With the exception of Adoring Fan in Oblivion iv never had any desire to engage in such behavior.
Behavior of playing a fantasy video game?
Just because I want to kill a pixel child NPC in a game does not in any way shape or form translate to real life behavior.
If in game behaviors translated 100% to real life - we would all be serial killers and mass murderers
Reality proves otherwise
Doesn't translate but I still find it disturbing you want to kill a pixel child. In this case the same way people complain about characters that look like kids dressed in oversexed clothes disturb them I have often argued that those are not real children and have never felt that it promotes pedo behaviour I am oddly affected by the thought of killing children in games. I suppose you can accuse me of double standards.
I do not believe killing children in games creates the desire to kill children in real life however I am happy they are not allowing it.
Tell you the truth even baby animals bother me and I avoid killing them especially if they are very cute.
Not sure why you got all the wtf's it's a valid point.
Are they just pixels or do they have a deeper representation in a person's imagination? If people are really complaining about "pedo" this and that do they also have the same stance on "murder" in a game? Because if it's all pixels then that means everything. Not sure why the picking and choosing. Unless of course some things really do resonate in which case people really are picking and choosing.
Do I think killing "game" children will lead to killing real children? Absolutely not!
But if the whole idea of a video game, that is a role playing game, is to give an immersive experience then things should matter. They should make sense to the player and evoke a variety of responses. They should connect to what we know about the world.
And if these are just "pixels" then should every sort of debased human behavior be boiler-plate for an rpg?
I say good on them and let the modders mod in what they want.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
First the gender fluid thing (which I could care less about) then this, again why is this even a topic that anyone would be concerned about?
Is CD Projekt Red trying to bait all the weirdos to self identify with their frustration over this stuff before game launch? lol
On a side note, anyone else remember Star Wars Episode 1 Phantom Menage game put out by Lucas Arts in the early 2000's? I think that was truly the last game I remember when you could destroy all NPC. The consequence was always getting wrecked by the guards lol.
And if these are just "pixels" then should every sort of debased human behavior be boiler-plate for an rpg?
I mean, not ALL RPGs, but there is something fascinating about true freedom in a game. Being able to do what you want, when you want is not some new idea and I think was a dream of a lot of early game developers. We are getting to a point where we might be able to accomplish a pretty good version of "do anything." With the Bethesda and Rockstar games, the idea is brought to the masses, and I think the Witcher series goes part way as well.
I think that the way you present the options for game development as either making debased human behavior in games boiler plate, or removing all violence against children is disingenuous. As has been mentioned earlier and often, do you not find it strange that you find murdering other humans 10,000 times during the course of a game vile? Because that is boilerplate for like every RPG/FPS in the last 30 years.
Every game should take their own approach. But for me, I can't wait for a game to challenge all of the censorship that protects no one.
The major disadvantage of my position about total freedom is that now someone can come in and say, "he wants to kill kids!" Well, that's not quite true. I want to BE ABLE to kill kids. I also want BE ABLE to dance on a Himalayan peak. I also want to BE ABLE to pork the waitress. I also want to BE ABLE to lead an army against an impossible adversary. I want to BE ABLE to cheat at cards in a poker game and have my ass kicked.
And if these are just "pixels" then should every sort of debased human behavior be boiler-plate for an rpg?
I mean, not ALL RPGs, but there is something fascinating about true freedom in a game. Being able to do what you want, when you want is not some new idea and I think was a dream of a lot of early game developers. We are getting to a point where we might be able to accomplish a pretty good version of "do anything." With the Bethesda and Rockstar games, the idea is brought to the masses, and I think the Witcher series goes part way as well.
I think that the way you present the options for game development as either making debased human behavior in games boiler plate, or removing all violence against children is disingenuous. As has been mentioned earlier and often, do you not find it strange that you find murdering other humans 10,000 times during the course of a game vile? Because that is boilerplate for like every RPG/FPS in the last 30 years.
Every game should take their own approach. But for me, I can't wait for a game to challenge all of the censorship that protects no one.
The major disadvantage of my position about total freedom is that now someone can come in and say, "he wants to kill kids!" Well, that's not quite true. I want to BE ABLE to kill kids. I also want BE ABLE to dance on a Himalayan peak. I also want to BE ABLE to pork the waitress. I also want to BE ABLE to lead an army against an impossible adversary. I want to BE ABLE to cheat at cards in a poker game and have my ass kicked.
Problem is, in order to have the depth to make freedom of choice meaningful, you have to have a much larger set of not just consequences to that action, but the branching ways in which those consequences bleed into other things.
Most of the time that is avoided through shallow characterizations. "These people are the bad guys." and what-not. When it comes to harming "innocents", it tends to still be a rather shallow model, that mostly means a lot of people "get away" with doing whatever. Rockstar has implemented some of the more complete models around this, and even their games leave a situation where you can pile up a ton of bodies in the middle of town and walk away scot-free.
IE, sure you can do stuff in games, but without those actions being plugged into other elements it pushes a situation where it becomes meaningless. In the case of "killing kids" it becomes a question for a developer of "Is putting kids in this game, and moreover making them killable, worth it for the kind of extra steps we'd need to take to enforce the concept of consequences to make doing to remotely relevant?"
Otherwise you run into a whole-nother can of worms if you just toss in a child character that you can whack without rhyme, reason, or consequence. As a studio, you'd just be setting yourself up to be under political fire and scrutiny for presenting "children" in "adult situations". And that's just sticking to the violence side of things.
And if these are just "pixels" then should every sort of debased human behavior be boiler-plate for an rpg?
I mean, not ALL RPGs, but there is something fascinating about true freedom in a game. Being able to do what you want, when you want is not some new idea and I think was a dream of a lot of early game developers. We are getting to a point where we might be able to accomplish a pretty good version of "do anything." With the Bethesda and Rockstar games, the idea is brought to the masses, and I think the Witcher series goes part way as well.
