What do we know about children?

[Sacred_Path]

@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.

Because it might give XP?

 

 

@curry If you were the mayor of a humble town, would you live in a feudal villa? There's no argument about what contributes to someone's immersion and what doesn't other than your subjective preferences.

 

But an argument can be made for children being in the game simply because children are an explanation for the NPC's that are already there. Or do you want to argue against the presence of NPC's in RPG's?

Edited September 27, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Failion]

 If there was a cute girl companion. Everyone on the internet which consists of 90 percent of registered sexual offenders will notice the game and sales would skyrocket.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

 

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.

 

Those kids who exploded into bloody giblet chunks when you unloaded on them with a minigun in Fallout 2 were decidedly non-abstract, or at least not much more so than I expect any potential kids in P:E will be. And if the media can accept beating old women to death with baseball bats and the like in M rated games nowadays, I'm pretty sure they aren't going to raise appreciable hell over killable kids in a non-mainstream title aimed almost entirely at old school gamers, at least if (as with BG2 or Fallout) its not a major part of the game; they just die when you hurl a fireball at them, like anything else. 

 

As for the notion of your character refusing to kill kids, that idea makes my skin crawl just reading it. Hopefully they excise kids from the game altogether before taking such an obnoxious, preachy attitude and essentially lecturing the player through the character for trying to do really evil things.

[Amentep]

 

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.

 

 

But you can't destroy those building either, usually.  Or the trees.  Or poison the watering hole or invite the dragon for tea.

 

You can't forgo all of that "questing" stuff and become a lint farmer in the Dryer-wood and live a happy life where you never ever fight or go anywhere.

 

At some point the realization that its a game matters, I think.

 

 

If there was a cute girl companion. Everyone on the internet which consists of 90 percent of registered sexual offenders will notice the game and sales would skyrocket.

Didn't help Alpha Protocol...

[Death Machine Miyagi]

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

 

Because I find the implicit viewpoint underlying flagging kids as invulnerable obnoxious. I don't mind having no kids at all and I don't mind having kids who can die. I do mind when a game is apparently so contemptuous of its audience that it thinks it has to protect them from seeing and doing morally objectionable things, even when it makes gameplay come across as absurd. 

[AGX-17]

Do I dare say Obsidian even developed a child companion?

[John Forseti]

 

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

 

Because I find the implicit viewpoint underlying flagging kids as invulnerable obnoxious. I don't mind having no kids at all and I don't mind having kids who can die. I do mind when a game is apparently so contemptuous of its audience that it thinks it has to protect them from seeing and doing morally objectionable things, even when it makes gameplay come across as absurd. 

 

 

I kind of agree with this position. Either put them like any other NPC, or just don't put them in at all.

[Sacred_Path]

But you can't destroy those building either, usually.  Or the trees.  Or poison the watering hole or invite the dragon for tea.

 

You can't forgo all of that "questing" stuff and become a lint farmer in the Dryer-wood and live a happy life where you never ever fight or go anywhere.

 

At some point the realization that its a game matters, I think.

You're ignoring the point where I said that you can kill NPC's. So what exactly is the reasoning why you can't kill children? Do you really see a logical leap required here?

[Lephys]

Honestly, if the game ALLOWS you to go on a killing spree, I think there's nothing wrong with that. You want immersion, and you want to actually go on a killing spree? Cool. Now everyone who knows about this hates you, and hunts you down. You can't complete the game, and you live out the rest of your life on the run from society as a whole. All your companions turn on you and/or try to murder you in your sleep. No "Game Over - Reload?" or anything. Just "I hope you saved some time ago, and actually go through the game NOT as a complete psychopath."

 

I see no reason to leave children out of that awesome dose of immersion.

 

Also, I second the idea of there sometimes being a reason to kill a child. Like... if some child is a magical prodigy, and he just becomes some kind of tyrant/murderer or something. Or some demon possesses a child, and you have no choice.

 

No, I don't think the game should reward you in any way for killing a child for child-killing's sake. But, a child COULD be a threat. Especially in a fantasy world.

 

But, yeah, if people want immersion, then they'll have fun when the NPC society shuns them for all of eternity for arbitrarily killing a kid for no reason at all.

[Walsingham]

I know that Fallout 3 made them invulnerable, in an attempt to prevent wanting to hurt children. But that mechanic simply made me want to explode children. I blew Megaton up just to get the smug little bastards.

[Tsuga C]

I understand why Obsidian might make children and other NPCs invulnerable, but it always sticks in my craw when the party ends up in a battle in the middle of town--fire, cold, lightning, & acid aplenty--and no one but the direct combatants ends up dead. I concur with Lephys' post on the first page: let everyone be vulnerable and let there be consequences if you're seen doing something dastardly.

