Well this is kinda off topic but when GTA San Andreas came out it brought the crime rate down by like 20%. So whats to say if you put kids in games?
Why Are There NO Kids In Sandbox Shooter Games?
- Thread starter DELTA x WOLF
- Start date
Based on what? If you are going to give numbers, there has to be some robust empirical research for me to even remotely believe a single video game could ever reduce crime directly, especially by that much.
And I don't mean one generic article.
I'm a cynic, so sue me. I'm studying to be a psychologist, and I see numbers misquoted and data "omitted on accident" all the time in articles.
And I don't mean one generic article.
I'm a cynic, so sue me. I'm studying to be a psychologist, and I see numbers misquoted and data "omitted on accident" all the time in articles.
Because we would shoot them, there's really not a whole lot more to it than that. Game designers wisely recognize that some people will flip out over virtual murder, but a whole lot more will agree with the reactionaries if it's kids you're killing.
Think about what you said, if you could kill kids, all games, even games like Pokemon and Final Fantasy and yu gi oh and stuff like that would be down right outlawed.
This, oh god this.ThrobbingEgo said:
It's very clear why there are no LIVING kids (as opposed to ghost, zombie or otherwise) in sandbox games, but I feel it needs to be done. NOW!
Because, like everyone says, it is publicly seen as unacceptable to murder children and since children often immitate what they see, parents fear that their children would immitate said violence against other children (although not fear enough to follow the ESRB's rating system).
Personally I wouldn't kill children in any games even if I could, with the exception of those that wear their pants so low you can see their underwear or act as if they would if they could(i.e. most of them), in which case I would start screaming "OPEN FIRE!!!!" >
Personally I wouldn't kill children in any games even if I could, with the exception of those that wear their pants so low you can see their underwear or act as if they would if they could(i.e. most of them), in which case I would start screaming "OPEN FIRE!!!!" >
It's an 18-rated game, so obviously they can't get in
And to be honest, in a bustling city how many children DO you see wandering around? Nah, they are all at at school or in their parent's home or some other children designated zone.
Another thing is that children are a minority of the population, compared to the 18-80+ age range.
And to be honest, in a bustling city how many children DO you see wandering around? Nah, they are all at at school or in their parent's home or some other children designated zone.
Another thing is that children are a minority of the population, compared to the 18-80+ age range.
Killing a child is no better or worse than killing a senior citizen. It's just like in that starving children in africa thread, it's the same if a child starves as when an adult starves. We shouldn't feel obliged to save all the children and let the adults starve. Children brought up without proper guidance are the worst monsters possible. Child soldiers in war murder without a thought for the tiniest compensation.
Kill an innocent child? Not a chance! Kill a child soldier? Very possibly the next target of MW3.
Kill an innocent child? Not a chance! Kill a child soldier? Very possibly the next target of MW3.
It's because of the bull shit idea that kids are little angels. I for one demand equality! The family values people should agree with me too, those poor kids are left out and aren't getting involved. They should be allowed to die in ways which are incredibly painful just like everyone else.
For the sake of equality and freedom we must speak out against age discrimination. We must allow kids to die in video games.
(Salute)
For the sake of equality and freedom we must speak out against age discrimination. We must allow kids to die in video games.
(Salute)
What was the point of asking this? It's obvious as hell why not. Hey, you even answered your question in the OP.
It is simple: Because killing children is worse than killing adults. Gamers (and game companies) are already portrayed as violent, psychopathic mass-murderers, the last thing we need is to be shown also as child-killers. Not only is it bad press, but who really wants to shoot children? I know "ITS LIMITIN' MAH FREEDORMZ!!!!1" is an argument, but it's just a bit on the moral dark side to create a virtual environment whereby little Timmy over there can have his brains blown out on a whim.
It is simple: Because killing children is worse than killing adults. Gamers (and game companies) are already portrayed as violent, psychopathic mass-murderers, the last thing we need is to be shown also as child-killers. Not only is it bad press, but who really wants to shoot children? I know "ITS LIMITIN' MAH FREEDORMZ!!!!1" is an argument, but it's just a bit on the moral dark side to create a virtual environment whereby little Timmy over there can have his brains blown out on a whim.
It is illegal in some countries and even some regions of the U.S. to sell games in which the player character can kill children. I remember it being brought up a while back with the Little Sisters in Bioshock, but the regions ruled that because the killings were done offscreen the game can still be sold.
In the nineties the laws didn't exist. It is common knowledge that Fallout 1 & 2 featured child killing as a feature and perk. In the original Postal, I recall walking onto a schoolyard gunning down playing children, who would then cry and scream for their mommies to hold them. Running With Scissors wasn't willing to go that far with the sequels despite already having pulled that stunt.
In the nineties the laws didn't exist. It is common knowledge that Fallout 1 & 2 featured child killing as a feature and perk. In the original Postal, I recall walking onto a schoolyard gunning down playing children, who would then cry and scream for their mommies to hold them. Running With Scissors wasn't willing to go that far with the sequels despite already having pulled that stunt.
