Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Hahaha! That'd be really amazingly harsh. I wouldn't put it past Kojima, either. CQC it is, then.
Do you think children should be able to die in video games?
- Thread starter IHaveCandy
- Start date
Hahaha! That'd be really amazingly harsh. I wouldn't put it past Kojima, either. CQC it is, then.
ZacharyDCCLXXVII
Member
I can definitely see myself being a bit uneasy, all things considered; they're just kids, and in the context of the situation, they're brainwashed and forced to fight. I can see myself feeling horrific for that moment, but I don't think it'd be impacting on me in the long run.
I shouldn't have used the word "slaughter" in my first post here, nor should I have been so blunt in my second post either, that was my bad. Violence does make me uncomfortable, but there's many factors that I have for it. Detail, handling, all that. Even Perfect Dark on the N64's a bit startling to me, with some guards screaming/crying as they die, limping around, and crawling.
Truth, there are tranqs, but I'm reading from his example straight. Thinking about no tranquilizers being available, while cornered and screwed for time and planning.
And as for Manhunt, stated above, I've got many factors. The violence in Manhunt is enough to make me cringe and even stop playing, adding kids to that environment would just make it a complete "skip it" for me.
Honestly, when i saw the thread title i expected the OP to talk a bit about
.
But we've just reached 5 pages and i feel the thread hasn't evolved a bit. First page is just like the last: A lot of people say: "Yes of course" "I don't like invincible children, they're immersion breaking" or "They should be treated exactly like adults" and such, while others simply say they wouldn't like to have to do such a thing.
Narrative-centered child death is very cliche but can be really meaningful to players. We have a very recent example of that. I don't like games that are just a story of vengeance because "Those bastards killed my daughter" But i like the approach of
It's there to strengthen the main character of the game, and make you more attached to him.
I'm writing a script for a game i plan to do sometime in the far future. In this game, you have to PROTECT children against various threats and atrocities commited against them. You set out in various missions to do this. And yes, you can fail and they can die. However, since the main character has sworn to protect them, he will feel so guilty if he kills one that he will suicide, leading to mission failure. There is also some stealth approach to it, but let's just say if you have to save 4 children you may only be able to save 2 or 3 of them But if you kill one, intentionally or not, the protagonist will suicide. Thus, children CAN die, but not at the hands of the player. (Well thay can, but the game will punish you)
However, i would not have children in games ala GTA/Saints Row. If their deaths are with no meaning, just don't include them in the game. And don't say it's for realism sake. A game when you can kill litterally hundreds of people without any consequence is not realistic at all.
The Last of Us
But we've just reached 5 pages and i feel the thread hasn't evolved a bit. First page is just like the last: A lot of people say: "Yes of course" "I don't like invincible children, they're immersion breaking" or "They should be treated exactly like adults" and such, while others simply say they wouldn't like to have to do such a thing.
Narrative-centered child death is very cliche but can be really meaningful to players. We have a very recent example of that. I don't like games that are just a story of vengeance because "Those bastards killed my daughter" But i like the approach of
The Last of Us
I'm writing a script for a game i plan to do sometime in the far future. In this game, you have to PROTECT children against various threats and atrocities commited against them. You set out in various missions to do this. And yes, you can fail and they can die. However, since the main character has sworn to protect them, he will feel so guilty if he kills one that he will suicide, leading to mission failure. There is also some stealth approach to it, but let's just say if you have to save 4 children you may only be able to save 2 or 3 of them But if you kill one, intentionally or not, the protagonist will suicide. Thus, children CAN die, but not at the hands of the player. (Well thay can, but the game will punish you)
However, i would not have children in games ala GTA/Saints Row. If their deaths are with no meaning, just don't include them in the game. And don't say it's for realism sake. A game when you can kill litterally hundreds of people without any consequence is not realistic at all.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
CQC, then
MGS is probably a bad example as it is one of the few games out there with non-lethal options up the wazoo.
Also? That Manhunt thing was meant for a different thread! My bad! Heh.
Shadow Ranger
Member
We all know it would cause a storm, but then, I've questioning the lack of kids, old people and animals in GTA since Vice City (I was about 15!) It is senseless, but then you could argue it's one rule for one set, another rule for the other... I guess it's better not to. The world isn't ready and I doubt will ever be for non-contextual child deaths.
Also
.
Also
The Last of Us
You mean the world isn't ready for non-contextual child deaths in video games. In real life, it kinda happens every day.
Because taking things to an illogical extreme conclusion always makes them clearer.
