Support NeoGAF

[fluffydelusions]

Sure. Happens in movies and real life

 

[PetriP-TNT]

I don't see why not as long as they're dehumanized. There aren't even zombie children in anything, but Silent Hill got away with the Grey Children.

Umm, no they didn't. (in EU)

And I am OK with killing children

 

[Rubius]

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.

The devs, mostly do not include it because they are afraid of the backlash. Fallout 1 included Child killing but had to make a patch to make them invincible. Carmageddon had to remove the killing of people with cars.
Devs are censored and have to develop from the ground up with this. If you say "Child Killing is okay" then they can create quests, events and other stuff with dangerous childs. Hell, at worst, they could put it in the menu "Do you want to see content where childs may or may not be killed. Yes or No.
Bam.

 

[Yoshi]

My girlfriend stopped playing Mario Galaxy immediately when she had to kill that baby plant boss enemy, saying she cannot play a game where she needs to kill babies, so, while I don't care how old the enemies in games are, some people might be disturbed by this.

 

[Vic20]

When it serves to promote the story in a meaningful way, yes.

 

[Rubius]

Sure. Happens in movies and real life

Life is way more horrible place than any video game we could make.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I just remembered: A friend of mine said he won't ever play the Halo series because shooting the Covenant Grunts is too much like shooting children.

Bless.

 

[dezzy8]

They die in movies. Why not video games, especially if the video games are marketed towards a Mature audience. I don't think that a child should be able to die in a Teen rated game or below though.

 

[babuchy]

The children, unfortunately, die in real life... Why not in videogames??

 

[redcrayon]

The devs, mostly do not include it because they are afraid of the backlash

I take it you don't think such backlash would be reasonable given how strongly people feel about it, or that devs may not wish to include it for their own reasons?

Hell, at worst, they could put it in the menu "Do you want to see content where childs may or may not be killed. Yes or No.
Bam.

Fair enough, I agree with that.

 

[Village]

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.

2 things, I am indifferent on the matter so it the argument may be poor, I am just keeping in 100%


dos

Your argument is a bit poor that would could argue, what makes horror ... horror. Then one could argue the context of the childrens death.


I am one who feels bad about killing innocents in games, like all of them. You ever play halo, you are murdering brain washed aliens in a religious cult, shit is kinda disturbing, If it wasn't for their space pope, they might be ok people.

 

[Akira_83]

imagine those euphoria physics?

like if in GTA IV some pedestrians were women with strollers, i would find it humorous to hit the strollers and hear a screaming baby go flying through the air. being able to squish them under my tires, etc

it would be totally optional

just like no one forces you to kill all those random peds...

 

[Kelegacy]

Yeah, I won't say I actively hope it happens, but I also won't care if it does happen. The way people put childrens lives as 100x more important than that of someone who is 18 and older is stupid anyways.

Children ARE more important. It is also about protecting their innocence while adults usually have lost theirs long before. Protecting that innocence is one of the most important duties we have as a society.

If you ever have children, you will change your world outlook regarding kids...at least I hope so for their sake.

If games want to kill children it is their prerogative as an art form. Just like having women as princesses needing to be saved instead of caving to feminists to change that. It is their right as creators to do what they want. You have to be careful how you handle it though, as the industry is already incredibly immature and we don't need another excuse to be taken as twisted 12 year olds.

 

[RionaaM]

Deus Ex 1

Honestly, I think so.

I was surprised when I found out I could kill a child in that game. It's actually more believable when I'm not presented with invincible children, that's for sure.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

One could in turn argue that a person who hasn't seen anything has less to lose in the event of dying, and thus less tragic. My main point was that a kid that is 12 being killed vs one that is 18 is a stupid thing to debate, both lives have comparable value in my eyes, but the detachment people have when it comes to killing a young adult shouldn't be acceptable if the same doesn't apply to killing a child. I know if I blew an innocent persons head off in real life it would definitely screw with me emotionally, child or 20 year old.

