Poll: killing in-game kids?

[Joccaren]

There is nothing wrong with having children that are able to die in a game. Simply because they exist does not mean the Devs wanted you to kill them, it means they had better things to spend their time on than making sure you wouldn't kill a set of pixels.
In a game where your whole goal is to kill children, it would depend on the context, but if they're just there and don't need to be killed, there is no problem whatsoever.

As for child killing context, Bioshock. You kill kids in it (If you choose to). Sure, they may be 'possessed' kids, but you have the option to cure them and make them normal, or kill them. I don't see anybody complaining about that - and that's FORCED upon you, and you are encouraged to kill them by someone. Invulnerable child systems seem to be companies making a big deal out of nothing. They go to extra effort to prevent something that few in their intended audience will care about. If its a possibility in an open world, or fits in with the context, there should be no problems.

 

[Dogstile]

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.

I would prefer that instead of hiding and pretending it doesn't exist, it gets used. I had a kid on my back in Metro 2033 and I was much more careful considering I didn't want him to die. Apparently theirs an escort quest in skyrim where you have to keep a kid alive? Wouldn't that be so much more engaging if that kid could actually die if you were negligent?

OP: I'm a context guy. Based solely around killing kids? Sure, feel free but i'll think you're an absolute nutter. A kid dies because you couldn't save him in time? Abso-fucking-lutely. It'd actually affect how I play and i'm lacking in things that will do that with current games.

 

[gbemery]

why is it usually only looked at from the perspective that the player will out right kill the children? Why not look at it from this perspective, NPCs can kill children so with that bit of gameplay added in the player can now add another layer of depth to the game by trying his/her best to save the children when in a battle and there are innocents around?

 

[DarkRyter]

There's no poll option for "it doesn't matter".

 

[Andothul]

Depends on the context.

Do i want a game where you can break into a house and shoot a baby in it's crib HELL NO

but defending yourself from a fast moving zombie child or a possessed demonic child of the corn shouldn't be a big deal.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I had a kid on my back in Metro 2033 and I was much more careful considering I didn't want him to die. Apparently theirs an escort quest in skyrim where you have to keep a kid alive? Wouldn't that be so much more engaging if that kid could actually die if you were negligent?

Yes and No.

Would it keep my attention? Yes.
Would it cause me to give up the game totally if I lost him in a nasty way? Equally Yes.
(I know that's two Yes's, but it works better that way)

If you're really into a game - or book/film etc. - these things can hit you as hard as a RL version: especially if you've experienced/feared the RL version.

I can't play a game where a woman screams in pain. Just freaks me out totally. Giant spiders or crabs...ick.ick.ick.

 

[brainslurper]

I definitely think that you should be able to in games like skyrim. But other then that, killing kids is one of the smaller problems facing gaming.

 

[Unesh52]

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...

There are good marketing and design reasons to not include those kinds of things, but most seem to be arguing against child killing from an ethical standpoint. I don't think any of those things, particularly the fact that someone would be offended by it, constitute an ethical reason to not include content in a game. I also don't think that the fact that you give a negative response to a child dying in a game should mean that child killing shouldn't be allowed in the game. I almost couldn't do it when I had to fight Saint Astraea in Demon's Souls - I certainly had a negative reaction to that. But I'm glad it was in the game, for various reasons I'm sure you understand and aren't important right now. Sometimes games are supposed to make us angry or disgusted or sad. It's part of the experience of art. Those games you mentioned illustrate this point exactly. The choice to save or kill the Little Sisters in Bioshock was (theoretically anyway) a heartrending decision, meant to force the player to examine his ethics.

And anyway, a child's death, no matter how sad and generally evil that it is in real life, doesn't necessarily need to make you feel bad when it happens in fiction. I bet it could even make you laugh, and that wouldn't call your mental health into question one bit. As George Carlin once said, "Rape can be funny." (And fuck you, but that's not the point.) Anything can be presented to elicit any kind of emotion. Presentation is more important than content. That's one of the first things learned when I joined the theatre in high school. Just because I don't get all weepy that my child died in The Sims doesn't mean that I'm a heartless bastard. It's just that the sims are humorous parodies of real people. Even their sheer panic at a kitchen fire about to destroy everything they own is amusing. That's not indicative of an unhealthy mind, that's just a product of the presentation.

 

[Dogstile]

I had a kid on my back in Metro 2033 and I was much more careful considering I didn't want him to die. Apparently theirs an escort quest in skyrim where you have to keep a kid alive? Wouldn't that be so much more engaging if that kid could actually die if you were negligent?

Yes and No.

Would it keep my attention? Yes.
Would it cause me to give up the game totally if I lost him in a nasty way? Equally Yes.
(I know that's two Yes's, but it works better that way)

If you're really into a game - or book/film etc. - these things can hit you as hard as a RL version: especially if you've experienced/feared the RL version.

I can't play a game where a woman screams in pain. Just freaks me out totally. Giant spiders or crabs...ick.ick.ick.

Aye, there isn't a perfect solution for it, but I can't help but feel like saying completely no is completely horrible. Even implying it would be good enough to alleviate the "yeah, if the other main character in a horror game is a child, you'll succeed" feeling.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

And anyway, a child's death, no matter how sad and generally evil that it is in real life, doesn't necessarily need to make you feel bad when it happens in fiction.