Surely the bizarre extreme opposite of that is that we allow everything in games, they should be programmed to allow you to commit as many disgusting acts as you like. Where would be your personal line in the sand on what you think should be added to allow you to roleplay the character you like? How about rape, or paedophilia? Or is there perhaps a middle ground, where theft and murder against adults are seen as part-and-parcel of games when our stories and media have been fascinated with them for decades, and in a violent, unfair fantasy world (made by people living in this one) they can even occassionally be justified, but there are still some things that are just tasteless for the sake of being tasteless?
Sure, people make and watch torture-porn films like Hostel, but that title is made with shock in mind, and isn't for the mass audience games need to survive.
Treading that grey line between realism, comfort, empathy, shock and disgust makes for an interesting discussion, reductionism doesn't as everyone has their own personal line they won't cross. Accusing those whose line is a little less extreme than yours of prudishness is a bit unfair.
Probably not, sadly.
If any game introduces killing kids again it has to be GTA. Other developers would get pushed under a bus. GTA would be bigger than the controversy anyway
It's not even a big deal. Add them on the side walk like everybody else. Is anyone really gonna care if you can mow them down with a car?
EvilKatarn
Member
The last few years have brought us so many of these discussions and I have not seen a shift towards better games or a better industry. Maybe one that is mildly more inclusive, but that's it. Armchair critics arguing over topics like "The problematic portrayal of women in video games," "The state of female workers in the gaming industry," and this one won't lead us to better games as long as focus testers are used. Oh, and posing a question like "Do you think children should be able to die in video games?" is inherently harmful to the discussion that the OP, I think, was trying to bring forth. There's always the people who see themselves standing on a higher moral ground than their opponents and will go calling anyone who disagrees with them misogynists, racists or paedophiles which I'm getting sick and tired of and should be a bannable offense.
Yeah, the post you quoted was a joke. It was not an outcry to satisfy my apparent thirst for children murder simulators. Sure, I harbor no particularly positive feelings towards children, but that's quite an accusation to throw on anyone who doesn't think that the state of dead kids in video games is currently harmful in any way. Because it's not unless you delve into modding I guess. But there's always going to be those risks when modders are involved and I'm not going to hold making a game moddable against the developer.
Treading the grey line? First I need to know if Kojima is a sick murderer for putting kids into MGS V.
Ravensmash
Member
Can it be important for a story driven experience? Absolutely.
Is it necessary for a game like GTAV or Skyrim? Nope.
Is it necessary for a game like GTAV or Skyrim? Nope.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Limbo comes to mind.
XANDER CAGE
Member
That one Triad kid has it coming.
Well, to be fair, I'm sick of people dismissing any kind of limits placed on games for whatever reason as 'politically correct nonsense' in a bid to show how unshockable they are. Perhaps you could have made clear it was a joke, as it really is something incredibly common and tedious, and quite tiring after I put several posts up trying to find some kind of balance before being dismissed with two lines of type.
My response was clearly a ridiculous bizarre extreme opposite to your ridiculous bizarre extreme post. I'm not accusing you or anyone else of being anything unsavoury in the real world at all, I was just genuinely interested to know where you thought the line should be drawn for roleplayers actions in games, if at all. There was a post on here last week showing a fallout character where someone had played them as a paedophile. I didn't find it that funny. Apologies, but really I should have said 'if there are no limits at all, where would your personal line in the sand be to allow people to play the character they want to' instead.
With regard to MGS, I have no problem with child death as a narrative. I might find it tasteless, but then if its necessary for the story, so what. The boundary for me is that I don't really see what it really adds as an option for random player violence, in comparison to it making some people uncomfortable and the inevitable shitstorm around games whenever something like it gets flagged up in the papers. The gains don't seem to outweigh the negatives.
As for posing the question, I merely repeated the thread title. If that is harmful to the thread, then clearly the title is also at odds with the discussion the OP wants.
But anyway, thanks for the counter-points, food for thought.
Vorg
Banned
This is terrible. I liked Heavy Rain, but some moments are just so badly written or acted... Not as bad as Fahrenheit, but still.
Metro Last Light have a part where bandits treaten to do something to a women and his girl, and I suppose you are supposed to think its rape, since 5 min before you save a girl that was about to be raped.
You have the option to either go save or not save them, but going to save a women and his daughter yelling "Please, let my children go! Please!" had a pretty heavy sentimental impact. I wanted to save them. Saving the mom was feeling good, but saving a kid was way higher.
So yes. Childs should be able to die, suffer, being tortured or even raped in video games. We should not put a difference between Games and movies. There is a whole range of cinema about child abuse, child rape and child torture.
I do not see why Games cant go this way either. Any artistic medium is as capable to pass a message.
