Jump to content

Recommended Posts

evil pc's should have option to sacrifice children to dark gods

 

if the circumstance arises...why not? :) and yes, all kiddies must be killable. i might not just go on about killing children out of psychopathic reasons but if those brats pickpocket me sorry...you will taste my axe! let this be a lesson to all of youse rats! and what for? for a fistful of gold! was it worth it? huh? was it?!

:p

"if everyone is dead then why don't i remember dying?"

—a clueless sod to a dustman

 

"if we're all alive then why don't i remember being born?"

—the dustman's response

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd support killable children with the appropriate punishments, you will be reviled, hunted by hitmen and half the questgivers in settled areas won't deal with you...on the other hand if the PC can't kill them then the gameworld should, pull our heartstrings and drive us on an insane hunt for a rapst/killer etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, adding children would make the world more realistic. Yes, I think they should be unkillable. Obsidian said that the game would be 'mature', but, in my opinion, maturity doesn't equal being able to kill everyone in your way.

dont you think it is a bit strange that you want children inthe game for added realism but in your next sentance you negate that added realism by making them unkillable?

Is having unkillable children just as unrealistic as not having any at all?

 

Further: You can make the game more realistic by adding the possibility to pick flowers or pet little bunnies and kittens. Is this the "wrong" kind of realism, which would explain why nobody demands it, or is it just not as fun as killing kids in game?

:closed:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer they were chunkable. You should really think twice when you AOE spell near civilans, especially children. I doubt anyone really gets off on that, but accidently damaging a kid to see it lie down and get back up doesn't exactly add to the atmosphere of the game. I like the fallout1/2 idea that being caught doing it pretty much damages you in a way you shant recover from, though it probably should be even harsher.

 

With regards to being caught doing bad things, I'd prefer there wasn't magic reputation punishments anytime I do something bad. Not a big fan of the recent karma systems either. If you get caught being bad, it should be pretty damming to your reputation, but being a good at being bad shouldn't have you constantly fighting against the tide imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, adding children would make the world more realistic. Yes, I think they should be unkillable. Obsidian said that the game would be 'mature', but, in my opinion, maturity doesn't equal being able to kill everyone in your way.

dont you think it is a bit strange that you want children inthe game for added realism but in your next sentance you negate that added realism by making them unkillable?

Is having unkillable children just as unrealistic as not having any at all?

 

Further: You can make the game more realistic by adding the possibility to pick flowers or pet little bunnies and kittens. Is this the "wrong" kind of realism, which would explain why nobody demands it, or is it just not as fun as killing kids in game?

Please show me where i said killing children in a game is fun? My argument is simply that if you add children to a game for realism then they should be just as vulnerable as anyone else in the game. personaly i dont care whether children are added or not and even if they are added and are killable i will try my best not to kill them. but adding children to the game then making them invulnarable when everyone else is killable does subtract from the realism of the game
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, adding children would make the world more realistic. Yes, I think they should be unkillable. Obsidian said that the game would be 'mature', but, in my opinion, maturity doesn't equal being able to kill everyone in your way.

dont you think it is a bit strange that you want children inthe game for added realism but in your next sentance you negate that added realism by making them unkillable?

Is having unkillable children just as unrealistic as not having any at all?

 

Further: You can make the game more realistic by adding the possibility to pick flowers or pet little bunnies and kittens. Is this the "wrong" kind of realism, which would explain why nobody demands it, or is it just not as fun as killing kids in game?

Please show me where i said killing children in a game is fun? My argument is simply that if you add children to a game for realism then they should be just as vulnerable as anyone else in the game. personaly i dont care whether children are added or not and even if they are added and are killable i will try my best not to kill them. but adding children to the game then making them invulnarable when everyone else is killable does subtract from the realism of the game

I did not state that you like to kill children in a game. I was asking why the ability to kill defenseless children in a game is so much more important (or "realistic") than to, say, pick apples from a tree.

:closed:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, adding children would make the world more realistic. Yes, I think they should be unkillable. Obsidian said that the game would be 'mature', but, in my opinion, maturity doesn't equal being able to kill everyone in your way.

dont you think it is a bit strange that you want children inthe game for added realism but in your next sentance you negate that added realism by making them unkillable?

Is having unkillable children just as unrealistic as not having any at all?

 

Further: You can make the game more realistic by adding the possibility to pick flowers or pet little bunnies and kittens. Is this the "wrong" kind of realism, which would explain why nobody demands it, or is it just not as fun as killing kids in game?

Please show me where i said killing children in a game is fun? My argument is simply that if you add children to a game for realism then they should be just as vulnerable as anyone else in the game. personaly i dont care whether children are added or not and even if they are added and are killable i will try my best not to kill them. but adding children to the game then making them invulnarable when everyone else is killable does subtract from the realism of the game

I did not state that you like to kill children in a game. I was asking why the ability to kill defenseless children in a game is so much more important (or "realistic") than to, say, pick apples from a tree.

