entrerix Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I think you misread his post. it looks like he was saying we should change the terms of the issue without changing the issue. kids in game should behave exactly as other actors when struck by a bullet (ie physics) or maybe I misread his post in which case ignore me Killing is kind of like playin' a basketball game. I am there. and the other player is there. and it's just the two of us. and I put the other player's body in my van. and I am the winner. - Nice Pete.
bhlaab Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I think you misread his post. it looks like he was saying we should change the terms of the issue without changing the issue. kids in game should behave exactly as other actors when struck by a bullet (ie physics) or maybe I misread his post in which case ignore me We aren't running for public office here, why soften the sell?
Tigranes Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Because it's a more accurate way to describe the issue? Gorgon is right. Let's Play: Icewind Dale Ironman (Complete) Let's Play: Icewind Dale II Ironman (Complete) Let's Play: Divinity II (Complete) Let's Play: Baldur's Gate Trilogy Ironman - BG1 (Complete) Let's Play: Baldur's Gate Trilogy Ironman - BG2 (In Progress)
Aristes Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Because it's a more accurate way to describe the issue? Gorgon is right. Yeah, because being an asshat doesn't help make your point while sounding reasonable usually encourages folks to listen to it at least. Krezak: yeah, I agree. A lot of small factors combine to set the atmosphere in a game. For my part, I think it does help continuity, but I also don't consider killing kids in the first place. If they wanted to be really realistic, have one of the wasteland warlords force children to kill and commit atrocities and then they won't only be possible targets, they'll sometimes be reasonable priorities as targers. There's your real world gritty setting for you.
Malcador Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 (edited) Yeah, because being an asshat doesn't help make your point while sounding reasonable usually encourages folks to listen to it at least. Krezak: yeah, I agree. A lot of small factors combine to set the atmosphere in a game. For my part, I think it does help continuity, but I also don't consider killing kids in the first place. If they wanted to be really realistic, have one of the wasteland warlords force children to kill and commit atrocities and then they won't only be possible targets, they'll sometimes be reasonable priorities as targers. There's your real world gritty setting for you. Don't think he was being an asshat, people just have writing styles, I guess. I agree with child-soldiers in a game, certainly does add to the setting and people might appreciate the gravity of blowing away a child (even if said child was aiming a rifle at you) - although the latter's wishful thinking. As for killing a child because you're playing an evil bastard, that's all fine as long as someone comes to collect, so to speak. I have a suspicion we'll be told to change topics, soon. Edited May 27, 2009 by Malcador Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Gizmo Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 (edited) "Killable" children has little if anything to do with the player's wanting to kill kids, its the fact that Fallout was brutally double-edged, and all things were vulnerable to attack, injury, and death (whether accidental or deliberate). Fallout (unlike many games I've played) did not have a "special" class of untouchables. Not long ago I played a session where a kid in Klamath joined the fight against the PC, and tossed a grenade at him... He just happened to critically miss (dropping the grenade at his own feet ~and exploding into chunks). There is no such encompassing potential in FO3, and it shows [as but one symptom] the limited scope of the game. Edited May 27, 2009 by Gizmo
jero cvmi Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Fallout 1 didn't have many children, but you had to look out for them, because if you accidentally killed one, the game punished you. You got tagged "childkiller", and got hostile reactions from everyone. The second time you killed a child you got stalked by bounty hunters (led by a tough guy named Chris Avellone ) and were unlikely to survive that if you were low level. There was a specific quest where you had to scare a kid out of a building before you started the shooting, if you didn't want to become "childkiller". Now on my moral compass that's way better than fallout 3, where you just can shoot at kids forever and nothing happens. They don't die, and everyone forgets about it in a couple of days. Putting children in a game just for pseudo-realism, and then tagging them as "unkillable" to avoid sensorship is insane hypocrisy. It would be better if there weren't any children in the first place. For New Vegas, i would suggest no children at all. All it takes to fix the realism issue is a zany scientific theory that radiation has turned everyone sterile, and a sidequest to solve the problem with cloning or something.
Gorgon Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Yeah having a moral to the story is a much better idea. If your character was good before he killed a child he might get nightmares and eventually decide to eat a bullet, that kind of thing. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Tagaziel Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Little Lamplight is the biggest insult a developer can give to a gamer. First, make children unkillable and then make a full city full of kiddie retards that all serve to rub in your face that they're unkillable. And it doesn't make a single speck of sense. HMIC for: [ The Wasteland Wiki ] [ Pillars of Eternity Wiki ] [ Tyranny Wiki ]
Oner Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Little Lamplight doesn't exist. Bethesda cut it from the final game, and the person who came up with it in the first place died a slow and painful death from 5 different diseases. Giveaway list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DgyQFpOJvyNASt8A12ipyV_iwpLXg_yltGG5mffvSwo/edit?usp=sharing What is glass but tortured sand?Never forget! '12.01.13.