I don't feel bad when I kill characters in GTA because well, they are not only fake, but make no attempt at coming off as real people, they are just annoying obstacles in the way of my vehicle, so why should a shorter 'younger' model really matter? Will people break down in tears after running over little Timmy vs the 30 people they just blew up on a bus?

preach

 

[Baleoce]

Happens in real life, happens in movies. Don't see why games would be an exception.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Children ARE more important.

I think children are considered TOO important these days. Don't get me wrong, I don't say this lightly, I'm a prospective father myself... 3 months to go *gulp*

 

[Alienous]

I think that if you have the option to avoid killing children, or having them die as a result of your actions, then yes.

Seeing as the OP mentioned MGSV, I can imagine placing an artificial difficulty spike by having to avoid child soldiers. They would be more spontaneous, jumpy (and thus difficult to predict and sneak around), and you would feel more inclined to not kill them, and have to sneak around them.

 

[teruterubozu]

Aren't kids playing video games anyway? I guess killing adults is more fun.

 

[Draft]

I think there is some real cognitive dissonance in the creative world regarding violence and a good example is how they treat children in violent games. On one hand, the violence is a simulation, no one really gets hurt, parents should be monitoring what their kids play, the industry has no responsibility to censor violent content aside from the ESRB ratings, etc. On the other hand, simulated violence against digital characters that look like children is so odious that it has been excised from literally every main stream game.

If virtual violence is acceptable against adult shaped avatars, why is it unacceptable against child shaped avatars? I don't think there's a good answer. I also think this isn't something limited to games. There are hundreds of movies that don't pause for even a second to consider the implications of the hero killing dozens of adult enemies, but almost none with the hero killing enemies that appear younger than 18.

Maybe that is an extension of the American mentality of personal responsibility. We have a nebulous notion of adulthood beginning right around the end of the teen years. Someone younger is ostensibly not capable of evil in the way someone older is, and therefore not deserving of the martial justice most of our heroes dish out.

Personally I feel like most depictions of violence in our pop culture are gratuitous and ridiculous and self censoring young people out of that violence only enhances the ridiculousness.

 

[Mr. X]

Put in the kids, pregnant women and the disabled. Let's not limit ourselves to only adults being fun to kill and void of remorse.

 

[Chev]

Put in the kids, pregnant women and the disabled. Let's not limit ourselves to only adults being fun to kill and void of remorse.

Your avatar fits that declaration spectacularly.

 

[redcrayon]

With regard to the argument of 'when is a child an adult', the difference in Bethesda games is that most adult NPCs in games are armed, and will defend themselves poorly or attack you if provoked enough.

Often the kids are clearly much smaller and unarmed, and very few 'intermediate' age young people are present, the characters are always defined by body type as kids circa 8-10 years old, or an adult character of 16+.

Again, I agree that killing is killing, but really I'm happy to see more consequences for indiscriminate murder of adults in RPGs too, I just think it's unlikely to happen as killing people and taking their stuff is fun and most games mechanics revolve around the tens of ways you can dispatch 99% of the population.

 

[Kokonoe]

Nope, I love my fantasy worlds where children don't get harmed.

 

[MJLord]

I'd like to see it in a context that makes sense. Just killing them for no reason and have no impact to the story is not okay though.

 

[LyleLanley]

In theory I'm ok with the idea assuming the developer of such a game would be able to handle it in a mature fashion, I doubt there are many such developers though. On a related note, why do I get the feeling this thread is going to be brought up in a news article at some point in the future?

 

[Padawan of Windu]

I'm totally against censoring games, so yes, kids should not be immune. Though I don't want to necessarily see it in the games I play, I'd fight for the right for it to be there.

 

[War Eagle]

I'm 100% okay with it. But being from CT, I can see a HUGE shitstorm. The Sandy Hook massacre is still fresh here.

 

[LordJim]

I'm 100% okay with it. But being from CT, I can see a HUGE shitstorm. The Sandy Hook massacre is still fresh here.

