Children

[Zero]

They could just do the ol "non-open world" approach where you can't enter aggressive/attack mode all willy-nilly . So basically everyone is safe unless something gets triggered. A hostile enemy approaches or something in dialog. But I'm not sure how exciting people would find that.

 

I really see no problem with it.

 

 

 

Edit: Having children be killable in ways that further the plot seems fine to me (e.g. a future heir or some such). But I realize it would probably cause such a rukus media wise, that if I were Obsidian I would probably want to stay away from it as far as possible.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Zero

[Skradacz]

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.

What's the point?

 

I cannot actually believe there are people in this forum that have such idiotic problems like killable children. In Neverwinter Nights you could kill the mother, steal an infant and than just throw it out anywhere, turn it into drider or a goblin, or just sell it as a slave (ok, the last one got censored). In Bioshock you could even sacrifice little girl, damn. I guess i don't even have to mention what you could do in Black&White.

 

**** political correctness people!

Edited September 24, 2012 by Skradacz

[jb.]

I don't understand why killing a child is somehow viewed as being worse than killing an adult

[Monkcrab]

I don't understand why killing a child is somehow viewed as being worse than killing an adult

 

Because think of the children.

[Shadeheart]

If the people who want it to be realistic for your character to go on a killing spree and kill everything in the world then it should also be possible in game for you not to be able to complete the game due to the whole world agreeing you are an ass and rejecting you from society and prosecuting a war against you on a global scale.

 

In BG for example it is definitely possible to kill the entire world because there are no consequences to breaking the world down into bitesize chunks and defeating it piecemeal. If the Council of Six put a price on your head and contacted all nearby cities and towns it would be almost impossible for you to do anything short of moving to Maztica or something but that isn't a realistic option in a game.

 

I agree killing children, women and dogs should be possible but the consequences should also be realistic. You cannot kill 20+ children in the same city, even if you do it in secret and no one knows who you are without the authorities increasing security in some major way making your attempt at world annihilation short-lived. As powerful as you might be you simply cannot defeat an entire nations resources via stealth and backstab.

 

 

This. Choice and consequence is what defines an RPG. Its what they live and die by (or should anyway).

[ddillon]

Present and killable, or not present.

 

Also consider: If penalties for killing a child prevent a player from continuing and completing the game, then players will simply reload if a child is killed by accident rather than consider roleplaying atonement. There could be methods of atoning for the death such as donating a large sum of money to a local temple for compensation to the family and care for orphans, completing a quest that betters the town or region without taking compensation, and so forth. The desire for repentance could be expressed to a guard, who could then escort the character to the NPC responsible for accepting donations, giving such quests, etc.

 

And: As with any crimes, there should be no penalties if the killing is not witnessed or if all witnesses are slain (unless it is somehow obvious that the player would be responsible in a particular situation).

Edited September 24, 2012 by ddillon

[leshy]

This question arises pretty much before every release of an anticipated cRPG from what I can see.

Also it would seem that the gamers are coherent in this: We wan't killable kids in in games. Why? Because we don't like invisible walls and other artificial restrictions, that's why!

Most players won't kill virtual kids anyway.

[leshy]

As powerful as you might be you simply cannot defeat an entire nations resources via stealth and backstab.

 

I disagree, this totally possible, with enough patience and precision

[Elerond]

I don't understand why killing a child is somehow viewed as being worse than killing an adult

 

In our culture adults see that their duty is to protect children, so all crimes against children are viewed as level or two higher than same crime against adults. An from this culture perspective has risen view point which advocate politic that entertaiment media should not show crimes against children.

[Rabain]

As powerful as you might be you simply cannot defeat an entire nations resources via stealth and backstab.

 

I disagree, this totally possible, with enough patience and precision

 

In your imagination perhaps, in reality not so much. I think this is why so many people just don't want the possibility of it in a game because somewhere some nutter is thinking about it. Even if we leave out the real world vs fantasy world, the game isn't about killing children even if you want the option for your roleplayed childkilling murderer to be a valid option. There is a point where certain options just start appearing ludicrous rather than actually adding to gameplay. How many players will actively pursue their roleplay as a childkilling murderer, 1%?

 

If children are treated in game in the same way they are in BG and PST then I'll be happy, it shouldn't really be something development needs to spend any time focusing on as a major concern.

[Malcador]

I don't understand why killing a child is somehow viewed as being worse than killing an adult

 

Seen as less capable of defending themselves, so it's the act of a coward or a madman. That and you're robbing the society of that child's potential even if it's as simple as the potential to just breed.

[leshy]

In your imagination perhaps, in reality not so much.

 

Well this is a game after all And still it is possible, but not very probable, but that's when the save system comes in handy

Just to straighten things out, I was not referring to child killing in this comment, but to fighting a whole town (or a nation) singlehandedly.

[Jarmo]

Bah, "childkiller" perk was a cop-out. Allow killing "but then everybody will hate you and you die".

How the heck does everybody in the world know I did it when I killed everybody in that village, including the children?

 

Yes there should be children, and if "commoner" adults are killable, children should be as well.

Yes, there should be children of all races.

 

Furthermore.

 

When you get a mission from the Church of High Purity to wipe out an orc village,

that should include women, children and the elderly.

 

If there's an assasins guild or something like that, one of the missions could be kidnapping or murdering

some merchants or nobles child "you still have 3 left". Just to make a point that assasins are not nice and cool.

 

And when you find that village burned and looted by the forces of evil,

tiny bodies scattered about help to emphasize this here was indeed an evil act.

[Gecimen]

I don't kill children (or anyone friendly in that case) and I hated it when I accidentally killed one in Fallout. Immortal children are ok by me. But I'd certainly prefer them killable-but-not-near-me-while-I'm-fighting.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Gecimen

[anek]

Hmm are there legislation issues involved? I imagine the game would be insta-banned in Germany at least, but I thought a lot of the EU countries had some restrictions on what was/wasn't allowed with regards to harming children in video games?

 

But do those countries actually ban offending games completely? I thought they merely restrict them to be sold to adults only?

[leshy]

But do those countries actually ban offending games completely? I thought they merely restrict them to be sold to adults only?

 

Each country has it's own set of rules. From what I know Germany has the strictest ones. Showing Nazi symbols for example is totally banned in games there.

[horocaust]

I don't care whether there will be children or not, but if they will be present then I'd prefer them killable without penalizing the player for it. I find it laughable when the player can sell people into slavery, obliterate entire towns and make Hitler look like Gandhi, but harming children? No, that is wrong, how could you even think of that?

[Rink]

Germany has strict rules in terms of brutality in games and games that have more brutality than that have to be modified or they get banned in germany.

I don't know if they would have anything against killable children, if there is a high penalty in the game for it though.

The witcher 2 was sold in germany without restrictions, so I guess rules aren't that strict anymore.

 

I would like to see children in the game, don't care if they are killable or not though, because I will not do that anyway. I think it is really strange how big a topic this gets so often, while nobody cares if a game doesn't let you burn/kill trees and bushes or grass with a fireball. And still they come with the "realism" argument.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Rink