What do we know about children?

[kmelt93]

I asked this question back during the kickstarter campaign, and the developers were unsure at that early point. Have they been confirmed yet? Will they be immune like in Fallout? (Please God no). Do I dare say Obsidian even developed a child companion? 

Edited September 27, 2013 by kmelt93

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What do we know about children?

They cry a lot and are expensive.

[Kjaamor]

Get the European edition.

 

Edit: Also, what are you on about with Fallout? Not only could you harm them, you could get the child-killer perk!

Edited September 27, 2013 by Kjaamor

[Karkarov]

 

What do we know about children?

They cry a lot and are expensive.

 

They also go poo poo quite often.  Gross.

[kmelt93]

Get the European edition.

 

Edit: Also, what are you on about with Fallout? Not only could you harm them, you could get the child-killer perk!

The new Bethesda generation of Fallout. 

Although my version of Fallout 1 (on GOG) replaced all the children with dogs because GOG was stupid enough to sell the German edition. 

[pseudonymous]

 

 

What do we know about children?

They cry a lot and are expensive.

 

They also go poo poo quite often.  Gross.

 

 

In some countries they are used as sex slaves.

 

None of this matters as I am sure Obsidian wants to be able to sell the game and killable children tends to put a crimp in sales for some reason or other.

[kmelt93]

 

 

 

What do we know about children?

They cry a lot and are expensive.

 

They also go poo poo quite often.  Gross.

 

 

In some countries they are used as sex slaves.

 

None of this matters as I am sure Obsidian wants to be able to sell the game and killable children tends to put a crimp in sales for some reason or other.

 

If Obsidian's end goal was money, Project Eternity wouldn't exist. If Obsidian wanted money, they would make another AAA game for a publisher that would be targeted at a much broader consumer base. PE is not going to make Obsidian rich.  PE is all about nostalgia and the hard core, old school RPG fan base. I don't think that group will mind if pixel children can be killed. If the game is banned in Germany, so what? There are alternatives for Germans to get the game.

 

On a side note, when I suggested children as potential companions, I did not have toddlers in mind . Think of this potential companion as an apprentice, maybe 13 or 14 years old, not initially effective in combat but on a steep learning curve. 

Edited September 27, 2013 by kmelt93

[Fearabbit]

Where's "Should be in the game, cannot be harmed, serve a meaningful purpose"?

 

It's unrealistic to think that a game could come out now where children can be killed by the player just like that. And it's not like not being able to attack them would ruin your immersion more than not being able to attack a tree or a horse, which you often cannot do. Many things should be technically possible in a game and most of the time only a few of them are - you can't break into a house by blasting through its wall with magic, for example.

 

Let villains kill children if your story demands it. But there's no need to let the player do it. This isn't a simulation, it's an RPG, things shouldn't be included "just because".

Also, if GTA isn't doing it, that's a pretty good indicator that the feature you want is going too far. I mean, that's a game where you torture people for no reason at all. Still doesn't let you kill children.

[GreenDragon]

On a side note, when I suggested children as potential companions, I did not have toddlers in mind 

 

Oh, I thought you meant something like this: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think of this potential companion as an apprentice, maybe 13 or 14 years old, not initially effective in combat but on a steep learning curve. 

 

If there was to be a younger companion, I think it would be cooler if he/she could be extremely gifted in something, a "wonderchild",  and because of that is very bossy and annyoing, but still very valuable for the party. 

Edited September 27, 2013 by GreenDragon

[teknoman2]

children should either be there and be killable like any other npc, or non be there at all. it would be stupid if i decided to play a raving psychopath that kills anything that moves just because he can, then enter a town, kill everyone but be unable to attack children. so either they keep them out, or standard npc rules apply. no fake morality compromises like "it's ok to kill 100 children in real life with a barage of cruise missiles, cause it's the army, bur not ok to accidentaly kill a child with a fireball in a game"

[Fearabbit]

children should either be there and be killable like any other npc, or non be there at all. it would be stupid if i decided to play a raving psychopath that kills anything that moves just because he can, then enter a town, kill everyone but be unable to attack children. so either they keep them out, or standard npc rules apply. no fake morality compromises like "it's ok to kill 100 children in real life with a barage of cruise missiles, cause it's the army, bur not ok to accidentaly kill a child with a fireball in a game"

 

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a thief who breaks into buildings by digging a tunnel."