No, but it can do. And, biologically, it's meant to. Kittens/Puppies/Ponies - same way. How many pony killer games are there? No different to a horse though - and there's lots of horse killing games.

I bet it could even make you laugh, and that wouldn't call your mental health into question one bit.

I freaking love Binding, like I like Saints Row 2 and Limbo, both of which freak the living hell out of my mental state if I play them at the wrong time.

That's where the crux is, I think. Skyrim is for people who want to be A HERO; regardless of what's happened in their real life. ESPECIALLY if they've just lost a child, or seen two towers go down in flames, or saw their parents die from cancer.

That's why these things are often not shown in games. Their effect is far more than in the game itself.

 

[Unesh52]

Depends on the context.

Do i want a game where you can break into a house and shoot a baby in it's crib HELL NO

but defending yourself from a fast moving zombie child or a possessed demonic child of the corn shouldn't be a big deal.

What if it was a Max Payne style dream sequence where the protagonist is expressing his feelings of guilt for not saving his child or something like that? The player character is forced by the game to shoot the baby as a way of suggesting the protagonist's feeling of remorseful culpability. Is it still a "HELL NO" situation?

 

[Unesh52]

That's where the crux is, I think. Skyrim is for people who want to be A HERO

Dark Brotherhood? Thieves Guild? Complex crime system? The ability to kill and steal from most NPCs? I'm pretty sure you don't even have to be a "good guy" playing the main quest line. You can be in it for the cool dragon powers and nix to everyone else.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

I don't really see a difference between virtual adults and virtual children. If they kept their mannerisms and overall behavior, I'd have been just as compelled to save the little sisters in Bioshock even if they were skinless, mutated badgers, same with adult humans. In games like Saint's Row, there are three kinds of people walking the streets; targets, targets that call in target back up, and targets I can ask to follow me around killing other targets until my reckless stupidity gets them killed. It makes no difference if some of those targets are a bit shorter then others, I think.

Honestly, though, I don't usually see much need to kill NPCs that didn't attack me first, it just makes things easier sometimes. My main problem with the idea that pretending to kill a child is more wrong than pretending to kill any other harmless innocent is that it sounds like censorship. "No, you can't do that because I disagree with the idea!" Seems like anything else I've heard to describe the newest "Instruments of Satan" or whatever. I think people that oppose virtual anything do so because they're offended and, with that astonishing tendancy some people have, demand that the the idea they don't like just go away, imposing their own idea of what's "right" and "acceptable" on others.

Then again, My being anti-censorship could be seen as the same thing, no? Not sure I'm making sense here, but that's my opinion, which I have no intention to force down anyone's throat.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Dark Brotherhood? Thieves Guild? Complex crime system? The ability to kill and steal from most NPCs? I'm pretty sure you don't even have to be a "good guy" playing the main quest line. You can be in it for the cool dragon powers and nix to everyone else.

Elric of Melnibone? Prince Corwin of Amber? Rincewind? Moist Von Lipwig? I overstated for a reason. "A HERO" means different things to different people - but it's still an "This is me turned up to 11" behind it - usually.

 

[Risingblade]

I don't see the fun in killing video game children, the adults are already easy as hell to kill so the children...die like bunnies? Now if there was some huge moral reason, or impact to the story throw it in, but just killing weak little kids is pointless.

 

[James Mann]

Most everything i have to say has been said, but i may as well throw it in for support.

No i wouldn't specifically kill children if the option was there.
Seeing children survive in the middle of battlefields does annoy me however.
Killing children shouldn't be the focus, merely children should be able to die.

 

[Ix Rebound]

Hell yes!
I would just love to cripple the legs of that fucking mayor in fallout 3, laugh as we tries to hobble away then shoot him head
(yes i do realise how insane i sound right now)

 

[manaman]

It's a sticky issue. It's annoying to sweep across a whole town in a sandbox game and then see three kids running around in the middle of a village of death and distruction without a care in the world. Aside from the small amount of annoyance however it doesn't bother me one bit if you can or cannot kill children in games.

It does bother those that are uninitiated in games so to speak. Those that don't understand that being able to, and having an intense desire to, do something in a game are not the same thing. They also don't understand that doing something in a game is not the same as doing something outside of game.

Better solution is to not even bother with children at all. I never even really notice the lack of children unless the game points it out to you.

 

[Unesh52]

Elric of Melnibone? Prince Corwin of Amber? Rincewind? Moist Von Lipwig? I overstated for a reason. "A HERO" means different things to different people - but it's still an "This is me turned up to 11" behind it - usually.

Well if murdering the emperor to please the possessed corpse of an old woman fits into someone's idea of being a hero, then why can't killing a child? I'm confused. You argument seems to be "child killing is upsetting to me, so it shouldn't be in games," but that doesn't sound right. Did you switch sides while I wasn't paying attention? Or was that never your position to begin with?

 

[Merkavar]

i dont care either way. kid in game or not, kids killable or not, doesnt matter to me.

but i do find it xtremely disturbing when people go out of their way to add killable kids to games. like that skyrim mod. that they want to kill ingame kids thatmuch that they take time away from the game and download a mod.