Wombat Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 kids in game should behave exactly as other actors when struck by a bullet (ie physics) Fallout 1 didn't have many children, but you had to look out for them, because if you accidentally killed one, the game punished you. You got tagged "childkiller", and got hostile reactions from everyone. The second time you killed a child you got stalked by bounty hunters (led by a tough guy named Chris Avellone ) and were unlikely to survive that if you were low level. There was a specific quest where you had to scare a kid out of a building before you started the shooting, if you didn't want to become "childkiller". I think the issue has been already nailed down. In an RPG such as FO, basically, any action by the PC should be measured/reacted by in-world NPCs...not people in real world. That said, considering the current circumstances around gaming, requesting for "killable" children wouldn't only be in vain but also make you sound insane. I guess here is another place where a compromise is needed. PS BTW, doesn't this topic belong to setting discussion?
jero cvmi Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Remember the sperm donation quest in vault city? Add a similar quest and subplot to New Vegas. Then there won't have to be any kids in the game, except your future ones. Problem solved.
Hurlshort Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 I don't get the Little Lamplight hate. I didn't spend much time in there, but it seems like some of you have serious repressed anger towards children. It's not healthy.
Malcador Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 I don't get the Little Lamplight hate. I didn't spend much time in there, but it seems like some of you have serious repressed anger towards children. It's not healthy. That's a bit of a stretch to start diagnosing psychology, heh. The kids in there are pretty damn obnoxious especially their Mayor or whatever the hell his name is, and it does seem they were there as a joke. Don't get how a place like that can survive, really, food-wise and militarily - you'd think the SMs would have crushed them first or some raiders would show up. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Hurlshort Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Well, it is a game, and not a very realistic one at that. Most of the settlements didn't make much logical sense.
GreasyDogMeat Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Talk about being near the bottom of my list of things to 'fix'. Didn't even realize it was impossible to kill them until I came onto a forum and saw people whining about it.
Aristes Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 I just can't fault Bethesda for this one since it seems to be pretty broad across the board developer wise. It's probably just a cost to reward question and making the kids killable isn't worth it. It's just one of those things where the developer figures the players can shrug it off. Little Lamplight was kind of like the child soldier idea, only it didn't actually work that way. The kids wouldn't try to kill the PC, but the dogs would attack while the children ran. I guess that's fair. The PC can't kill the kids, but the kids can't kill the PC. I'd seen folks complaining about it online and gave it a shot (haha) just to see what would happen.
Tagaziel Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Lamplight has the dubious distinction of being THE most annoying location in the game. Not only are the kids unkillable (which is a minor problem), you are FORCED to go through a kid-infested cave and play nice with them, just because the devs want to rub the fact that you can't kill children in your face. It's evident in the dialogues, the kids inside KNOW that the game prevents you from killing them, so they can freely spew badly written insults at you. Thankfully, there's GECK. Fo3 is the only game in which I slaughter children. I took the time to hunt down every single of those goddamn pieces of brahmin of crap and splatter them all over the cave, MacCready being the first. You know what's amusing? Both Cross and Jericho said "Good riddance" the moment his head came off. Life's good. HMIC for: [ The Wasteland Wiki ] [ Pillars of Eternity Wiki ] [ Tyranny Wiki ]
bhlaab Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Well, it is a game, and not a very realistic one at that. Most of the settlements didn't make much logical sense. That's part of the problem. They should make logical sense. It's probably just a cost to reward question and making the kids killable isn't worth it. It's just one of those things where the developer figures the players can shrug it off. I'd have been able to shrug off if there were no children wandering around. You see that all the time in games and movies, where children and violence just don't coexist. It's an easy pill to swallow. What annoys me is that the game keeps telling me "Do what you want, do what you want" and yet at every turn I see "You can't go through this door yet" and "You can't pull this switch yet" and "This person is invincible". I agree, Little Lamplight felt like an insult. Like they were going "Yeah, you're not allowed to kill children. So guess what here's 20 of the most irritating characters you've ever seen in any entertainment medium ever and you can't do anything about it. And guess what, you HAVE to go here to finish the main quest!"
GreasyDogMeat Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Hah, if you think the kids in Little Lamplight are annoying, don't ever have children of your own. They were absolute little angels compared with the little monster a former coworker used to bring in every freaking day to work.
bhlaab Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Hah, if you think the kids in Little Lamplight are annoying, don't ever have children of your own. They were absolute little angels compared with the little monster a former coworker used to bring in every freaking day to work. The difference is those real life kids aren't invincible. You could shoot a railroad spike through their heads if you really wanted to. Again, choice & consequence.
Llyranor Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Well, it's not really a *choice* if the co-worker forces your hand by bringing the little devils to work every day. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
HoonDing Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Imho Bethesda already went surprisingly far with making it possible to enslave one of the kids of Wittwe Wampwight - and the only nice & cute kid to boot. Killing NPCs just because one finds them 'irritating' is a bit out there, imo. Deal with them just like one deals with irritating people in real life. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Oner Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 You mean, tell them to F YOU, smack them in the face, spank them for being bad kids, throw fruits at them, or sue them for something? Didn't see dialogue options for either. Giveaway list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DgyQFpOJvyNASt8A12ipyV_iwpLXg_yltGG5mffvSwo/edit?usp=sharing What is glass but tortured sand?Never forget! '12.01.13.
GreasyDogMeat Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 That would have been so awesome if you could have spanked MacReady... have him run off crying. All of you are going to bed tonight without your moss!
Recommended Posts