I think that the way you present the options for game development as either making debased human behavior in games boiler plate, or removing all violence against children is disingenuous. As has been mentioned earlier and often, do you not find it strange that you find murdering other humans 10,000 times during the course of a game vile? Because that is boilerplate for like every RPG/FPS in the last 30 years.
Every game should take their own approach. But for me, I can't wait for a game to challenge all of the censorship that protects no one.
The major disadvantage of my position about total freedom is that now someone can come in and say, "he wants to kill kids!" Well, that's not quite true. I want to BE ABLE to kill kids. I also want BE ABLE to dance on a Himalayan peak. I also want to BE ABLE to pork the waitress. I also want to BE ABLE to lead an army against an impossible adversary. I want to BE ABLE to cheat at cards in a poker game and have my ass kicked.
Problem is, in order to have the depth to make freedom of choice meaningful, you have to have a much larger set of not just consequences to that action, but the branching ways in which those consequences bleed into other things.
Most of the time that is avoided through shallow characterizations. "These people are the bad guys." and what-not. When it comes to harming "innocents", it tends to still be a rather shallow model, that mostly means a lot of people "get away" with doing whatever. Rockstar has implemented some of the more complete models around this, and even their games leave a situation where you can pile up a ton of bodies in the middle of town and walk away scot-free.
IE, sure you can do stuff in games, but without those actions being plugged into other elements it pushes a situation where it becomes meaningless. In the case of "killing kids" it becomes a question for a developer of "Is putting kids in this game, and moreover making them killable, worth it for the kind of extra steps we'd need to take to enforce the concept of consequences to make doing to remotely relevant?"
Otherwise you run into a whole-nother can of worms if you just toss in a child character that you can whack without rhyme, reason, or consequence. As a studio, you'd just be setting yourself up to be under political fire and scrutiny for presenting "children" in "adult situations". And that's just sticking to the violence side of things.
I totally agree with you on one hand and disagree with you on another. First, let me address the game where a child gets hit on the head over and over without rhyme or reason. These types of games exist. No one even sees them or plays them because no one wants to. Their existence is disturbing and there are laws against them in some countries, but they exist. Of course, this is insanely different than what I was suggesting, but does fall in line with the criticism that I expected.
Anyway, I would want a game with consequences in theory. Second life is a good example of a game that tried to take on the "do anything" theme. But there were no laws or rules. I can see your point in that case. The game turned into some weird porn sales experience where you would go places and find people fellating each other with custom animations. Like, it became hard to avoid that stuff and learn how to build an amazing home/base/whatever. And while I thought it was interesting to see what people chose to do, it was not a place I wanted to go back to. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist either (although I think it's part of the reason it flopped so hard in the end).
But lets take what you are saying that I agree with, specifically the part about consequences. People back in the day had this strange idealism about freedom in games. Ultima Online was my first experience with it. People thought that over time, in this online game, people would start to police themselves, like they do in real life. The result was different than the theory which a lot of people still subscribe to to this day. People were horrible to each other far, far more often than the policing was able to handle.
I believe consequences are key to a successful version of a very free game. I played EVE for like 7 years. It had elements of freedom in it that I adored. It also had people scamming and being awful towards each other. But at least in EVE, it did feel like there were consequences to your actions. Building a game with a ton of freedom is difficult to make fun and attractive in my opinion, but I do think it's getting close.
The part about this specific issue that is weird to me is that you can literally shoot a kids father in the face and watch them die right next to their kid. If people are ok with that in a game, why are people not ok with also killing the kid? And to be honest, the people that are ok with one and not the other are MORE scary to me because it's like they are thinking that the action is REAL and so should never happen. I mean, do they think it's ok to murder adults and not kids? It's really hard for me to conceptualize that thought process, because the logic seems so clear.
It's not real. That's why we murder 1000s of people in all games. Why is it suddenly real when a person is young?
Problem is, in order to have the depth to make freedom of choice meaningful, you have to have a much larger set of not just consequences to that action, but the branching ways in which those consequences bleed into other things.
Most of the time that is avoided through shallow characterizations. "These people are the bad guys." and what-not. When it comes to harming "innocents", it tends to still be a rather shallow model, that mostly means a lot of people "get away" with doing whatever. Rockstar has implemented some of the more complete models around this, and even their games leave a situation where you can pile up a ton of bodies in the middle of town and walk away scot-free.
IE, sure you can do stuff in games, but without those actions being plugged into other elements it pushes a situation where it becomes meaningless. In the case of "killing kids" it becomes a question for a developer of "Is putting kids in this game, and moreover making them killable, worth it for the kind of extra steps we'd need to take to enforce the concept of consequences to make doing to remotely relevant?"
Otherwise you run into a whole-nother can of worms if you just toss in a child character that you can whack without rhyme, reason, or consequence. As a studio, you'd just be setting yourself up to be under political fire and scrutiny for presenting "children" in "adult situations". And that's just sticking to the violence side of things.
It's not real. That's why we murder 1000s of people in all games. Why is it suddenly real when a person is young?
That's answered by the second paragraph. In most games the enemy is characterized as that, the enemy. If you are talking about civilians, they get almost no characterization and the "consequences" while there most of the time, are quite shallow in their existence.
This is exactly what leads to the part you disagreed with. The fact that it's already almost if not completely meaningless to whack a civilian mob, and that the consequences are immensely shallow or easily avoided, means adding more characters that exist in the same shallow state adds nothing to the user experience.
Instead, it just opens your game up to more scrutiny.
Problem is, in order to have the depth to make freedom of choice meaningful, you have to have a much larger set of not just consequences to that action, but the branching ways in which those consequences bleed into other things.
Most of the time that is avoided through shallow characterizations. "These people are the bad guys." and what-not. When it comes to harming "innocents", it tends to still be a rather shallow model, that mostly means a lot of people "get away" with doing whatever. Rockstar has implemented some of the more complete models around this, and even their games leave a situation where you can pile up a ton of bodies in the middle of town and walk away scot-free.