Because it makes no sense to have them survive when a villain shoots a fireball into a party in the crowded street, or to have them somehow not take any damage. There are no instances when not having an ability to pick flowers would lead to a nonsensical situation. Also, character being killable is their natural state in most RPGs so we shouldn't make them immortal unless there is a reason to do so. People being upset about children being killed is not a reason. There are people who are upset when women/civilians/their favorite character gets killed and nobody makes them immortal because of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I did not state that you like to kill children in a game. I was asking why the ability to kill defenseless children in a game is so much more important (or "realistic") than to, say, pick apples from a tree.

 

it would be like if they added alot of other fruit tree's to the game and made their fruit pickable and then decided to add apple tree's to the game but make its fruit unpickable for no realistic reason. in the same way if they added children to the game they should be subject to the same rules within the game as everyone else or they should just not add them at all. So what i am arguing against is adding something to the game then making it obey special rules for no logical or realistic reason at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, adding children would make the world more realistic. Yes, I think they should be unkillable. Obsidian said that the game would be 'mature', but, in my opinion, maturity doesn't equal being able to kill everyone in your way.

dont you think it is a bit strange that you want children inthe game for added realism but in your next sentance you negate that added realism by making them unkillable?

Is having unkillable children just as unrealistic as not having any at all?

 

Further: You can make the game more realistic by adding the possibility to pick flowers or pet little bunnies and kittens. Is this the "wrong" kind of realism, which would explain why nobody demands it, or is it just not as fun as killing kids in game?

Please show me where i said killing children in a game is fun? My argument is simply that if you add children to a game for realism then they should be just as vulnerable as anyone else in the game. personaly i dont care whether children are added or not and even if they are added and are killable i will try my best not to kill them. but adding children to the game then making them invulnarable when everyone else is killable does subtract from the realism of the game

I did not state that you like to kill children in a game. I was asking why the ability to kill defenseless children in a game is so much more important (or "realistic") than to, say, pick apples from a tree.

Because it makes no sense to have them survive when a villain shoots a fireball into a party in the crowded street, or to have them somehow not take any damage. There are no instances when not having an ability to pick flowers would lead to a nonsensical situation. Also, character being killable is their natural state in most RPGs so we shouldn't make them immortal unless there is a reason to do so. People being upset about children being killed is not a reason. There are people who are upset when women/civilians/their favorite character gets killed and nobody makes them immortal because of that.

It's not like children can't die in a game, the programmers just don't let you kill them... But you're saying that you should still be able to kill anything that moves to improve "realism". Okay, fair enough.

 

Then why is possible to whack the **** out of enemies for hours on end? It doesn't seem very "realistic" to me that your characters do not get exhausted.

Edited by dlux

:closed:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah imagine what happens if they allow killable children, how many psychopats will start killing a lot of children because of it, remember guys if video game didnt exist, we wouldnt need prisons and laws

 

Darn it I knew all the world's problems could be traced to a single source, a source whose very existence is so negative that events past present and future, regardless of whether the source existed yet, are linked to the existence of the source at some point in time! Blast! If only people were somehow liable or responsible for their actions, and particular mediums weren't wholly to blame for all the wrongs in the world throughout history!

"Step away! She has brought truth and you condemn it? The arrogance!

You will not harm her, you will not harm her ever again!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like children can't die in a game, the programmers just don't let you kill them... But you're saying that you should still be able to kill anything that moves to improve "realism". Okay, fair enough.

 

Then why is possible to whack the **** out of enemies for hours on end? It doesn't seem very "realistic" to me that your characters do not get exhausted.

 

You do realize the exact same argument can be made against you when you said adding children to the game would make it more realistic? I mean seriously mate but you aregue for somethig to be included for added realism and then argue against everyone else who says that if they are added it is only realistic that they should follow the same rules as every one else. Do you understand irony at all?

 

Now ofcourse if children only exist in towns etc and you cant kill anyone there then i am fine with that. But if you can kill everyone else there and children are added they should be subject to the exact same rules as everyone else there as there is no logical or realistic reason within the game why they should not be

Edited by Perderabo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the note about realism . . . one thing that, to me anyways, makes a game more tactical is that even a succesful approach to a challenge can be subject to mistakes. If you're in a crowded area, and you're fighting something unpleasant, I don't believe there should be a free pass when it comes to anyone caught in or around the line of fire. I think you should have to worry about those people if you play a good, caring sort of character. I think there should be reactions and consequences if you either make a mistake and hurt people by accident, or on purpose because you felt the ends justified the means in combating a foe - even if that meant non-combatants got hurt too.

 

I don't really like the idea of some poor kid being depicted, and people causually slaughtering them, but I do think that a person should have to think before they leap. If you're in a crowded area, and don't want to hurt people that adds a layer of strategy. If you're in a crowded area and don't care the people get hurt that adds a layer of consequence and fallout in a well made game. And I do mean consequnce. The towns people you were supposed to be helping crying for you to be strung up and burned at the stake for accidently, or otherwise, hurting one or more of theirs in the process. Even if not crying for your blood then not viewing you well and wanting you gone, at the very least. Revenge and justice for your mistakes, or apathy toward the suffering of others - that you cause - are good themes to explore if, and I stress IF, well crafted by the writers and artists who present those themes visually.