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a scientist doing theoretical research in a university."

...

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as an abusive husband who beats his wife but frightening her so much that she won't do anything about it."

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a person who stalks women at night and sexually assaults them."

 

Some things you just can't expect them to put into a game. (Also, some things you shouldn't.) If you can't play a psychopath who kills everyone, then that's just one little and extraordinarily stupid role among many which the game doesn't allow you to play. If that makes it politically possible to put children in the game, I'm all for it.

[Sacred_Path]

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a thief who breaks into buildings by digging a tunnel."

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a scientist doing theoretical research in a university."

...

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as an abusive husband who beats his wife but frightening her so much that she won't do anything about it."

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a person who stalks women at night and sexually assaults them."

 

Some things you just can't expect them to put into a game. (Also, some things you shouldn't.) If you can't play a psychopath who kills everyone, then that's just one little and extraordinarily stupid role among many which the game doesn't allow you to play. If that makes it politically possible to put children in the game, I'm all for it.

It's about consistency. If I can kill monsters, I should probably be able to kill NPC's. If I can kill NPC's, I should be able to kill children. Just like if I can destroy dungeon walls, I probably should be able to destroy town walls.

[Greensleeve]

Who cares if children are in the game? It's almost guaranteed they won't serve more purpose than the little brat in BG2 who told you Umar Hills anyway. So yeah, I can do without kids and not feel I'm missing anything, nor that my "verisimilitude" is broken. 

[Death Machine Miyagi]

It's unrealistic to think that a game could come out now where children can be killed by the player just like that.

 

So unrealistic that it was perfectly possible to kill them in all of the Infinity Engine games I've played, if you don't have the misfortune of living in Germany or some other such country with an excessively censorship-happy government. Killing children was also perfectly possible in both of the original Fallouts. In fact, some of the most horrific critical hit text in the game came from doing things like targeting a child's eyes with a high-caliber weapon or breaking a child's arm. There was even a perk called 'child killer' that resulted in the vast majority of NPCs shunning you if you possessed it.

 

I don't like NPCs being immune to attack because a moral guardian somewhere thinks that the video game is going to make me want to kill children in real life. Or whatever the logic is.

[Messier-31]

Some things you just can't expect them to put into a game. (Also, some things you shouldn't.) If you can't play a psychopath who kills everyone, then that's just one little and extraordinarily stupid role among many which the game doesn't allow you to play. If that makes it politically possible to put children in the game, I'm all for it.

 

I agree. But isn't it odd killing a person in a video-game, and next by them stands this child made out of indestructible concrete?

 

 

What do we know about children?

 

That their loudness is too damn high!

 

 

[Fearabbit]

So unrealistic that it was perfectly possible to kill them in all of the Infinity Engine games I've played, [...]

 

I don't like NPCs being immune to attack because a moral guardian somewhere thinks that the video game is going to make me want to kill children in real life. Or whatever the logic is.

 

I said "it's unrealistic now". Because graphics have become better, everything is less abstract and the media attention is also much higher. You all know how often video games get blamed for this and that. Video games have to prove themselves all the time, and wishing for the ability to kill children because you want to be a psychopath isn't helping.

 

Like I said, there's a reason GTA doesn't have children. Because even for a game like that, there are things that it can't and shouldn't allow you to do.

 

As for consistency: Depends on the implementation. If you can hit them and nothing happens, sure, that's weird. But if you can't even hit them because your character just won't do it, that's a whole different matter. Because then it doesn't say "they're invulnerable", it says "your character doesn't want to do that". And in that case you should ask yourself "okay, so why do I want to do it?"

Another thing to consider: If they run to safety as soon as a fight breaks out (which most of the more vulnerable and weak NPCs should do anyway), and you would have to actively pursue them in order to hit them, then the situation doesn't even come up in the first place. Unless you so desparately want to play a psychopath who kills children that you run after them. In which case... I don't know, I have no sympathy for your cause.

[motorizer]

 

 

As for consistency: Depends on the implementation. If you can hit them and nothing happens, sure, that's weird. But if you can't even hit them because your character just won't do it, that's a whole different matter. Because then it doesn't say "they're invulnerable", it says "your character doesn't want to do that". And in that case you should ask yourself "okay, so why do I want to do it?"