IE, sure you can do stuff in games, but without those actions being plugged into other elements it pushes a situation where it becomes meaningless. In the case of "killing kids" it becomes a question for a developer of "Is putting kids in this game, and moreover making them killable, worth it for the kind of extra steps we'd need to take to enforce the concept of consequences to make doing to remotely relevant?"
Otherwise you run into a whole-nother can of worms if you just toss in a child character that you can whack without rhyme, reason, or consequence. As a studio, you'd just be setting yourself up to be under political fire and scrutiny for presenting "children" in "adult situations". And that's just sticking to the violence side of things.
It's not real. That's why we murder 1000s of people in all games. Why is it suddenly real when a person is young?
That's answered by the second paragraph. In most games the enemy is characterized as that, the enemy. If you are talking about civilians, they get almost no characterization and the "consequences" while there most of the time, are quite shallow in their existence.
This is exactly what leads to the part you disagreed with. The fact that it's already almost if not completely meaningless to whack a civilian mob, and that the consequences are immensely shallow or easily avoided, means adding more characters that exist in the same shallow state adds nothing to the user experience.
Instead, it just opens your game up to more scrutiny.
But most people aren't characterized as enemies in RPGs and children are the absolute least characterized in almost all games. This particular premise falls apart on it's face.
And if these are just "pixels" then should every sort of debased human behavior be boiler-plate for an rpg?
I mean, not ALL RPGs, but there is something fascinating about true freedom in a game. Being able to do what you want, when you want is not some new idea and I think was a dream of a lot of early game developers. We are getting to a point where we might be able to accomplish a pretty good version of "do anything." With the Bethesda and Rockstar games, the idea is brought to the masses, and I think the Witcher series goes part way as well.
I think that the way you present the options for game development as either making debased human behavior in games boiler plate, or removing all violence against children is disingenuous. As has been mentioned earlier and often, do you not find it strange that you find murdering other humans 10,000 times during the course of a game vile? Because that is boilerplate for like every RPG/FPS in the last 30 years.
Every game should take their own approach. But for me, I can't wait for a game to challenge all of the censorship that protects no one.
The major disadvantage of my position about total freedom is that now someone can come in and say, "he wants to kill kids!" Well, that's not quite true. I want to BE ABLE to kill kids. I also want BE ABLE to dance on a Himalayan peak. I also want to BE ABLE to pork the waitress. I also want to BE ABLE to lead an army against an impossible adversary. I want to BE ABLE to cheat at cards in a poker game and have my ass kicked.
Problem is, in order to have the depth to make freedom of choice meaningful, you have to have a much larger set of not just consequences to that action, but the branching ways in which those consequences bleed into other things.
Most of the time that is avoided through shallow characterizations. "These people are the bad guys." and what-not. When it comes to harming "innocents", it tends to still be a rather shallow model, that mostly means a lot of people "get away" with doing whatever. Rockstar has implemented some of the more complete models around this, and even their games leave a situation where you can pile up a ton of bodies in the middle of town and walk away scot-free.
IE, sure you can do stuff in games, but without those actions being plugged into other elements it pushes a situation where it becomes meaningless. In the case of "killing kids" it becomes a question for a developer of "Is putting kids in this game, and moreover making them killable, worth it for the kind of extra steps we'd need to take to enforce the concept of consequences to make doing to remotely relevant?"
Otherwise you run into a whole-nother can of worms if you just toss in a child character that you can whack without rhyme, reason, or consequence. As a studio, you'd just be setting yourself up to be under political fire and scrutiny for presenting "children" in "adult situations". And that's just sticking to the violence side of things.
Well, like I said at the end "good for them and let the modders mod it in if they like."
My opinion is that they are making the game they want to make. Part of it is making a product and part of it is making something they are proud of. If they don't want to include player killing then that's their right.
As far as the Mass Murder thing, that also depends on the game. There is a different between protecting oneself and going on a killing spree.
But then again it depends on how each event is set up (or the game is set up)
I don't play games like Grand Theft Auto and stay away from mondern military games.
However, I do play Elder Scrolls games and even though it's all "animation and pictures" I do sometimes wonder about entering a cave and slaughtering Falmer in their homes.
Luckily they're evil though right? RIGHT?
I usualy role play (in my mind) that they take and eat babies or some such thing.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Well, like I said at the end "good for them and let the modders mod it in if they like."
My opinion is that they are making the game they want to make. Part of it is making a product and part of it is making something they are proud of. If they don't want to include player killing then that's their right.
As far as the Mass Murder thing, that also depends on the game. There is a different between protecting oneself and going on a killing spree.
But then again it depends on how each event is set up (or the game is set up)
I don't play games like Grand Theft Auto and stay away from mondern military games.
However, I do play Elder Scrolls games and even though it's all "animation and pictures" I do sometimes wonder about entering a cave and slaughtering Falmer in their homes.
Luckily they're evil though right? RIGHT?
I usualy role play (in my mind) that they take and eat babies or some such thing.
Okay, here is an example that I hope we can both get on the same page about.
The Dark Brotherhood exists in at least the last 3 Bethesda games. They are a group of people that the player character can become a part of. They often, but not always, rely on murdering people, sometimes innocent, to achieve their goals.
Now in these games, you do not have to join them and you do not have to murder anyone to advance in the game. But that they exist at all - does this bother you?
Well, like I said at the end "good for them and let the modders mod it in if they like."
My opinion is that they are making the game they want to make. Part of it is making a product and part of it is making something they are proud of. If they don't want to include player killing then that's their right.
As far as the Mass Murder thing, that also depends on the game. There is a different between protecting oneself and going on a killing spree.
But then again it depends on how each event is set up (or the game is set up)
I don't play games like Grand Theft Auto and stay away from mondern military games.
However, I do play Elder Scrolls games and even though it's all "animation and pictures" I do sometimes wonder about entering a cave and slaughtering Falmer in their homes.