[rjshae]

To me a reasonable course would be to have a deity that wreaks torturous vengeance upon wanton child slayers. Go ahead and let the children be slain in the game, then have an appropriate nastiness visited upon the player's PC at a later stage. As long as there is a clear connection between the two, then it can fit within the framework of the game and will make clear the abhorrent nature of the act inside the pantheon's morale structure.

[Amentep]

 

But you can't destroy those building either, usually.  Or the trees.  Or poison the watering hole or invite the dragon for tea.

 

You can't forgo all of that "questing" stuff and become a lint farmer in the Dryer-wood and live a happy life where you never ever fight or go anywhere.

 

At some point the realization that its a game matters, I think.

You're ignoring the point where I said that you can kill NPC's. So what exactly is the reasoning why you can't kill children? Do you really see a logical leap required here?

 

 

It doesn't matter; its a video game which has to have a fairly well defined operational parameters.  There will always be arbitrary things you can't do because they're outside of the scope of the game.  I see no particular reason to treat one arbitrary thing you can't do from a different arbitrary thing you can't do.

 

But then I really don't give a crap about having all the NPC's killable in the first place (unless the game in question is a serial killer simulator, in which case that would be entirely within the scope of the game)

Edited September 27, 2013 by Amentep

[Lephys]

Yeah, I mean, as horrible as child-killing is labeled by society, I don't think the sheer ability for virtual adolescents to die in a game in any way encourages players of the game to bring about that death. I mean, if they are simply invulnerable, then when would you ever need to PROTECT them from, say... the orcish onslaught? So, by sheerly removing their mortality, you're removing scenarios that even allow for the bolstering of the idea of preserving child life above all else. Then, what if you simply can't hurt them, but the enemy can? Well, there's nothing to stop you from leading crazy orcs into the streets of the town, and intentionally luring them over near children, so that while they kill everything in their path, they kill the children.

 

The other alternative, of course, is to simply have no children in the game, whatsoever. And/or arbitrarily exclude them from any and all hostile scenarios that could ever arise. But, that's even worse than having them around, and simply making them invulnerable, in some ways. *shrug*

[mcmanusaur]

There's no argument about what contributes to someone's immersion and what doesn't other than your subjective preferences.

 

I disagree. While many things might potentially contribute to immersion for different people, certain forms of immersion are irrelevant to particular games. Furthermore, I think people are pretty biased and incongruous in terms of which "immersive" features they request; specifically these tend to be things that increase the player's agency. I believe this ultimately stems from the "limitless wish fulfillment" approach to immersion, and- while agency is certainly important and lack thereof can definitely break immersion- there are other concerns in creating immersion. These include both consistency and coherence, and also balancing the player's agency in proportion to that of other entities in the world.

 

But an argument can be made for children being in the game simply because children are an explanation for the NPC's that are already there. Or do you want to argue against the presence of NPC's in RPG's?

 

Non sequitur.

 

Edited September 27, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[mcmanusaur]

You want immersion, and you want to actually go on a killing spree? Cool. Now everyone who knows about this hates you, and hunts you down. You can't complete the game, and you live out the rest of your life on the run from society as a whole. All your companions turn on you and/or try to murder you in your sleep. No "Game Over - Reload?" or anything. Just "I hope you saved some time ago, and actually go through the game NOT as a complete psychopath."

 

I see no reason to leave children out of that awesome dose of immersion.

What kind of person actually enjoys "roleplaying" a serial killer though, beyond the power trip aspect (and is that something that is really worth encouraging)? And how much effort has to go into making the consequences of such actions immersive? Do the people who want to be able to go on child-murdering sprees really even care about how realistic the consequences are, or do they just care about their character having as much agency as possible? I'm not convinced.

 

You know what I really wish? I wish that there was an extremely graphic and twisted game whose purpose was to immerse the player in the role of a serial killer, and to allow players to do all sorts of terrible things. Maybe then the people who want to do that can just play the relevant game, and we wouldn't have so many people requesting these things as features in like every other game to appease their wish fulfillment power trip.

 

Also, I second the idea of there sometimes being a reason to kill a child. Like... if some child is a magical prodigy, and he just becomes some kind of tyrant/murderer or something. Or some demon possesses a child, and you have no choice.

 

No, I don't think the game should reward you in any way for killing a child for child-killing's sake. But, a child COULD be a threat. Especially in a fantasy world.

