What do we know about children?

[Lephys]

A baby black dragon named Cuddles on the other hand will one day grow into a man eating lizard that spews acidic death at whim.  He will more than likely be a threat to me and chums if we ever cross paths at that time.  Odds are quite favorable that Cuddles will also at some point be quite the danger to civilized humanoid society in general if left to his own devices.  It may be circumspect for me to just take Cuddles down now before he is capable of putting up a more.... stringent opposition.  Because let's be honest, unless Cuddles is still in his egg he is in fact a danger to pretty much any human sized creature including me, even if he hatched "just now".

Sounds a bit like the "Look, aliens! They're probably going to be a threat... NUKE 'EM!" way of thinking.

 

Name one animal in existence that's INHERENTLY a danger to all other living things, just because it exists. Like, it's going to scour the earth and murder all it comes across. Why would dragons, just because they're fictitious, be any different? And if they're sapient, how would their threat probability differ at all from that of humans? Some would decide to be crappy, mean entities, and some would voluntarily strive to be splendid individuals.

 

I mean, if a human baby is born at 10 lbs, do we say "man, he's probably gonna grow up to be like 7-and-a-half feet tall, 280 lbs of pure muscle. If he decides to be a criminal, it's gonna take an awful lot of doing on the part of law enforcement to take him down. Threat level: ASSESSED! Cleared for termination!"?

 

That would be like... the opposite of Spartan policy.

[Dawn Quixotic]

 

Sounds a bit like the "Look, aliens! They're probably going to be a threat... NUKE 'EM!" way of thinking.

 

Name one animal in existence that's INHERENTLY a danger to all other living things, just because it exists. Like, it's going to scour the earth and murder all it comes across. Why would dragons, just because they're fictitious, be any different? And if they're sapient, how would their threat probability differ at all from that of humans? Some would decide to be crappy, mean entities, and some would voluntarily strive to be splendid individuals.

 

I mean, if a human baby is born at 10 lbs, do we say "man, he's probably gonna grow up to be like 7-and-a-half feet tall, 280 lbs of pure muscle. If he decides to be a criminal, it's gonna take an awful lot of doing on the part of law enforcement to take him down. Threat level: ASSESSED! Cleared for termination!"?

 

That would be like... the opposite of Spartan policy.

 

 

Burlew's argument in the thread centered on the idea that, regardless of logical justifications, there was still something iffy about killing a baby of sapient species, and that actually justifying it with the idea of "even at hatching it's as smart as a human adult and is a vicious hungry monster" itself is questionable.

 

And also the idea that, while it might be practical in real life (i.e. you might consider it okay to poison rat babies in real life to prevent spread of vermin), that including "kill the rat babies" as a specific quest is kind of... eh, just because it's fantasy entertainment.

Same with, if there was a sick puppy in the game and you had to euthanize it... something you'd have to do in real life, but including it as an in-game objective... would be pretty terrible.

 

 

PnP games are a bit different in that respect too, where, I would be more disapproving of players wanting to do stuff like that and would probably be, "not at my table".

[Walsingham]

I should like to repeat: children are baffling and wrong. These traits mean we must protect them with due care and attention. These traits also mean that adults should not have to spend any considerable time with children, unless they are trained and weird adults. Like nannies.

[septembervirgin]

They're small, some tend to be loud and noisy, others tend to be quiet and complacent.  Their behavior is eccentric at times.  They appear to feed on candy and fruit juices.

[argan]

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!

 

I think he might be talking about the non-Fallout Fallout games.

[Chairchucker]

Not reading all eight pages because... seriously...

 

I don't see what value having killable kids really adds. If it's for "BUT MY IMMERSION!!!!!" well here's a little trick I like to do:

I don't try to kill any kids and then as far as I know they're exactly as vulnerable as everyone else, oorah.

 

On the other hand, I can see downsides in terms of the rating of the game and the corresponding sales problems associated with having a higher rating that prevents some members of the population from legally purchasing this. I get the whole "BUT DON'T CENSOR YOURSELVES" thing but, is this really the thing you want to save from censorship? Child killing, really? Let's face it, Catcher in the Rye it ain't.

[Chairchucker]

PC is not the only source of damage and death. Your opponent tossing a fireball in a crowded area and then being beaten to death by a 6 year old cause it 1. turned hostile 2. is unbeatable is ridiculous design.