Luckily they're evil though right? RIGHT?
I usualy role play (in my mind) that they take and eat babies or some such thing.
Okay, here is an example that I hope we can both get on the same page about.
The Dark Brotherhood exists in at least the last 3 Bethesda games. They are a group of people that the player character can become a part of. They often, but not always, rely on murdering people, sometimes innocent, to achieve their goals.
Now in these games, you do not have to join them and you do not have to murder anyone to advance in the game. But that they exist at all - does this bother you?
In MMO's i tend towards healing classes, personal preferences i guess, but when it comes to Single player RPG's, there should not be anything inherently wrong with playing an evil character, its okay to be evil after all, so why not. Personally i think it is somewhat therapeutic to play a role that is utterly unlike your own, perhaps that is how we truly grow.
Problem is, in order to have the depth to make freedom of choice meaningful, you have to have a much larger set of not just consequences to that action, but the branching ways in which those consequences bleed into other things.
Most of the time that is avoided through shallow characterizations. "These people are the bad guys." and what-not. When it comes to harming "innocents", it tends to still be a rather shallow model, that mostly means a lot of people "get away" with doing whatever. Rockstar has implemented some of the more complete models around this, and even their games leave a situation where you can pile up a ton of bodies in the middle of town and walk away scot-free.
IE, sure you can do stuff in games, but without those actions being plugged into other elements it pushes a situation where it becomes meaningless. In the case of "killing kids" it becomes a question for a developer of "Is putting kids in this game, and moreover making them killable, worth it for the kind of extra steps we'd need to take to enforce the concept of consequences to make doing to remotely relevant?"
Otherwise you run into a whole-nother can of worms if you just toss in a child character that you can whack without rhyme, reason, or consequence. As a studio, you'd just be setting yourself up to be under political fire and scrutiny for presenting "children" in "adult situations". And that's just sticking to the violence side of things.
It's not real. That's why we murder 1000s of people in all games. Why is it suddenly real when a person is young?
That's answered by the second paragraph. In most games the enemy is characterized as that, the enemy. If you are talking about civilians, they get almost no characterization and the "consequences" while there most of the time, are quite shallow in their existence.
This is exactly what leads to the part you disagreed with. The fact that it's already almost if not completely meaningless to whack a civilian mob, and that the consequences are immensely shallow or easily avoided, means adding more characters that exist in the same shallow state adds nothing to the user experience.
Instead, it just opens your game up to more scrutiny.
Grand Theft Auto series would like to disagree with you.
I already called out the GTA series in regards to this.
Though I can add "in GTA you play individuals of dubious character" and note there still isn't kids present among the pedestrians.
Problem is, in order to have the depth to make freedom of choice meaningful, you have to have a much larger set of not just consequences to that action, but the branching ways in which those consequences bleed into other things.
Most of the time that is avoided through shallow characterizations. "These people are the bad guys." and what-not. When it comes to harming "innocents", it tends to still be a rather shallow model, that mostly means a lot of people "get away" with doing whatever. Rockstar has implemented some of the more complete models around this, and even their games leave a situation where you can pile up a ton of bodies in the middle of town and walk away scot-free.
IE, sure you can do stuff in games, but without those actions being plugged into other elements it pushes a situation where it becomes meaningless. In the case of "killing kids" it becomes a question for a developer of "Is putting kids in this game, and moreover making them killable, worth it for the kind of extra steps we'd need to take to enforce the concept of consequences to make doing to remotely relevant?"
Otherwise you run into a whole-nother can of worms if you just toss in a child character that you can whack without rhyme, reason, or consequence. As a studio, you'd just be setting yourself up to be under political fire and scrutiny for presenting "children" in "adult situations". And that's just sticking to the violence side of things.
It's not real. That's why we murder 1000s of people in all games. Why is it suddenly real when a person is young?
That's answered by the second paragraph. In most games the enemy is characterized as that, the enemy. If you are talking about civilians, they get almost no characterization and the "consequences" while there most of the time, are quite shallow in their existence.
This is exactly what leads to the part you disagreed with. The fact that it's already almost if not completely meaningless to whack a civilian mob, and that the consequences are immensely shallow or easily avoided, means adding more characters that exist in the same shallow state adds nothing to the user experience.
Instead, it just opens your game up to more scrutiny.
But most people aren't characterized as enemies in RPGs and children are the absolute least characterized in almost all games. This particular premise falls apart on it's face.
And in most RPGs you aren't allowed to attack most "people" and children aren't often present in the first place, or are evoked within finite context.
Which then repeats the point for games where you can. Unless the studio spends a lot of time creating meaningful consequences, adding more characters that do nothing but stand about and die without even being able to fight back, is a pointless effort.
If they do put kids in, it often is to evoke some context. Even as shallow as Skyrim can be, the few kids that do exist all had mechanical or narrative cause to help sell the world as being more alive. Not to just randomly spawn on a curb and wait to get fireballed or ran over.
And if these are just "pixels" then should every sort of debased human behavior be boiler-plate for an rpg?
I mean, not ALL RPGs, but there is something fascinating about true freedom in a game. Being able to do what you want, when you want is not some new idea and I think was a dream of a lot of early game developers. We are getting to a point where we might be able to accomplish a pretty good version of "do anything." With the Bethesda and Rockstar games, the idea is brought to the masses, and I think the Witcher series goes part way as well.
I think that the way you present the options for game development as either making debased human behavior in games boiler plate, or removing all violence against children is disingenuous. As has been mentioned earlier and often, do you not find it strange that you find murdering other humans 10,000 times during the course of a game vile? Because that is boilerplate for like every RPG/FPS in the last 30 years.
Every game should take their own approach. But for me, I can't wait for a game to challenge all of the censorship that protects no one.