  • Like 1

"Step away! She has brought truth and you condemn it? The arrogance!

You will not harm her, you will not harm her ever again!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like children can't die in a game, the programmers just don't let you kill them... But you're saying that you should still be able to kill anything that moves to improve "realism". Okay, fair enough.

 

Then why is possible to whack the **** out of enemies for hours on end? It doesn't seem very "realistic" to me that your characters do not get exhausted.

 

You do realize the exact same argument can be made against you when you said adding children to the game would make it more realistic? I mean seriously mate but you aregue for somethig to be included for added realism and then argue against everyone else who says that if they are added it is only realistic that they should follow the same rules as every one else. Do you understand irony at all?

lol, please show me where I wrote that adding children to the game would make it more realistic. Somebody else wrote that, not me. :)

And I have not said that one feature or another makes a game more realistic.

 

And you didn't answer my question: If having killable children is "realistic", then why can your characters whack the hell out of everything for hours on end and not suffer from fatigue, which would be "unrealistic"?

 

What a contradiction. So I guess having "unrealistic" elements in a game is ok according to you... just not invincible children. Ohhhh, the irony. ^^

:closed:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Children should be killable. I found it laughable that a game where you can detonate nuclear bomb in the middle of a city doesn't allow you to kill children because it's creepy.

Not being able to clear the way of little brats in Little Lamplight with my Fatman was the reason I quit playing Fallout 3 and never completed it. I'm not even joking.

 

  • Like 3

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to post
Share on other sites

They should be present anyhow. A town or village or any settlement really feels much more alive and believable if there's every day stuff going on like women hanging up laundry and kids getting under everyone's feet.

 

Kids present is a cheap, easy but major boost to immersion.

 

I'd understand if in the end kids were unkillable but if you include them in the first place then immediately break the immersion of the game by having them frolic along as everything around burns to the ground without a scratch on their head...then I think it would be better to not have them at all.

 

Would make a great mystery though no? You see a village on fire and then a kid rolling around in the flames oblivious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Children should be killable. I found it laughable that a game where you can detonate nuclear bomb in the middle of a city doesn't allow you to kill children because it's creepy.

Not being able to clear the way of little brats in Little Lamplight with my Fatman was the reason I quit playing Fallout 3 and never completed it. I'm not even joking.

 

Being able to sell one of the little buggers into slavery was a nicely dark turn for Bethesda though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

lol, please show me where I wrote that adding children to the game would make it more realistic. Somebody else wrote that, not me. :)

And I have not said that one feature or another makes a game more realistic.

 

And you didn't answer my question: If having killable children is "realistic", then why can your characters whack the hell out of everything for hours on end and not suffer from fatigue, which would be "unrealistic"?

 

What a contradiction. So I guess having "unrealistic" elements in a game is ok according to you... just not invincible children. Ohhhh, the irony. ^^

 

Sorry bro but i thought you where the person i had originally commented on this thread to.

 

And to answer your question, if children are added there is no logical reason in relation to to either gameplay or realism within the confines of the game world why they should be invincible if no other character is. The realism you are talking about is a- impossible to program as no game can be as real as real life and b- it would make the game suck if the first arrow that hits you leaves you lying on the floor for 3 hours slowly dying or you needed to rest all the time because your character was tired as well as eat, drink, pee, brush your teeth etc etc to then only randomly trip over your own feet and break your neck. so there is good arguments against why the things you have suggested would not work in the game.

 

now can you give me one good reason why , if children are added to the game and everyone else is killable they should be invincible? as far as i can see there is no technical limitations for why that should be. there is no gameplay reason why that should be and there sure as hell is no logical reason in relation the gameworld why that should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I do like having the option (Not that I often utilise such options in games) I think that there's a good possibility that adding the ability to kill 'chilluns' could court more controversy than its worth. Is the verisimilitude it adds worth the possible fallout with ratings agencies and potentially even WOWsers in the press.

 

Though i'd happily be wrong on that count (More child killings!).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that kids should be included in the game and that they should be killable. There is no reason to exclude them from a realism point of view and if killing them makes you uncomfortable, then doesn't that achieve the purpose of putting you in a morally uncomfortable situation? It all depends on how you role play it.

 

Kinda off subject, but wouldn't it be cool with the whole mechanic of the soul if there was a kid as a companion or major NPC? They would be the reincarnation or something of a super powerful soul. Kind of like a Dalai Lama or Buddha. It would be interesting to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekVI_UoEYRc

 

I generally don't even miss children if they're not around in videogames. If the subject of killing children is just too contentious then I'd prefer them not being in the game rather then having them invincibly wandering around. Maybe they could even just be in the "background" somehow where they can't be reached. (Maybe they just run and hide at the first sign of trouble?)

 

Besides, has it been established that every NPC will be killable? If there's other invulnerable NPCs wandering around then invulnerable children would be a non-issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...