You have the option to either go save or not save them, but going to save a women and his daughter yelling "Please, let my children go! Please!" had a pretty heavy sentimental impact. I wanted to save them. Saving the mom was feeling good, but saving a kid was way higher.
So yes. Childs should be able to die, suffer, being tortured or even raped in video games. We should not put a difference between Games and movies. There is a whole range of cinema about child abuse, child rape and child torture.
I do not see why Games cant go this way either. Any artistic medium is as capable to pass a message.
Isn't there a difference between watching something in a cut scene and being able to take such actions in a game world to make such scenes happen? Am I being unreasonable in finding the first OK and the second quite horrible?
The_Endgamer
Member
Children can be little bastards but arbitrarily killing them by default in video games is pretty wrong and doesn't really serve a purpose.
In a pivotal moment yes. If it's a definite strong choice yes.
However as a default to have children murdered by my character on screen is a bit heavy so i would ask "Is it necessary?"
If not, scrap it, it's shit and it's honestly a thing that psychos might get something out of. eww.
In a pivotal moment yes. If it's a definite strong choice yes.
However as a default to have children murdered by my character on screen is a bit heavy so i would ask "Is it necessary?"
If not, scrap it, it's shit and it's honestly a thing that psychos might get something out of. eww.
Like most say, why not?
It's a video game.
How is stalking, murdering, mass murdering etc. acceptable but this isn't? Simply because they are kids? It's a video game, it's not real life.
It's a video game.
Why is it ok that we can do the same thing to adults in game?
How is stalking, murdering, mass murdering etc. acceptable but this isn't? Simply because they are kids? It's a video game, it's not real life.
In Metro Last Light, it was not a cutscene, well not really. You walked pass a train and heard the women screaming Help while the bandit said "Come on! Open those legs" while laughing with his buddies around him. You have a choice to help them or not. You can stand there and listen to her scream if you want.
I do not say that we need Child murder simulators, I'm also not saying anything against, I'm saying that while on movies, seeing a child is sad and dark, in a game it can give you feelings you never felt in a game before.
Fallout 3 had the option to sell a child to slavery. You could go to the child city, trick a girl into coming with you and go give the girl to a slaver girl. First thing the slaver said is "Hey there, here try this steel necklace" .
And if you go to the slaver town, you can see the girl being used as slave there.
Its a pretty profound feeling. You have the choice of either help or not help or even actively work against a child.
Let say you play a FPS, you shoot people left and right. Then some family pass. You only see a women and a father. Since they move on screen, you shoot them. They die. But then you realize that the mother had a baby or even a 4-5 yo child in her arms. The child is also dead.
The couple was not armed, and you killed them for "fun", dont you think that seeing that you also killed an innocent child, might help you reflect on your actions and push you toward not killing civilians for fun?
Also, "psycho" will use anything and get a kick out of it. Hell, there is a whole story in Fallout 3 about a guy playing a pedophile who die of radioactive poisoning because he drank from a toilet where a child went.
Interesting. I like having the choice of not helping- that doesn't bother me at all, not getting involved is a rational response, even if you are the best-placed person to do so. I suppose Fallout is such a crapsack world with slavery so normalised and worked into the quest chain that, as 'evil' options go, it's pretty heinous but not thaaaat bad as at least she survives. Fallout tends to have such a dark sense of humour that the whole situation could have been written for the punchline.
No, not really. Murder is still murder, no matter the age of the victim, I get that. But there's a reason the murder of children is seen as especially heinous, it's not a logical response, it's an emotional one.
Perhaps something at the back of our minds manages to justify killing adults somehow- 'he had a gun', 'she had a gem I wanted', 'if I had let them live they could hurt me', but it's really hard to allow even that shaky justification for whacking children.
That reasoning leads down to 'where is the cut-off point for child/adult', I suppose.
That doesn't matter. Poor and crude executions of kids in videogames are inevitable before we can get something "good" from breaking said taboo. Same goes for everything else.
Depend. Imagine where you have the choice of killing a 25 yo virgin girl who work for charity and help everything around her, versus killing a 7 yo child who kill people with a AK47, laugh while torturing them.
Dont you think that killing the child is a better choice than the adult? At what age is a child not a child? Is it really about age, or more about the things he know and have done?
Difficult questions to answer, and why I would err on the side of caution when making video games.
The_Endgamer
Member
The thing is that killing a fellow adult in a game whom is set up as antagonistic toward you is totally okay, it is within a certain boundary of kill or be killed. That can extend to the environment. Like in GTA where you don't necessarily whether that person is a target but might as well kill them if you can, just to make sure. It reflects the world of the GTA protagonist in very real and gritty terms. A child however is not as much of a threat so is entirely different.