The major disadvantage of my position about total freedom is that now someone can come in and say, "he wants to kill kids!" Well, that's not quite true. I want to BE ABLE to kill kids. I also want BE ABLE to dance on a Himalayan peak. I also want to BE ABLE to pork the waitress. I also want to BE ABLE to lead an army against an impossible adversary. I want to BE ABLE to cheat at cards in a poker game and have my ass kicked.
Problem is, in order to have the depth to make freedom of choice meaningful, you have to have a much larger set of not just consequences to that action, but the branching ways in which those consequences bleed into other things.
Most of the time that is avoided through shallow characterizations. "These people are the bad guys." and what-not. When it comes to harming "innocents", it tends to still be a rather shallow model, that mostly means a lot of people "get away" with doing whatever. Rockstar has implemented some of the more complete models around this, and even their games leave a situation where you can pile up a ton of bodies in the middle of town and walk away scot-free.
IE, sure you can do stuff in games, but without those actions being plugged into other elements it pushes a situation where it becomes meaningless. In the case of "killing kids" it becomes a question for a developer of "Is putting kids in this game, and moreover making them killable, worth it for the kind of extra steps we'd need to take to enforce the concept of consequences to make doing to remotely relevant?"
Otherwise you run into a whole-nother can of worms if you just toss in a child character that you can whack without rhyme, reason, or consequence. As a studio, you'd just be setting yourself up to be under political fire and scrutiny for presenting "children" in "adult situations". And that's just sticking to the violence side of things.
Well, like I said at the end "good for them and let the modders mod it in if they like."
My opinion is that they are making the game they want to make. Part of it is making a product and part of it is making something they are proud of. If they don't want to include player killing then that's their right.
As far as the Mass Murder thing, that also depends on the game. There is a different between protecting oneself and going on a killing spree.
But then again it depends on how each event is set up (or the game is set up)
I don't play games like Grand Theft Auto and stay away from mondern military games.
However, I do play Elder Scrolls games and even though it's all "animation and pictures" I do sometimes wonder about entering a cave and slaughtering Falmer in their homes.
Luckily they're evil though right? RIGHT?
I usualy role play (in my mind) that they take and eat babies or some such thing.
Honestly, most of the time I just assume most players approach games with the "murder hobo" mentality. Context and narrative only serves as a justification to hit things when the majority of players are playing a meta DPS race.
And at that point, morality, narrative, etc has all flown out the window.
But yes, we do try to make "the game we want to make" most of the time. For as much as players are likely to ignore context and dialogue, it still means something to have it, and establish meaning to actions through it.
Though it doesn't really lead into consequence. Your own example just has you looking for justification to action, while the flipside can be for example, that you really are just killing innocent falmer that were minding their own business in the remote ruins of their once-opressors. But there is no consequences for that, because they are simply "more mobs", justified as unquestioningly hostile to the outside world to simplify the situation.
And that's kinda how it goes in many games. Their depth often only goes as far as giving players a justification to be a murder-hobo.
It's hard to see a reason to add children into such a game, hence it is not often done. And when it is, it is often within a controlled scope.
And in most RPGs you aren't allowed to attack most "people" and children aren't often present in the first place, or are evoked within finite context.
Which then repeats the point for games where you can. Unless the studio spends a lot of time creating meaningful consequences, adding more characters that do nothing but stand about and die without even being able to fight back, is a pointless effort.
If they do put kids in, it often is to evoke some context. Even as shallow as Skyrim can be, the few kids that do exist all had mechanical or narrative cause to help sell the world as being more alive. Not to just randomly spawn on a curb and wait to get fireballed or ran over.
I.. agree with you for the most part. Like, I read what you're saying and think it could be something from the way I think. I think that where I agree with you the most is that it is far smarter for this company and major publishers/developers to not allow violence on children in their game.
But then you make assumptions at the end. And now you are also stating people aren't allowed to be attacked in most RPGs (which is true).
Yes, if you take the total mass of NPCs that are able to be killed (Dragon Warrior + Morrowind + Mass Effect + Final Fantasy, + EVERY OTHER RPG) and divide it by total NPCs in those games, you would come to understand that yes, in most RPGs, most NPCs aren't able to be killed. However, this is a really bad argument in this case. We are talking about a game developer that made the Witcher series in a genre filled with NPCs that could be killed. I think it wold be far more fair to compare it to games where NPCs could be killed at all such as Bethesda games or CDPR games.
It doesn't even make sense to argue outside of that context, does it? Unless... do you argue in good faith or not?
And in most RPGs you aren't allowed to attack most "people" and children aren't often present in the first place, or are evoked within finite context.
Which then repeats the point for games where you can. Unless the studio spends a lot of time creating meaningful consequences, adding more characters that do nothing but stand about and die without even being able to fight back, is a pointless effort.
If they do put kids in, it often is to evoke some context. Even as shallow as Skyrim can be, the few kids that do exist all had mechanical or narrative cause to help sell the world as being more alive. Not to just randomly spawn on a curb and wait to get fireballed or ran over.
I.. agree with you for the most part. Like, I read what you're saying and think it could be something from the way I think. I think that where I agree with you the most is that it is far smarter for this company and major publishers/developers to not allow violence on children in their game.
But then you make assumptions at the end. And now you are also stating people aren't allowed to be attacked in most RPGs (which is true).
Yes, if you take the total mass of NPCs that are able to be killed (Dragon Warrior + Morrowind + Mass Effect + Final Fantasy, + EVERY OTHER RPG) and divide it by total NPCs in those games, you would come to understand that yes, in most RPGs, most NPCs aren't able to be killed. However, this is a really bad argument in this case. We are talking about a game developer that made the Witcher series in a genre filled with NPCs that could be killed. I think it wold be far more fair to compare it to games where NPCs could be killed at all such as Bethesda games or CDPR games.
It doesn't even make sense to argue outside of that context, does it? Unless... do you argue in good faith or not?
That entirely depends on if you are arguing "in good faith". You stated "most people aren't characterized as enemies in RPGs" which is itself a "assumption", and a rather broad and vague one.