Well there's a few solutions to this that don't necessarily entail being able to kill that child!

[Malekith]

 

PC is not the only source of damage and death. Your opponent tossing a fireball in a crowded area and then being beaten to death by a 6 year old cause it 1. turned hostile 2. is unbeatable is ridiculous design.

Well there's a few solutions to this that don't necessarily entail being able to kill that child!

 

The only one i can imagine is not having children in the game at all. That would be the best solution if Obsidian somehow believes that having killable children in the game will result in a massive ****storm that instead of advertising will be detrimental to P:E sales. Having children in the game serves no purpose at all except for realism, which goes out of the window anyway if you make them unkillable. And to have children serve a dramatic purpose they should be able to die,suffer,tortured,whatever.

If they are just invulnurable puppets walking around, better to axe them completely. Problem solved.

[Chairchucker]

You can't imagine solutions to the problem of an immortal child turning hostile and killing someone? Perhaps you haven't given it enough thought. Perhaps instead of turning hostile and attacking the character, they could turn scared and run away.

[Malekith]

You can't imagine solutions to the problem of an immortal child turning hostile and killing someone? Perhaps you haven't given it enough thought. Perhaps instead of turning hostile and attacking the character, they could turn scared and run away.

Oh, i can imagine solutions to that. But that isn't the only problem for me. The simple fact that the kid survives the fireball is a prety big problem for me. Same if i hack it with a mace and it lives. Just take it out of the game completely. Nothing of value is lost.

If you want to dicurage players killing children, make it part of the narrative like Fallout did. You could kill the ****s, but then everyone hated you, more than half of the content of the game closed to you and bounty hunters came after you. That made killing them a big no no, unless you played a psychotic palythrough with the sole aim to kill every living thing in the game. That is a way more elegant solution.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Malekith

[Chairchucker]

If you want players not to kill children because the ability to kill them would alter the rating of the game, then simply disincentivising it won't quite do the trick. Making it impossible within the mechanics of the game might not be quite as 'elegant' a solution, but it will actually achieve what are likely to be the actual aims in not having child killing in the game.

[Malekith]

If you want players not to kill children because the ability to kill them would alter the rating of the game, then simply disincentivising it won't quite do the trick. Making it impossible within the mechanics of the game might not be quite as 'elegant' a solution, but it will actually achieve what are likely to be the actual aims in not having child killing in the game.

So will do simply not puting any children in the game.... with non of the complains.

 

 

But i don't believe having the game rated AO will affect the sales. Controvercial sells, and since PE will be mainly digital you won't have the stores' problem.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Malekith

[SophosTheWise]

 

 

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

 

 

 

   

 

_____

 

I don't care if children are in the game or not. But IF they are in the game I want to be able to kill them. Not because I particularly enjoy killing children, but because I think playing evil shouldn't be limited in a game. Also it's pretty hypocritical to be able to kill hundreds of people, burn them to ashes, usurp their soul, rob them an leave them naked in a forest but not to be able to kill a child. It's a game for god's sake.

Edited October 20, 2013 by SophosTheWise

[Malekith]

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

   

 

Not visceral enough. Needs more blood.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Malekith

[Malekith]

Oh, and Fallout, with children that can be killed in gory ways is still rated mature.

[Chairchucker]

It's also 16 years old, political climate has changed in that time. And it's got different ratings in different countries.

 

And none of the games that are available in shops near me that are rated R18+ have garnered any amount of controversy; they just can't be purchased by minors.

[Malekith]

It's also 16 years old, political climate has changed in that time. And it's got different ratings in different countries.

 

And none of the games that are available in shops near me that are rated R18+ have garnered any amount of controversy; they just can't be purchased by minors.

Then it is a moot point since PE will be mostly digital. Obsidian shouldn't give a **** ,if what you say it's true.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Malekith

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

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

 

 

 

   

 

_____

 

I don't care if children are in the game or not. But IF they are in the game I want to be able to kill them. Not because I particularly enjoy killing children, but because I think playing evil shouldn't be limited in a game. Also it's pretty hypocritical to be able to kill hundreds of people, burn them to ashes, usurp their soul, rob them an leave them naked in a forest but not to be able to kill a child. It's a game for god's sake.

 

Would you argue for the ability to molest children in the game? If no, why are you against limiting that evil?

[Death Machine Miyagi]

It's also 16 years old, political climate has changed in that time. And it's got different ratings in different countries.