But would that be a unique quest-related NPC, or a more-or-less generic child NPC? If I recall correctly this question is mainly about the latter, though I would have no problem with the former being kill-able. I have no problem with allowing players to kill characters who there is a conceivable motive for killing, child or not, and I actually do have a problem with children being invulnerable to damage from traps, monsters, or other NPCs. Sure, that can probably be abused/exploited, but at least this way mindless serial killing isn't paraded under the guise of "immersion"/"roleplaying".

Edited September 27, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Ugh, Children. Glad I never was one...

 

In all seriousness, I might be in a minority here, but I've never been a fan of rpgs like this letting you go on a random killing spree, against adults or children. It's taken pretty much as assumed that the PC is, if not actually sane, at least to some degree functional, and not likely to randomly (ie. purely by player choice, not for Reasons Of Plot). To me, it seems to hurt immersion more if it is even conceivable for the messianic defender of truth, justice, and the Dyrwoodian Way to randomly go Anders Breivik on the innocent townsfold, than if it isn't, whether children have reentry-grade plot armour or not. If there are massacres taking place at PC hands, there should be an in-story justification for them.

 

On a side note, you could do a bit with varying definitions of child. For example, in A Song of Ice and Fire, Sansa is considered a woman grown and fit to be married at the age of thirteen. Maybe the Aedyr Empire considers anyone who's undergone puberty as an adult, and are shocked and outraged when the Vailans start stringing up Aedyr officers for using `child soldiers`.

[Lephys]

Cursed text tone. I fear you mistook mine in that first bit, McManusaur. My point was along the lines of "You can jump off a cliff in a game, and you get a 'game over.'" Why is this? Because that act renders playing the rest of the game impossible. Floating around as a ghost for the rest of the narrative would sort of prevent you from getting much of anything done.

 

So, yeah... I can't really think of how to eloquently word it, at the moment, but I was basically trying to point out how, even if people "get their immersion," I don't think it's really anything they'll want.

 

Ehh, it's sort of like how those games with ultra-clever DRM do things. If you pirate the game, you get to play it, but the game basically screws you over (deletes your save and ends your game just before the end, randomly "glitches" so that various attacks instantly kill you for no reason at all, etc.).

 

I dunno, though. There is some sense in "IF everyone else is killable for absolutely no reason at all, why not children?", from a functionality standpoint. It's not like it'd be extra effort to make children killable, as they're already in the category of NPC people, who are assumedly already killable. Now, if NPCs aren't attackable/killable under any and all circumstances, then children also wouldn't have a reason to be.

 

Basically, I agree with "why would anyone really need to be able to be a serial child-killer just to reinforce their immersion?" But, at the same time, I don't see much of a leap between children and adults, there. The slaughtering of random, innocent people -- child or adult -- is equally as senseless in such a game. Even when you adhere to immersion, the result is a functional "game over," even if the game were to continue on and allow you to keep playing.

[mcmanusaur]

Cursed text tone. I fear you mistook mine in that first bit, McManusaur. My point was along the lines of "You can jump off a cliff in a game, and you get a 'game over.'" Why is this? Because that act renders playing the rest of the game impossible. Floating around as a ghost for the rest of the narrative would sort of prevent you from getting much of anything done.

 

So, yeah... I can't really think of how to eloquently word it, at the moment, but I was basically trying to point out how, even if people "get their immersion," I don't think it's really anything they'll want.

 

I actually did pick up on your direction there... well, sort of. I chose to quote you anyway because I think you conveniently articulated a lot of what I was addressing. My post was more my reaction to what you were discussing, than my reaction to the argument you were making.

 

I dunno, though. There is some sense in "IF everyone else is killable for absolutely no reason at all, why not children?", from a functionality standpoint. It's not like it'd be extra effort to make children killable, as they're already in the category of NPC people, who are assumedly already killable. Now, if NPCs aren't attackable/killable under any and all circumstances, then children also wouldn't have a reason to be.

 

Basically, I agree with "why would anyone really need to be able to be a serial child-killer just to reinforce their immersion?" But, at the same time, I don't see much of a leap between children and adults, there. The slaughtering of random, innocent people -- child or adult -- is equally as senseless in such a game. Even when you adhere to immersion, the result is a functional "game over," even if the game were to continue on and allow you to keep playing.

I can agree with the idea that there shouldn't be some magic age cut-off that determines whether an NPC is able to be attacked or not; I just don't think there's much valid reason to include the option of attacking someone for whom there is no motive for the player to attack beyond "for the hell of it".

[LadyCrimson]

I'm personally not into roleplaying child/mass innocent murders, so I wouldn't take advantage of it even if it's in the game. Outside of quests that involve kids in some way, I also don't care if there are pointless decoration-flavor kids wandering about town. I'd prefer if child-death was only quest related, as in making a decision during the quests that would/would not involve that result in some fashion.