Which then, sure let's focus only on the titles that let you attack civilians. How many civilians actually exist in those games as compared to bandits and hostile mobs? How many children exist in them, if any are in at all for a given title?
I can state again that even then, most non-hostile characters that you can kill tend to be of limited consequence. Among an already narrow band of RPGs, even less common are there ones that let you go as far as the likes of Morrowind in whacking meaningful characters, and the consequences are considerably more meta than they are contextually meaningful to the game world.
You kill a character important to the central plot, the plot just stops moving and you're stuck in a broken narrative. That's why some characters were given immunity in later titles. While AI has advanced, and you can juggle around some characters to maintain a plot, there is still not a robust enough system to let a player do or kill whomever and not lead to breaking the game and/or it's narrative.
Which then means, what scope is practical for letting the player do something like kill off NPCs, and what is the scope for the type of NPCs you're allowed to interact with in what ways?
As it ties back to "child" NPCs, that adds the extra can of worms about what you're doing with them narratively, how many of them there are, and the type of expected scenarios you are depicting them in.
As liberal as people tend to be about violence in games, it is still legally regarded as at least a teen if not adult scenario, and depicting violence involving children becomes a mighty legal subject for a studio to even consider approaching. Which is again why children are generally confined to specific narrative purposes even when talking about just the "do whatever" type RPGs.
That entirely depends on if you are arguing "in good faith". You stated "most people aren't characterized as enemies in RPGs" which is itself a "assumption", and a rather broad and vague one.
Which then, sure let's focus only on the titles that let you attack civilians. How many civilians actually exist in those games as compared to bandits and hostile mobs? How many children exist in them, if any are in at all for a given title?
I can state again that even then, most non-hostile characters that you can kill tend to be of limited consequence. Among an already narrow band of RPGs, even less common are there ones that let you go as far as the likes of Morrowind in whacking meaningful characters, and the consequences are considerably more meta than they are contextually meaningful to the game world.
You kill a character important to the central plot, the plot just stops moving and you're stuck in a broken narrative. That's why some characters were given immunity in later titles. While AI has advanced, and you can juggle around some characters to maintain a plot, there is still not a robust enough system to let a player do or kill whomever and not lead to breaking the game and/or it's narrative.
Which then means, what scope is practical for letting the player do something like kill off NPCs, and what is the scope for the type of NPCs you're allowed to interact with in what ways?
As it ties back to "child" NPCs, that adds the extra can of worms about what you're doing with them narratively, how many of them there are, and the type of expected scenarios you are depicting them in.
As liberal as people tend to be about violence in games, it is still legally regarded as at least a teen if not adult scenario, and depicting violence involving children becomes a mighty legal subject for a studio to even consider approaching. Which is again why children are generally confined to specific narrative purposes even when talking about just the "do whatever" type RPGs.
That you accuse me of an assumption that most characters "aren't characterized as enemies" is fine to me. It's time to be clear from your perspective. Do you think most people are characterized as enemies in RPGs?
That entirely depends on if you are arguing "in good faith". You stated "most people aren't characterized as enemies in RPGs" which is itself a "assumption", and a rather broad and vague one.
Which then, sure let's focus only on the titles that let you attack civilians. How many civilians actually exist in those games as compared to bandits and hostile mobs? How many children exist in them, if any are in at all for a given title?
I can state again that even then, most non-hostile characters that you can kill tend to be of limited consequence. Among an already narrow band of RPGs, even less common are there ones that let you go as far as the likes of Morrowind in whacking meaningful characters, and the consequences are considerably more meta than they are contextually meaningful to the game world.
You kill a character important to the central plot, the plot just stops moving and you're stuck in a broken narrative. That's why some characters were given immunity in later titles. While AI has advanced, and you can juggle around some characters to maintain a plot, there is still not a robust enough system to let a player do or kill whomever and not lead to breaking the game and/or it's narrative.
Which then means, what scope is practical for letting the player do something like kill off NPCs, and what is the scope for the type of NPCs you're allowed to interact with in what ways?
As it ties back to "child" NPCs, that adds the extra can of worms about what you're doing with them narratively, how many of them there are, and the type of expected scenarios you are depicting them in.
As liberal as people tend to be about violence in games, it is still legally regarded as at least a teen if not adult scenario, and depicting violence involving children becomes a mighty legal subject for a studio to even consider approaching. Which is again why children are generally confined to specific narrative purposes even when talking about just the "do whatever" type RPGs.
That you accuse me of an assumption that most characters "aren't characterized as enemies" is fine to me. It's time to be clear from your perspective. Do you think most people are characterized as enemies in RPGs?
Given human(oid) mobs, yes. The only exception to that would be the GTA series. That seems to be rather tangential no matter where you intend to take it though.
The only relevant point there to be made regarding non-hostile NPCs and children, would be their common state in RPGs. Which has been addressed in two ways now.
And it's not an accusation, it's what you literally did. You wrote it on this page and that was a direct quote.
Well, like I said at the end "good for them and let the modders mod it in if they like."
My opinion is that they are making the game they want to make. Part of it is making a product and part of it is making something they are proud of. If they don't want to include player killing then that's their right.
As far as the Mass Murder thing, that also depends on the game. There is a different between protecting oneself and going on a killing spree.
But then again it depends on how each event is set up (or the game is set up)
I don't play games like Grand Theft Auto and stay away from mondern military games.
However, I do play Elder Scrolls games and even though it's all "animation and pictures" I do sometimes wonder about entering a cave and slaughtering Falmer in their homes.
Luckily they're evil though right? RIGHT?
I usualy role play (in my mind) that they take and eat babies or some such thing.
Okay, here is an example that I hope we can both get on the same page about.
The Dark Brotherhood exists in at least the last 3 Bethesda games. They are a group of people that the player character can become a part of. They often, but not always, rely on murdering people, sometimes innocent, to achieve their goals.
