable models of smaller people often called "kids". We can't consider ourselves serious if we're trying to prevent our kids from - i don't know what - by censoring some game content while we do nothing for those living and actually dying in slums. Especially if we're talking about games that aren't PG-rated for Christ's sake !

No one said it was about "protecting the kids;" the central argument seems to be that it's inherently wrong in the same way people argued that the school shooter mod is wrong. I get how you were connecting the two now, but the jist of what I said earlier is still true. It's not wrong to deal with a smaller problem in lieu of a bigger one, even if it's very similar, especially if your power to fix the smaller problem is greater. It wouldn't be wrong to give meals to poor, lower class families just because they have more than other starving people in other parts of the world. Dealing with street children is a complex and difficult issue, but if you think you can also protect children by curbing the inclusion of offensive material in video games (somehow), that would be much easier to accomplish. And you should do so, even if you're not helping to fix the greater problem.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Children die in droves every day. As the gap in the world between wealthy and poor societies becomes wider and wider, artistic mediums are going to have to address this fact.

Even if it's used purely because someone likes killing children?
It's alright.
Just like the school shooter mod of Half Life was alright.
Just like Postal 2 was alright.
Some people will make horrible things.
It's ok.

 

[johnstamos]

it's a game your not killing children. you pushing a button to makes some pixels on your screen fall over dead.

 

[CyanideSandwich]

Only if it is presented in a mature way, like in Heavy Rain. Really mature game, that.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Doesn't interest me. Not something I think about wanting to do in a game.

I think about wanting to tell off NPCs that order me about when I'm clearly the savior of mankind and they want an errand girl.

I think about wanting to organize my bookshelves and/or other loot into pleasing configurations when I am granted personal space in a game.

I think about wanting a variety of transportation methods in games - particularly pleasing would be flying mounts for sky awesome views, for instance.

I do not think to myself "gee, this game really needs some kids I could bump off"

Just where I'm at in my head regarding this topic.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Why not killable disabled people?

Why not killing cats and ponies?

How about: Why would you specifically look at what was missing from a game, and not pick up on any of the positive/mundane things missing? If you want to tear down a boundary, then have a game solely about killing children.

Just keep it away from those of us that have a biological desire to protect our young. Because it impacts on our enjoyment of that media.

 

[ConstantErasing]

Of course you should be able to. If killing children is such a big deal to people then it could be used as an effective tool. For example you could have a moral choice decision where you are forced to kill a bunch of kids or watch your best friend die or something, I don't know. All I know is that it is an excellent way to convey a message and shouldn't be banned simply because some people are a bit squeamish (I know I am oversimplifying that a bit).

 

[Caverat]

Killing digital images modeled after children is just as fun as digital images modeled after anything else.

It is stupid to allow a person to kill everyone, except for the children, like Fallout 3, Fable 2 & 3.

 

[Unesh52]

His point may have been, as my perspective is, that getting worked up about this issue but doing nothing about the other reeks of obtrusive, pointless moralizing.

I would expect many of the people getting worked up about this to be the least likely to have sympathy for real children.

Surely not. Why would you draw that conclusion? It seems like the both of you are assuming that complaining about one so diverts your attention that you couldn't possibly also care about the other issue. Just because a person thinks that child killing in games is the height of tasteless doesn't in any way imply that they don't care about real children. In fact, I'd say it's their protective feelings towards real children that are being misplaced onto the virtual ones, and that's what's making them so upset.

I think it's obtrusive, pointless moralizing on it's own merits, regardless of it's connection to street children. And like I was saying to him, the fact that there are bigger problems doesn't automatically mean smaller problems shouldn't be addressed at all. If there is a legitimate reason to think that children shouldn't be killed in games, then it's completely appropriate to voice that concern in this context, street children or no. I get his point - I just think it's silly.

 

[evilneko]

It depends on the way it is presented.

Like your example, if the children are attacking me, damn right I'll kill them. In the Warzones mod for New Vegas, there's an area where you'll be attacked by machine gun-wielding kids. Damn straight I shot back! 'course, my character in New Vegas is a kid herself...

If there were kids running around in say, a Saints Row game, I wouldn't go out of my way to kill them. Of course, if they were in a Saints Row game, they might go out of their way to kill me... in which case I'd respond in kind. In something more serious...well... I donno. Presentation is everything.

 

[Alssadar]

As strange as it can be, it should be... allowed. As long as handled maturely; not "LOL Kill zum babiez guis!"
If it is to exist, make it completely option or only for those of a sociopathic mindset of 'Kill all the people in the village, including children.'
Maybe something like a military game where there are civilians that are hiding to escape any conflict, and you accidentally fire into a group (You were not forced to--you thought the movement was of enemies), and then there's a dead child. Is allowed, but not a purposeful act.

 

[Unesh52]

How about: Why would you specifically look at what was missing from a game, and not pick up on any of the positive/mundane things missing?

You act like the OP was just sitting around thinking "Man, you know what Katamari Damacy needs? An option to roll a ball of spikes into a pre-school." This came up because it something that was positively excluded from some games (notably Skyrim) when it would have been simpler and more intuitive to leave it in for what some people think is an arbitrary purpose. It continues to be a topic of debate because it challenges an intuitive ethical response that a lot of people apparently have. And it's not like other people don't bring up questions about why we don't have positive things in games. Yahtzee just today published an article about wanting to see non-violence used as gratification in games.

 

[Nyaoku]

If not kill them in person with a polearm, at least just let them dissapear when I revisit the town I just obliterated. For the people who want them to live, pretend they wandered off to find another village. For the other group, say the wild animals came in to pick them off.
There, problem solved.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

You act like the OP was just sitting around thinking "Man, you know what Katamari Damacy needs? An option to roll a ball of spikes into a pre-school."

Not the OP, but the debate was created from that school of thought.

The problem stems from not having the emotional responses available to the player to deal with things.

You could equally ask "Why can't we steal from shops?", "Why are there no gay people?", "Why isn't there magic powered combustion engines?"

Those things don't exist in the game because it would either overly complicate the matter, offend someone or boost the certification to a higher rank - thus reducing the market.

The difference between killing an adult and a child (or better yet a gnome/dwarf and a child) would only make a marked difference to someone where THEY have a difference between killing an adult and a child.

If that's a negative difference(UGH!), then it will repel people.
If that's a positive difference(YAY!), then that person has issues.

However, Binding of Isaac - most of the bosses are children, siblings even. Bioshock/The Sims/House of the Dead...

 

[D-Ray]

I don't get it.

Innocent people in games are killed all the time. Moms, dads, animals, etc. Kids are just as morally unacceptable to kill to me....But, its a video game.

However, if a game made it an objective to just kill kids, it would be kinda weird. I would feel....dirty doing it.

 

[AnotherAvatar]

My big things is it's always been a part of the Fallout series until Bethesda chickened out, and it came with ramifications. There's a difference between a child killing simulator where you're encouraged to murder hordes of children for your own sick demented pleasure while you are rewarded for doing so, and a role-playing game that says no one in it's world is off limits but punishes you for killing children.

Also, the reason this debate is so heated is because of how powerful the imagery of a dead child is. As a writer, I don't think that should be off limits, and for that matter I don't think anything should be off limits when it comes to a creative medium, especially if we want to view it as art. Still, I hope I've made a solid point about there being a difference between encouraging child murder and allowing children to die in a game.