Another thing to consider: If they run to safety as soon as a fight breaks out (which most of the more vulnerable and weak NPCs should do anyway), and you would have to actively pursue them in order to hit them, then the situation doesn't even come up in the first place. Unless you so desparately want to play a psychopath who kills children that you run after them. In which case... I don't know, I have no sympathy for your cause.

 

 

Yep, if they run away at the first sign of trouble, and you can't actively target them, then there is no problem.  If they can stand there taking punishment, then it is a problem.

 

That said I don't care either way, I've played several games with kilable kids, it never used to be a problem till fallout 1 was censored in some countries, probably due to how gory the deaths were as much as anything.

Edited September 27, 2013 by motorizer

[teknoman2]

 

children should either be there and be killable like any other npc, or non be there at all. it would be stupid if i decided to play a raving psychopath that kills anything that moves just because he can, then enter a town, kill everyone but be unable to attack children. so either they keep them out, or standard npc rules apply. no fake morality compromises like "it's ok to kill 100 children in real life with a barage of cruise missiles, cause it's the army, bur not ok to accidentaly kill a child with a fireball in a game"

 

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a thief who breaks into buildings by digging a tunnel."

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a scientist doing theoretical research in a university."

...

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as an abusive husband who beats his wife but frightening her so much that she won't do anything about it."

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a person who stalks women at night and sexually assaults them."

 

Some things you just can't expect them to put into a game. (Also, some things you shouldn't.) If you can't play a psychopath who kills everyone, then that's just one little and extraordinarily stupid role among many which the game doesn't allow you to play. If that makes it politically possible to put children in the game, I'm all for it.

 

the game mechanics do not allow you to play as a tunnel digging thief

it does not allow you to be a researcher

and so on

however, if it allows you to attack non hostile npc, then i dont see why some should be an exeption. they can very simply turn all non hostile npc in god mode and remove the possibility to attack or damage, even by accident, a friendly or neutral npc

why should it be fine if i can kill the farmer and his wife and all his workers and animals for no reason, but unacceptable to be able to kill his son too? is it wrong to kill only if the victim is not an adult?

[Karkarov]

In all seriousness this is another one of those non issues.  I am sorry but the ability to kill children in a video game should not rate very high on Obsidian's priority list for PE.  In fact, it shouldn't rate on it at all... or even be in the list.

 

If they make it so you just never run into kids, works for me.  If they make it so they are invulnerable, works for me.  If they make it where they are only in areas where you can't attack (such as an inn with guards all around and violence = you getting killed or thrown in jail), works for me.  Or anything else you can dream up that gets them in game but in such a way you can't kill them, works for me.  If they include kids you can kill (why?), works for me too.  I will just never do it because I don't create characters who are idiots or raving lunatics.

 

Here is the real question.

 

Why do those of you who are in favor of killable children even want killable children in game in the first place?

Edited September 27, 2013 by Karkarov

[JFSOCC]

 

So unrealistic that it was perfectly possible to kill them in all of the Infinity Engine games I've played, [...]

 

I don't like NPCs being immune to attack because a moral guardian somewhere thinks that the video game is going to make me want to kill children in real life. Or whatever the logic is.

 

I said "it's unrealistic now". Because graphics have become better, everything is less abstract and the media attention is also much higher. You all know how often video games get blamed for this and that. Video games have to prove themselves all the time, and wishing for the ability to kill children because you want to be a psychopath isn't helping.

 

Like I said, there's a reason GTA doesn't have children. Because even for a game like that, there are things that it can't and shouldn't allow you to do.

 

GTA is still a game which requires you to brutally torture people.

 

I'm not worried, this argument that games are a bad influence has been used for television, for film, for a whole bunch of generations of music.

 

In 30 years the generation that grew up without videogames will be dead and gone, and videogames will take their rightful place as artistic medium like books and films and music all have as well. Let them toot their ignorant horns, but for god sake, don't give in, when you accept censorship like that, or worse, self-censor like that, you're betraying your own artistic integrity.

 

And I still want to play the six days in Fallujah game, made with the input from those who were there, wanted to treat it respectfully and honestly, and got cancelled because some people are idiots who shouldn't be listened to got listened to.

[mcmanusaur]

The only point in including this "feature" is if there's a scenario in which the player is given reasonable motive to do so, such as in an intense quest choice. Otherwise for me this falls under "things the player has little valid reason for doing", along with seducing random men/women and defecating in the street. I don't believe anyone who is seriously concerned with immersion would be running around randomly killing children anyway. I'm sorry if this excludes some players' idea of "roleplaying", but I think that relevance can be just as importance as consistency, and for me roleplaying != a power fantasy for venting aggression.