Now in these games, you do not have to join them and you do not have to murder anyone to advance in the game. But that they exist at all - does this bother you?
Well, this is where we need to be clear. I don't really care if a game has killing "fake people or not."
Let's be clear about that.
So no, Dark Brotherhood doens'tbother me. If there was a video game that was solely about being an assassin, it wouldn't necessarily bother me. I do, however, get immersed, buy into the story or situation of a game.
So if I was playing a game where I had to kill a child (heir to a fortune where, if they were killed, the 2nd heir would get the whole fortune and it was the 2nd heir who created the hit, then I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with it.
If however, I had to massacre the child, painting the playroom with his/her entrails, then yeah, I'd have an issue with that.
So for me, how it's presented is important.
Just like reading a book. If I was reading a book (or watching a movie) and the murder was handled well, it wouldn't be a no go. If the book is very descriptive, movie very graphic and "realisitc" (I've watched a lot of Italian Giallo that essentially depicts graphic killing with the skill of making a fake doll and having the blood be red paint) then I probably wouldn't continue.
Which gets back to the point, are people who are fretting that Asian games are pushing sexualization also saying that "killing people is just pixels." Because then aren't the images you are seeing "just pixels?"
But maybe the answer is in my answer and people are just affected by imagery depending on how it's offered.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
After reading the comments so far, I think I'm going to agree with this. Presentation and context.
For example, if you have ever deleted a pic of a person from your computer, you have committed murder. That's the argument from one side, while the other side depends on the context.
After reading the comments so far, I think I'm going to agree with this. Presentation and context.
For example, if you have ever deleted a pic of a person from your computer, you have committed murder. That's the argument from one side, while the other side depends on the context.
That's a rather interesting interpretation (or denial) of what's been said.
Point there, is it not context that dictates whether the "child" is being "murdered"? Is it not "murder" in either context Sov provided, or was it simply that context provided a justification that he said he was comfortable with for one scenario?
And if it depends on context, then is there not scenarios deemed bad or without merit (gratuitous moments), that lack the justifiable context?
Why is it ok for one "side" to consider something contextually acceptable, but not ok to go from the other "side" and say something is contextually unacceptable? Again the GTA example. You would have to accept that you are playing a fundamentally amoral character within that context.
You kinda blurred them into one another already by saying context is important, because it admits that there is a necessary value to justify the action.
Which, what happens then when there is no justification to the action?
This brings up the point again that in addition to context there is the notion of repercussion and meaning to action within a mechanical sense too. Which brings up again why certain NPCs in later ES games had immunity added to them, because the freedom to kill whoever in a title like Morrowind, was semantically liberating, it was also game-breaking. Even GTA titles prevent you from whacking plot-relevant characters.
As it again ties to children, it can also again be brought up that developers are also subject to some awkward standards for ratings. Killing an adult? That can get you a teen or M rating depending on degree of violence. Killing a child? Even digitally, you're talking about creating a depiction of a youth being put into an "adult situation". That automatically punts you into M, and could mean more for your game.
Comments
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think that the way you present the options for game development as either making debased human behavior in games boiler plate, or removing all violence against children is disingenuous. As has been mentioned earlier and often, do you not find it strange that you find murdering other humans 10,000 times during the course of a game vile? Because that is boilerplate for like every RPG/FPS in the last 30 years.
Every game should take their own approach. But for me, I can't wait for a game to challenge all of the censorship that protects no one.
The major disadvantage of my position about total freedom is that now someone can come in and say, "he wants to kill kids!" Well, that's not quite true. I want to BE ABLE to kill kids. I also want BE ABLE to dance on a Himalayan peak. I also want to BE ABLE to pork the waitress. I also want to BE ABLE to lead an army against an impossible adversary. I want to BE ABLE to cheat at cards in a poker game and have my ass kicked.
Most of the time that is avoided through shallow characterizations. "These people are the bad guys." and what-not. When it comes to harming "innocents", it tends to still be a rather shallow model, that mostly means a lot of people "get away" with doing whatever. Rockstar has implemented some of the more complete models around this, and even their games leave a situation where you can pile up a ton of bodies in the middle of town and walk away scot-free.
IE, sure you can do stuff in games, but without those actions being plugged into other elements it pushes a situation where it becomes meaningless. In the case of "killing kids" it becomes a question for a developer of "Is putting kids in this game, and moreover making them killable, worth it for the kind of extra steps we'd need to take to enforce the concept of consequences to make doing to remotely relevant?"
Otherwise you run into a whole-nother can of worms if you just toss in a child character that you can whack without rhyme, reason, or consequence. As a studio, you'd just be setting yourself up to be under political fire and scrutiny for presenting "children" in "adult situations". And that's just sticking to the violence side of things.
Anyway, I would want a game with consequences in theory. Second life is a good example of a game that tried to take on the "do anything" theme. But there were no laws or rules. I can see your point in that case. The game turned into some weird porn sales experience where you would go places and find people fellating each other with custom animations. Like, it became hard to avoid that stuff and learn how to build an amazing home/base/whatever. And while I thought it was interesting to see what people chose to do, it was not a place I wanted to go back to. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist either (although I think it's part of the reason it flopped so hard in the end).
But lets take what you are saying that I agree with, specifically the part about consequences. People back in the day had this strange idealism about freedom in games. Ultima Online was my first experience with it. People thought that over time, in this online game, people would start to police themselves, like they do in real life. The result was different than the theory which a lot of people still subscribe to to this day. People were horrible to each other far, far more often than the policing was able to handle.
I believe consequences are key to a successful version of a very free game. I played EVE for like 7 years. It had elements of freedom in it that I adored. It also had people scamming and being awful towards each other. But at least in EVE, it did feel like there were consequences to your actions. Building a game with a ton of freedom is difficult to make fun and attractive in my opinion, but I do think it's getting close.