 

That said, I'd be all for the ability to slap any scripted to be annoying kids, especially if it made them cry and run away and never pester me again.

 

Oh and ... I personally can't stand it when a game gives you "child killer" type negative status when you accidentally harm some idiot decoration-kid who blithely jiggs into your line of fire when a bunch of mages script-ambush you in the center of town where such mindless npc's roam everywhere. Because I don't consider that fair or reasonable in terms of gameplay (the auto-negative status).

[Lephys]

I actually did pick up on your direction there... well, sort of. I chose to quote you anyway because I think you conveniently articulated a lot of what I was addressing. My post was more my reaction to what you were discussing, than my reaction to the argument you were making.

Ahh. My mistake.

 

I can agree with the idea that there shouldn't be some magic age cut-off that determines whether an NPC is able to be attacked or not; I just don't think there's much valid reason to include the option of attacking someone for whom there is no motive for the player to attack beyond "for the hell of it".

I agree. Strangely enough, however, it almost seems like there's a difference here between the lack of inclusion of an option (like... you can't just run around destroying all objects in the world) and the active exclusion of an option. For clarification, I merely think that, if NPCs are killable for no reason at all, then kids shouldn't be excluded. If you want to exclude kids, why not exclude all innocent humanoids? Then it'll be just like objects in the world. You can't just burn down forests and smash walls, but you might be able to burn CERTAIN things, and smash CERTAIN walls, when there's any shred of a reason to.

 

Another thing to clarify (mainly for the discussion at large, and not as prompted by anything you said) is that having a reason to kill someone doesn't mean the game either makes the obvious choice to kill this person or it doesn't. If there's a situation in which there's a probability that someone is not who they say they are, and is lying to you about stuff, and is planning on harming someone else who is innocent, that provides a reason for your character to kill that person, as opposed to absolutely no reason for your character's psychotic behavior. Now, you could still act before you knew everything, and end up killing an innocent. But you killed them for a reason. You just weren't very smart about it, and/or didn't care much. Maybe your character just overly trusts the word of certain people, so that someone's claim that person is really bad was reason enough. *shrug*

 

Just wanted to point that out, so that no "wait, only people you're supposed to kill will be killable? That denies an awful lot of scenarios and messes up immersion!" arose.

[curryinahurry]

@ Sacred Path

 

The point I was trying to make (with a belly full of rye whiskey I might add), was that if the designers are putting children in the game for immersion, then extending the logic becomes a matter of managing resources weighed against believe-ability of any given situation in which one might encounter them.    

 

I'm not against kill-able npc's, adult or children, especially if they are collateral damage in a fight.  But if they are made vulnerable, then the design team need to account for reasonable repercussions of such actions.  then it becomes a matter of, to paraphrase Mcmanusar, how far should they go vis a vis player agency and how should this be treated in game.  To be done to the standards found in the rest of the game and accounting for factions, this may turn into a great deal of additional work for the benefit of only those hardcore players that want this type of game-world responsiveness.

[AGX-17]

It should go without saying that there's something of a problem with people who are primarily focused on the issue of whether or not they'll be able to go on a child-killing spree (in lieu of a child molesting then killing spree, I assume,) in any given RPG.

 

On a side note, you could do a bit with varying definitions of child. For example, in A Song of Ice and Fire, Sansa is considered a woman grown and fit to be married at the age of thirteen.

That's a traditional prehistoric/pre-civilization/pre-20th century concept. Nobles in Þe olde tymes had their kids in arranged marriages for political gain all the time. In most, if not all, cultures prior to the 20th century, successfully passing puberty was the only prerequisite for being considered an "adult," especially in the case of females. It wasn't until the mid-20th that the concept of a "teenager" as a distinct phase of biological and social development came into being.

Edited September 28, 2013 by AGX-17

[decado]

I was going to respond to this thread, but the response became so long it turned into a blog post.

 

http://thegwumps.blogspot.com/

 

tl;dr, the "Immersion Argument" is dumb.  Immersion is broken all the time, and done so more egregiously than in a failure to include killable kids.  It is a social/political minefield, and if any developer wants to avoid it I think we should respect the decision.  Clamoring on and on about how you want to be able to kill kids in the game makes you look sick in the head.

[Iucounu]

It should go without saying that there's something of a problem with people who are primarily focused on the issue of whether or not they'll be able to go on a child-killing spree (in lieu of a child molesting then killing spree, I assume,) in any given RPG.

If I throw 3 fireballs into a crowd of people, and there are still children running around after that, that just annoys me to no end, sorry.