 

it would be stupid if i decided to play a raving psychopath that kills anything that moves just because he can

 

Fixed that for you.

Edited September 27, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Sacred_Path]

Why do those of you who are in favor of killable children even want killable children in game in the first place?

Probably immersion purposes. You know, the same reason why you want towns that actually have buildings rather than a few NPC's standing out in the open.

[Fearabbit]

why should it be fine if i can kill the farmer and his wife and all his workers and animals for no reason, but unacceptable to be able to kill his son too? is it wrong to kill only if the victim is not an adult?

 

(I'm really growing allergic to this kind of question.)

No, it's not acceptable to kill the farmer and all the workers. And you're not supposed to. You can kill them all because you might want to kill one of them. The game doesn't allow you to do this because it wants you to go on a killing spree. Maybe you should think about why you want to kill all these NPCs and their children. Is there a reason for this? Or is it just for the lulz?

And yes, it's even less acceptable to kill their child. Because children embody innocence and vulnerability at the same time, and we have a natural, hardwired instinct to protect children, and because society (and most people living in it, minus the sociopaths) finds it morally reprehensible, period.

 

But why am I growing allergic to these questions? Because they're the standard questions that always come up in all these discussions about morality, and they're always completely beside the point. You can agree with me in that paragraph up there or not, but the point remains that society at large sees a difference, a huge difference, between killing children and killing adults, whether you find it logical or not (hint, it's not logical and it doesn't have to be - it's emotional and natural). And the point remains that video games can't allow themselves to include this kind of stuff anymore, which is why even GTA doesn't have children, like I said before. The point also remains that there are possibilities to put children in the game without triggering any political scandals while making the world believable and immersive - as long as you don't go on a psychopathic killing spree.

 

And also you completely missed the point of my list up there. The game allows me to be a thief, so why can't I break into a house in a certain way that would be possible in real life? Why can I pick the lock, but not smash the window? Why can I have a high-intelligence character but cannot go to university to finally discover quantum mechanics? Why can I kill adults but not kill children?

It's exactly the same kind of question and the answer is always the same: because there are good reasons. Not because it's logical. But because this is the only feasible way to make a game.

 

And yeah, I'd like to hear some answers to Karkarov's question, other than "because logically it should be possible" or "I want to play a psychopath".

Because you do have to try and kill children before you notice that you can't do it.

 

@JFSOCC: That's exactly what I said. They had brutal torture, but they stopped and said "okay but we can't allow the players to kill children".

Is that self-censorship? Are all video games since Fallout 2 self-censored and have lost their integrity? I don't think so. Because there was no need for that kind of feature at all.

 

@Sacred_Path: Yeah well. What I said. You instantly see when a town doesn't look right, but you have to try and kill a child to see that you can't. So why would you want to kill a child.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Fearabbit

[decado]

 

Get the European edition.

 

Edit: Also, what are you on about with Fallout? Not only could you harm them, you could get the child-killer perk!

The new Bethesda generation of Fallout. 

Although my version of Fallout 1 (on GOG) replaced all the children with dogs because GOG was stupid enough to sell the German edition. 

 

 

What?

 

I have the GOG version of both FO 1 and 2, and while I haven't cracked open 1 yet, the kids are there in FO 2.  That's weird.

[curryinahurry]

 

Why do those of you who are in favor of killable children even want killable children in game in the first place?

Probably immersion purposes. You know, the same reason why you want towns that actually have buildings rather than a few NPC's standing out in the open.

 

 

 

Let's consider the immersion aspect of this for a moment...

If you're a villager in the Dyrwood and the most valuable things you own are your family and your farm animals, and you see a group of well armed adventurer / mercenary types riding into your town, would you, even for a moment, consider leaving any of them in harms' way?  No, because it is likely that powerful looking strangers, even those that  may  look righteous, might bring problems ( and enemies) along with them.

 

Truth is, if immersion is what you want, when you head into most towns (at least until you've garnered some fame), most people would treat you and your party with a good deal of suspicion; that likely points to children out of harm's way and the capacity to only talk to the village leaders.  That could get tiresome very quickly.

Edited September 27, 2013 by curryinahurry