 

And none of the games that are available in shops near me that are rated R18+ have garnered any amount of controversy; they just can't be purchased by minors.

 

Fallout and Fallout 2 removed the children when they were released in Europe, so that wouldn't be a change based on time.

 

I am curious as to the often-repeated-but-as-yet-unproven statement that, in the 16 years between now and Fallout 2, the political climate has shifted so badly that child killing in gaming is no longer possible without sending the non-gaming world into a frenzy of moral outrage. What are you basing this on? Can you provide a source or two at least? As it stands, it sounds like people just kind of assuming this is the case, even in a present reality where if anything games seems to have become more openly controversial than ever. 

[Malekith]

 

Would you argue for the ability to molest children in the game? If no, why are you against limiting that evil?

 

Only if they gave as the ability to molest anything. If we could molest men,women, animals and monsters, we should be able to molest children as well. If not, then children shouldn't be special in that regard. My immersion would break.

No so difirent with killable,unkillable actualy.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Malekith

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Would you argue for the ability to molest children in the game? If no, why are you against limiting that evil?

Only if they gave as the ability to molest anything. If we could molest men,women, animals and monsters, we should be able to molest children as well. If not, then children shouldn't be special in that regard. My immersion would break.

No so difirent with killable,unkillable actualy.

 

What about trees?

[Malekith]

 

 

Would you argue for the ability to molest children in the game? If no, why are you against limiting that evil?

Only if they gave as the ability to molest anything. If we could molest men,women, animals and monsters, we should be able to molest children as well. If not, then children shouldn't be special in that regard. My immersion would break.

No so difirent with killable,unkillable actualy.

 

What about trees?

 

If they have the budget, why not? Destructable  ****able environment. Next-gen feature. Suck it Bioware.

[SophosTheWise]

 

 

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

 

Would you argue for the ability to molest children in the game? If no, why are you against limiting that evil?

 

 

I don't think that's even relevant. Killing and fighting is a core mechanic of a battle-based game (well, duh, Captain Obvious), raping is not.

 

But honestly, I see no merit in censoring actions in a game. Not because of the whole anti-censor-hurr-durr, but because I believe that within games lie a big potential for reflective art. Just watch Spoony's review of Ultima VII and VIII, when he was kind of shocked that one could kill children. Also he was appalled by the general violence in these games, back then. It really is a powerful tool, an dyou can see that when suddenly you're thinking to yourself: "What the hell am I even doing?"

 

Art is and has to be controversial. Art is about stepping over lines, sometimes. It's about overcoming boundaries, provocating responses. It does not always have to be "good" in order to be of use.

 

In RPGs, look at Inquisitor where you could, as a core mechanic of interrogation, torture people. That spawned interesting discussions about torture in general, about the identification with characters (are you playing yourself or are you roleplaying a totally different character?). 

[Quetzalcoatl]

'They're not children, they're just dwarves and Orlans that behave immaturely.'

 

Problem solved.

 

In all honesty, the children in Project Eternity, if indeed killable, are probably made up of too little pixels to generate such controversy. A game with top-notch 3d graphics on the other hand...     

[Lephys]

Not reading all eight pages because... seriously...

 

I don't see what value having killable kids really adds. If it's for "BUT MY IMMERSION!!!!!" well here's a little trick I like to do:

I don't try to kill any kids and then as far as I know they're exactly as vulnerable as everyone else, oorah.

 

On the other hand, I can see downsides in terms of the rating of the game and the corresponding sales problems associated with having a higher rating that prevents some members of the population from legally purchasing this. I get the whole "BUT DON'T CENSOR YOURSELVES" thing but, is this really the thing you want to save from censorship? Child killing, really? Let's face it, Catcher in the Rye it ain't.

Ehh, methinks you're overlooking the fact that what's actually being "saved from censorship" is not child killing on the player's part, but child vulnerability. If a child cannot be harmed, then you cannot ever need to protect that child. You can't make difficult choices ("Do I focus fire to let that kid get out of the streets where battle is ensuing? Or do I just fireball it to go ahead and take out 5 of those orcs?").

 

What would be ridiculous is "I want the world to be populated with children whose vulnerability never amounts to anything in the gameplay/story besides my ability to flippantly decide to end them." But wanting kids to not be immune to danger is not the same thing as wanting to kill children.