Your thoughts on the invincible children
- Thread starter Demut
- Start date
What do you mean by the acronym "KOS"? I think that what you have suggested could possibly be a better choice, as it shows that doing harm to children really isn't right at all.
Tusck
Active Member
KOS = Kill on Sight. So if you kill a child, you are killed in that town from now on, with no way for forgiveness. So at least you have the choice to kill a kid if you want, but there is a harsh consequence to doing so. I'm big on freedom of choice. I'm not normally a child killer, but it's nice to know I could in case I run across a real smartass....
That's actually a great idea, Tusck. You should be able to kill children but not without extremely harsh consequences. It could also be in the main or side quest where you have a choice to save a child or let him/her die. It would really make the game more realistic and immersive.
hexperiment
The Experimentalist
Some of the gamers, a small proportion of them, will enjoy killing children. If they enjoy killing children, I'd say they also enjoy killing everyone in town so KOS consequence is really nothing for them. Even if KOS consequence is a valid deterrent to children killing, it can break the game. For example, if you kill a child in a town that is essential to the main quest, the game would be unable to continue with KOS consequences. Also, you won't consider much on true moral dilemma if you want a true roleplaying experience. If your character is extremely evil and you are role-playing, you wouldn't think twice about killing a child.
Also, I don't remember children in GTA games. Like I said earlier, Bethesda doesn't want trouble with angry mob of people for implementing a small feature. Hell, some countries might just BAN Skyrim if it included children killing. No. I'll correct that statement: SOME COUNTRIES WILL BAN SKYRIM IF IT HAD CHILDREN KILLING
just imagine Skyrim in the list below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games
Tusck
Active Member
If the devs built in a mechanic for child killing, then they would also build in a mechanic to ensure quests are not broken. Such as a shadowy figure standing outside of town by a tree who heard we need info from so and so, and thinks he can help because you're not allowed in town. There are way around everything. My opinion, and I really can't believe that I'm arguing for child killing, is that in a true sandbox, open world game, you should have the choice.
N3w_2_$kyr1min
Can't wait for Skyrim
But making invincible NPC's such as children is surely taking away from the realism. Since when were kids invincible IRL?
They could make them impossible to actually attack, but still possible for them to die by the hands of other NPC's etc. such as by a dragon attack or something. That would be enough for me.. I don't wanna kill kids myself.
Demut
Veritas vos liberabit
Sorry but I disagree. People get far too worked up about this term “realism”. What people like me usually mean when using that term is “logic”. The game has to be consistent with itself. If they introduce magic then even launching fireballs can be “realistic” (as in: it makes sense given the premises of the game). But how do you explain that children invincible? That’s just retarded from that point of view and creates all sorts of contradictions and messes. Like, why wouldn’t the NPCs just send an army of kids to kill the dragons? I mean, hey, after all, they’re invincible!
Okay. I semi-suspected that ...
Tusck
Active Member
Ok and what happens when you shoot that fireball and it goes off course and hits a kid in the head. He's just going to stand there, take it and walk away? Forget about realism, but that scenario is immersion killing.
Tusck
Active Member
ABSOLUTELY! That is the perfect description. You can't have some things die from fire and others not, unless they have an inherent resist to fire. That destroys immersion. So logically children must be able to die!
Vimalamitra
Professional complainer
I don't see it as a big problem, because it's going to get "fixed" anyway by some modder. I think, Bethesda foresaw this too.
I do understand why Bethesda cencored this one. There's been so many massacres around west that it would be impossible to add child killing without negative publicity. Parents, especially mothers, would go mad and like hexperiment pointed out, game would be banned from several countries. Who would that help?
Something to add to this study conversation:
Ferguson cautioned that these results were correlational, however, and more research is needed. However, he suggested that video games could increasingly be used in therapy with young adults and teens. Violent games may help people work through their frustrations with real life and calm down without increasing aggressive behaviors in real life.
http://www.tamiu.edu/newsinfo/7-08-10/article5.shtml
I do understand why Bethesda cencored this one. There's been so many massacres around west that it would be impossible to add child killing without negative publicity. Parents, especially mothers, would go mad and like hexperiment pointed out, game would be banned from several countries. Who would that help?
Something to add to this study conversation:
Ferguson cautioned that these results were correlational, however, and more research is needed. However, he suggested that video games could increasingly be used in therapy with young adults and teens. Violent games may help people work through their frustrations with real life and calm down without increasing aggressive behaviors in real life.
http://www.tamiu.edu/newsinfo/7-08-10/article5.shtml
KayO199X
Member
I personally am more in favor of the invincible children because i would never hurt a child in the first place.
The only way to get away with child murder is to severly penilize the player for doing so. That way, it becomes clear that Bethesda games does not approve of harming a child, even in a video game. For example, in Fallout 1 and 2, you could harm children, but doing so would give you the "Childkiller" reputation which causes overpowered bounty hunters to hunt you down non stop, making the game nearly unwinable. Here's my suggestion...
If you kill a child a guard will immediatly spawn behind you and initiate a conversation, however what he says is different from the normal arrest conversation. "It's all over child killer! You will pay for this horrific crime with your life." You will not be given a chance to pay a fine or resist arrest. Instead a message will appear on the screen that says "You have been sentenced to death for murdering a child." the screen goes black and you are then sent back to your last save point, the same as if you had died.
The only way to get away with child murder is to severly penilize the player for doing so. That way, it becomes clear that Bethesda games does not approve of harming a child, even in a video game. For example, in Fallout 1 and 2, you could harm children, but doing so would give you the "Childkiller" reputation which causes overpowered bounty hunters to hunt you down non stop, making the game nearly unwinable. Here's my suggestion...
If you kill a child a guard will immediatly spawn behind you and initiate a conversation, however what he says is different from the normal arrest conversation. "It's all over child killer! You will pay for this horrific crime with your life." You will not be given a chance to pay a fine or resist arrest. Instead a message will appear on the screen that says "You have been sentenced to death for murdering a child." the screen goes black and you are then sent back to your last save point, the same as if you had died.