The part about this specific issue that is weird to me is that you can literally shoot a kids father in the face and watch them die right next to their kid. If people are ok with that in a game, why are people not ok with also killing the kid? And to be honest, the people that are ok with one and not the other are MORE scary to me because it's like they are thinking that the action is REAL and so should never happen. I mean, do they think it's ok to murder adults and not kids? It's really hard for me to conceptualize that thought process, because the logic seems so clear.
It's not real. That's why we murder 1000s of people in all games. Why is it suddenly real when a person is young?
This is exactly what leads to the part you disagreed with. The fact that it's already almost if not completely meaningless to whack a civilian mob, and that the consequences are immensely shallow or easily avoided, means adding more characters that exist in the same shallow state adds nothing to the user experience.
Instead, it just opens your game up to more scrutiny.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
The Dark Brotherhood exists in at least the last 3 Bethesda games. They are a group of people that the player character can become a part of. They often, but not always, rely on murdering people, sometimes innocent, to achieve their goals.
Now in these games, you do not have to join them and you do not have to murder anyone to advance in the game. But that they exist at all - does this bother you?
Though I can add "in GTA you play individuals of dubious character" and note there still isn't kids present among the pedestrians.
Which then repeats the point for games where you can. Unless the studio spends a lot of time creating meaningful consequences, adding more characters that do nothing but stand about and die without even being able to fight back, is a pointless effort.
If they do put kids in, it often is to evoke some context. Even as shallow as Skyrim can be, the few kids that do exist all had mechanical or narrative cause to help sell the world as being more alive. Not to just randomly spawn on a curb and wait to get fireballed or ran over.
And at that point, morality, narrative, etc has all flown out the window.
But yes, we do try to make "the game we want to make" most of the time. For as much as players are likely to ignore context and dialogue, it still means something to have it, and establish meaning to actions through it.
Though it doesn't really lead into consequence. Your own example just has you looking for justification to action, while the flipside can be for example, that you really are just killing innocent falmer that were minding their own business in the remote ruins of their once-opressors. But there is no consequences for that, because they are simply "more mobs", justified as unquestioningly hostile to the outside world to simplify the situation.
And that's kinda how it goes in many games. Their depth often only goes as far as giving players a justification to be a murder-hobo.
It's hard to see a reason to add children into such a game, hence it is not often done. And when it is, it is often within a controlled scope.
But then you make assumptions at the end. And now you are also stating people aren't allowed to be attacked in most RPGs (which is true).
Yes, if you take the total mass of NPCs that are able to be killed (Dragon Warrior + Morrowind + Mass Effect + Final Fantasy, + EVERY OTHER RPG) and divide it by total NPCs in those games, you would come to understand that yes, in most RPGs, most NPCs aren't able to be killed. However, this is a really bad argument in this case. We are talking about a game developer that made the Witcher series in a genre filled with NPCs that could be killed. I think it wold be far more fair to compare it to games where NPCs could be killed at all such as Bethesda games or CDPR games.
It doesn't even make sense to argue outside of that context, does it? Unless... do you argue in good faith or not?
Which then, sure let's focus only on the titles that let you attack civilians. How many civilians actually exist in those games as compared to bandits and hostile mobs? How many children exist in them, if any are in at all for a given title?
I can state again that even then, most non-hostile characters that you can kill tend to be of limited consequence. Among an already narrow band of RPGs, even less common are there ones that let you go as far as the likes of Morrowind in whacking meaningful characters, and the consequences are considerably more meta than they are contextually meaningful to the game world.
You kill a character important to the central plot, the plot just stops moving and you're stuck in a broken narrative. That's why some characters were given immunity in later titles. While AI has advanced, and you can juggle around some characters to maintain a plot, there is still not a robust enough system to let a player do or kill whomever and not lead to breaking the game and/or it's narrative.
Which then means, what scope is practical for letting the player do something like kill off NPCs, and what is the scope for the type of NPCs you're allowed to interact with in what ways?
As it ties back to "child" NPCs, that adds the extra can of worms about what you're doing with them narratively, how many of them there are, and the type of expected scenarios you are depicting them in.
As liberal as people tend to be about violence in games, it is still legally regarded as at least a teen if not adult scenario, and depicting violence involving children becomes a mighty legal subject for a studio to even consider approaching. Which is again why children are generally confined to specific narrative purposes even when talking about just the "do whatever" type RPGs.
The only relevant point there to be made regarding non-hostile NPCs and children, would be their common state in RPGs. Which has been addressed in two ways now.
And it's not an accusation, it's what you literally did.
You wrote it on this page and that was a direct quote.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
For example, if you have ever deleted a pic of a person from your computer, you have committed murder. That's the argument from one side, while the other side depends on the context.
Point there, is it not context that dictates whether the "child" is being "murdered"? Is it not "murder" in either context Sov provided, or was it simply that context provided a justification that he said he was comfortable with for one scenario?
And if it depends on context, then is there not scenarios deemed bad or without merit (gratuitous moments), that lack the justifiable context?
Why is it ok for one "side" to consider something contextually acceptable, but not ok to go from the other "side" and say something is contextually unacceptable? Again the GTA example. You would have to accept that you are playing a fundamentally amoral character within that context.
You kinda blurred them into one another already by saying context is important, because it admits that there is a necessary value to justify the action.
Which, what happens then when there is no justification to the action?
This brings up the point again that in addition to context there is the notion of repercussion and meaning to action within a mechanical sense too. Which brings up again why certain NPCs in later ES games had immunity added to them, because the freedom to kill whoever in a title like Morrowind, was semantically liberating, it was also game-breaking. Even GTA titles prevent you from whacking plot-relevant characters.
As it again ties to children, it can also again be brought up that developers are also subject to some awkward standards for ratings. Killing an adult? That can get you a teen or M rating depending on degree of violence. Killing a child? Even digitally, you're talking about creating a depiction of a youth being put into an "adult situation". That automatically punts you into M, and could mean more for your game.