That same week, more kids died in bombings across Iraq

 

[entremet]

Yes. It happens in movies if there is a story to tell. Why not games?

You guys think you will fight child soldiers in MGSV? That would be pretty controversial, especially if due to their race in the trailers. Don't know if Konami wants that shitstorm.

 

[War Eagle]

That same week, more kids died in bombings across Iraq

Such a sad world we live in.


But regardless, my stance stays. No censorship what-so-ever in games. I get the feeling that if kids could be killed with no discretion, the game would get an AO rating... so the point could be moot.

 

[bomblord]

Can a child die in a video game if it makes narrative sense and has impact? Sure.

Should a child be a random victim of a autosave kill everything around just for the heck of it spree? Probably not.

 

[Portugeezer]

Yeah. Sorry but I don't prioritize children over adults.

It's a natural thing to protect children, but realistically, like the whole "women and children first" mentality is bullshit. It's not relevant at all in 2013 with 7 billion humans on this planet.

 

[Drayken]

yes they have to, damn annoying crying children!!

 

[Chev]

Can a child die in a video game if it makes narrative sense and has impact? Sure.

Should a child be a random victim of a autosave kill everything around just for the heck of it spree? Probably not.

Sounds more like designers should investigate the psychological causes of autosave killing sprees rather than think it's gonna be alright if they just hide the currently most offensive victims.

 

[DarkKyo]

I think GTA5 should have kids but I'm pretty sure it won't. Nobody likes the idea of anyone dying in real life, but in a game I really don't see why we need to be so touchy about it.

 

[The Albatross]

I really don't care. One question I'd ask though is if it improves a game. If it doesn't improve the game, then making it impossible is probably the best approach to avoid the PR backlash. IE, in a game like GTA, mowing down a child would not improve the game.

If a child character dying does improve the game, then go for it. For instance, a Dark Brotherhood quest in Skyrim would provide a lot more tension if you are tasked with killing -- let's say -- a child who is in line for succession to the throne, but his father is an evil guy. The kid is an innocent kid and you find that out during the quest. The nature of the NPC being a child would introduce a lot more moral tension than, say, the evil king's fully grown innocent son.

 

[IHaveCandy]

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.

The game is basically the downfall of Big Boss, so you know he's going to go through some tragic stuff.

 

[Caerith]

It's a natural thing to protect children, but realistically, like the whole "women and children first" mentality is bullshit. It's not relevant at all in 2013 with 7 billion humans on this planet.

That mentality is partly to blame for the high death toll of the Titanic. They put the women and children on lifeboats first, and then lowered those lifeboats with empty seats if there were no more women and children to put on them. "Women and children first" makes a lot of widows and orphans.

In Fallout 1 and 2, didn't you get a special title for killing children? Namely, Childkiller?

You have killed children, the youth of the wasteland. This is considered to be a really bad thing. You evil, evil person.

Nothing stops you from doing it, but you spend the whole rest of the game suffering a penalty from dialogues and having to watch your back for bounty hunters.

 

[Screaming Meat]

The game is basically the downfall of Big Boss, so you know he's going to go through some tragic stuff.

Could be the reason there are so many kids in MG2; making up for the events here, perhaps? Oooo.

 

[zkylon]

In Fallout 1 and 2, didn't you get a special title for killing children? Namely, Childkiller?


Nothing stops you from doing it, but you spend the whole rest of the game suffering a penalty from dialogues and having to watch your back for bounty hunters.

fallout 1&2 was kinda weird, I really liked how they allowed you to be as horrible a monster as possible (emptying your inventory, leaving only lit dynamite for kids in the den to steal it and blow up was tons of evil fun lol), but the special title was kind of a failstate.

like, you'd get shot on sight in many towns, it kinda made the game unplayable and even if it could've been done better, it's the right way, the game acknowledges what you did and reacts accordingly. in the fallout universe, post-apocalyptic wasteland and all, you become an outcast vilified by society if you kill children.