Of course it's not a blanket rule, the Call of Duty airport level was one of the most visceral moments i've had in a game (certainly in a shooter) BUT it worked because it was a definite choice that would impact the player psychologically, it wasn't just another npc herd roaming around. They were there to serve the progression of the story and to psychologically impact the player. (at least for the 1st time)
Except for
those kids you kill if you blow up Megaton
I don't see a problem with it. In games like Fallout 3 and GTA, I'd rather they not be there at all rather than be invulnerable. If they are, program them the same way as everyone else. Specifying is just silly.
In MGSV's case, I'd actually really like there to be a mission where they fight you. It's some extremely impactful stuff, and it fits the tone of the game. If it improves storytelling and writing in games in that way, I'm all for it.
In MGSV's case, I'd actually really like there to be a mission where they fight you. It's some extremely impactful stuff, and it fits the tone of the game. If it improves storytelling and writing in games in that way, I'm all for it.
Ravensmash
Member
Yes, it's because they are children.
In the same way that films and other mediums don't tend to show gratuitous violence to children.
I would prefer them to not go the caution way and simply do what they want. The ESRB is there for that. If the game is really too much for the standard of the ESRB, they will put it as an Adult or Mature game.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
...or dogs.
Yes, in fact I would applaud it, because only then can we start questioning wtf games have gotten to.
But isn't people doing what they want what we already have? People are complaining that player characters can't kill kids in games- that is what is being made, and that appears to be what devs want to make, as some players would prefer to be able to hurt child npcs where devs don't allow them to.
I agree with the sentiment that indestructible kids should be made to be less annoying- certainly walking into the player and repeating dialogue is something that could be looked at, I've definitely killed NPCs for less in the past.
Red Liquorice
Member
If there is a need for it within the gameplay/story mechanic.
What story/gameplay mechanic would you create where the player kills children? Not sure I need to play that game.
What story/gameplay mechanic would you create where the player kills children? Not sure I need to play that game.
It would create a huge controversy I bet. See what hot coffee provoked? It didn't even show anything, only suggested. Them puritans will cry over it forever.
Is not like "I need it", believe I don't, but blocking/censuring creative work because of moral values is a regression in the this industry, that now (but not always) allow (for those who can put up with) blood (remember MK1 for Mega Drive), shameless sex (The Witcher 2), and killing anybody (GTA series).
In the end this is a work of fiction, just like a movie. My wife does not watch LoTR because she was afraid of Orcs and does not like Game of Thrones because of the violence. But still she enjoy playing New Mario Bros and watching New Girl.
Again, if you don't like don't play.
Hot coffee is about sexual act in a adult video game. Americans have a lot of problem with Sex and sex education. Killing on the other hand is way more appreciated and is not really a controversy. American react strongly to sex issues not so much to violence.
we.are.the.armada
Member
Yep, because if that's the story that the creators want to tell, so be it. Why should anybody be held back by the sensitivities of society? I think that some of the best stories are the ones that are told without any restrictions or pretenses to cover them up.
Well, you do love Bioware
Well, you do love Bioware
I can see where allowing the player to harm them would be a hot-button issue that really wouldn't play well in the media and isn't worth tackling.
Invincible or not, though, more videogames could stand to acknowledge that children simply exist within their world. Far too many games just excise kids altogether, or have 1 or 2 related to the story but none elsewhere.
Invincible or not, though, more videogames could stand to acknowledge that children simply exist within their world. Far too many games just excise kids altogether, or have 1 or 2 related to the story but none elsewhere.
Fallout 3 had a city made entirely of kids below 13. The moment they hit puberty, they were cast away from the city. They were armed, dangerous and sadly, invincible. You could kill anybody else in the game, except those kids. That's Ageism. If they allowed child killing, I'm sure that decisions would be more difficult.
Again, 'don't like it, don't play' is a pointless argument, as I'm talking about Fallout and Skyrim, where violence towards children isn't really possible without modding- my preferred way of playing them already exists. Seeing as we are both happy to play them that way, it's cool.
You are trying to move this onto a platform of censorship, but that doesn't work if its the devs themselves that are not including this stuff.
If we are talking at cross-purposes here, and you think I object to Metal Gear, then it's fine as far I'm concerned- child-death as part of a narrative is something I'm OK with.
Because people find it disturbing.
And until people do not find it disturbing ( which probably isn't going to happen lets be real here) that is kind of it.
Thing is, as soon as you include them but give them immunity to the player actions they arguably become bigger suspension of disbelief breakers than if they aren't there at all.
That's a poor argument. There are tons of games like horror games for example, that are disturbing, perfectly tolerated and actually benefit from being disturbing.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll