...do you really want to be able to kill children

It seems to me this debate has strayed into rather strange territory.

In my opinion, morality and motive is really a non-issue in the face of common sense. You are a player motivated character in the anarchic remains of a dead nation. You wander around with guns because everyone else has them, and anybody could be waiting around the corner to kill yours ass.

Since you carry a gun, and motivate the character with your wishes (RPG remember) then logically you should be able to shoot what and when you want. If you can shoot that car and explode it, shoot that mutant, then you should be able to shoot that child. Since the game is supposed to have some core notion of realism, then if you shoot the child it should die. If the child doesn't die, it removes that bit of common sense, and makes the world less beleivable and less open, and less "immersive".

Having no children in the game removes some of this problem, but a world without children is kind of an odd one.

At the end of the day, though, this game is Fallout 3. In Fallout 1&2 you had the option of killing children. If Fallout 3 is an authentic sequel, it will allow you to kill the children.
 
Sanders said:
*Motive*. We're talking about motives, we've been talking about motives constantly. If you can't see the difference between killing someone as an act of revenge, or killing someone to regain stuff, then I really don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

I belive we just got to the core of this whole deal... You are right... I can't see the difference between those things.

Taking that factor in means that... we are both absolutely right with our own stand points. Which makes this whole argue quite futile and meaningless. This is quite depressive thought concidering how much time and energy has been spent.

Sanders said:
No, you brought it up in a *later* post. To which I responded, upon which you accused *me* of bringing necessity up.
Click to expand...

If that truly is the case, I shouldn't have ever done it as it is indeed quite pointless. If you can find that point and show it to me, I'd appreciate it, but that doesn't really matter at all.

Sanders said:
And yet again, revenge kills and sadism kills are equivalent for your argument.

And, again, just because an action could be motivated by revenge or sadism *doesn't mean that it can't be motivated by something else as well*. Such as, you know, getting your stuff back.

Here, I'll say this yet again: killing children who steal from you can get your stuff back. If your goal is to get your stuff back, then this works perfectly. This has jack shit to do with 'revenge' or 'sadism', it is a *means* to an end. The end being getting your stuff back. Do you understand this?
Click to expand...

Mmmmhhhh.... I fail to see how they are equivalent in my argument when I have kept them separate quite strictly the whole time. Killing someone for something that they did is automatically a revenge kill in my book, no matter what the "end" is. Killing someone without any apparent reason is also automatically a sadism kill in my book.

However claiming that I am only focused on these 2 are lies. I already accepted Sorrows example of pro-active kill, which is not revenge kill since the child has not done anything yet, nor sadism kill since there is a reason behind the kill, so it is a third reason to kill a child, and I agreed with it.

Sanders said:
You did say so for Fallout 3, and that is very obvious too. I nowhere claimed that you said there's an official reason to blow up a city in the original games, because you never did claim that.
Click to expand...

Ain't those two sentences controversial? On the first one you say that I say there is a reason to nuke a city, but on the next one you say that I NEVER did claim that there is a reason to nuke a city. So which one is it? Did I say it or not and if yes, I am still waiting for proof.

Sanders said:
What, do you ever structure sentences unpurposely? Because if you do, I find it quite admirable that you end up with intelligable sentences. Yes, that is sarcasm. Every sentence has a meaning, and the structure of a sentence can completely change that meaning.
Click to expand...

Ummh... I'm sorry, I didn't fully understand the question in that. But, you see... as I said earlier my native languange IS NOT english and I am no linguistic wizard. Quite honestly I have absolutely no idea how to structure an english sentence properly. Believe it or not, but that's the truth. I only write the words that sounds good and "in place" to me. Hard to explain.

But yeah... if it seems like I have an insult there, or a claim in question, I didn't intend them to be there. If there's a questionmark it's a question in my part.

Please try to understand that since english ain't my native I cannot fully see all that. Yes, I do realize that english might not be your native either, but it's still more likely still superior when compared to mine. Proven by the fact that you were able to present why you saw what you saw in my sentences while I thought them to be only misunderstandings, or at least attempts to see content beneath the text.

I hope this post explains a lot to you.

Regards,
Caldera
 
Caldera said:
Mmmmhhhh.... I fail to see how they are equivalent in my argument when I have kept them separate quite strictly the whole time. Killing someone for something that they did is automatically a revenge kill in my book, no matter what the "end" is.
Click to expand...
Try to understand the word 'reason'. People have reasons for their actions. The reason to kill a child who stole from you can be pure revenge. It can also be to get your stuff back. This is what motives are about.

The difference between the two can be clearly seen if you add in a third element. If the kid afterwards sells his stolen stuff to someone else, and you know this, you don't go after the kid, but after the guy who bought your stuff. You can then ignore the child.
You only want to get your stuff back, and killing the child is simply an efficient way to do that. Revenge does not factor into this.

Hell, let's make it even easier. Child A steals your stuff. He sells the stuff to Child B, who does not know it's stolen. You kill Child B to get your stuff back. Clearly, this is not a case of a revenge kill, since Child B never did anything against you. It is simply a kill with the ulterior motive of getting your stuff back.
Caldera said:
Ain't those two sentences controversial? On the first one you say that I say there is a reason to nuke a city, but on the next one you say that I NEVER did claim that there is a reason to nuke a city. So which one is it? Did I say it or not and if yes, I am still waiting for proof.
Click to expand...
I said that you claimed there's a reason to blow up a city in *Fallout 3*, but that you didn't do that for *Fallout 1 and 2*.
 
Fallout offers many choice and consequence.
You use drug, prepaid to suffer the withdraw effect.

If I can carry 500tons of stuff without getting myself kill/slowing down my movement speed, this is a serious game logic flaw.

If I can kill a children without any serious consequence, this is a serious game logic flaw.

It's a game. DEAL with it.

Ssh....

P/S: the only thing that bugs me is no matter how many times I have sex with a hooker I never get any STD... :o
 
zioburosky13 said:
If I can kill a children without any serious consequence, this is a serious game logic flaw.
Click to expand...
If you get serious consequences despite lack of (alive) witnesses, this is a serious game logic flaw.
 
Sanders said:
Hell, let's make it even easier. Child A steals your stuff. He sells the stuff to Child B, who does not know it's stolen. You kill Child B to get your stuff back. Clearly, this is not a case of a revenge kill, since Child B never did anything against you. It is simply a kill with the ulterior motive of getting your stuff back.
Click to expand...

Aaaaa.... I see.... yes, that is true. In such case a revenge, nor sadism, nor pro-active fits in. But that's quite different in nature with the first one.

Are those situations even comparable? I can't really find a reason why not off the top of my hat, but... that doesn't still mean they are. Well, I guess you're right with that then.

Sanders said:
I said that you claimed there's a reason to blow up a city in *Fallout 3*, but that you didn't do that for *Fallout 1 and 2*.
Click to expand...

This is still an issue that worries me. I still can't recall saying there's a reason to blow up a city in any of the FO's.... However there could be. It's not impossible at all. I'm still waiting for that quote though.

Actually.... this situation "kind of" already exists in FO2, although it's not completely legit, but then again... using such device rarely is.

You had the chance to cause a meltdown in Gecko, I believe this comes quite near to nuking a city. The game offers even a slight reason to do so, to stop the ghouls from polluting the groundwater that in time kills everyone.

Now, obviously this ain't the "right" choice morally, but when using such device really is? But of course there could be even a better reason to nuke a city, to end a war for example, much like what happened to the Enclave at the end of FO2. That if anything was a nuclear detonation that took out an "island" big enough to be counted as a city. If I remember right it's actually even unavoidable situation.

But I'm not certain if even that is comparable to nuking a city in FO3. It depends a lot on what kind of circuments there are and what kind of people lives in the city and whom offers you the job to do so as well as to what end?

Soooo.... in order to be able to claim that there is an actual reason to nuke the city.... there's loads of info I would have to know first.

Anywhoo, this subject is quite hugely offtopic, so if you ask me, we'e found points of agreement already.

Cheers,
Caldera
 
Caldera said:
This is still an issue that worries me. I still can't recall saying there's a reason to blow up a city in any of the FO's.... However there could be. It's not impossible at all. I'm still waiting for that quote though.
Click to expand...
You said it indirectly. Although you may just have been unaware of the fact that Fallout 3 will feature blowing up a city, and that there's a reason for it. You claimed in your first post in this thread that "The reasons to nuke a city is more often political and fanatical". Correlating this with the fact that the subject of the thread was (largely) Fallout 3, I assumed you were talking about the nuking of a city in Fallout 3, as everyone else was. But that may have been misreading on my part.

In any case, Fallout 3 will feature the possible nuking of a city, the reason behind it (for you) is that someone offers you a huge bundle of cash to do it.
 
Owww.... yeah.... that..... Now I'm confused. I have to think this one over... Hmmmh..... yeah.... you're right. Me saying that there's no reason to nuke a city doesn't make sense at all no matter how you look at it. :crazy:

Well... it still doesn't affect my initial post at all. But that makes me think.... throughout all of this all that I have sayed are still intact in the initial post that I made. I have only been trying to back what I said there, so I quess this whole thing has been a huge waste of everybodys time.

-C
 
I strongly suspect that a character that decides to nuke the town is more likely to do it just for the hell of it or for the rush of power he gets by instantly killing thousands of people rather than for money or political motive.
People with political motivations usually stay away from actually using nukes.
 
So..... Do I have this right.

You can kill children as long as they are in a particular town and you use a scripted nuke. Unfortunately there may be some adult casualties.

Just watched "Jekyll",

To quote mr. Hyde "To be honest I don't get much pleasure out of killing children, but I get enough"

Also

"Murder you should try it, it's like sex only there's a winner."

Potential combat taunt "here's god"

"perfect start to an evening the night is young there's a girl and someones' going to die. thats you buy the way"
 
I argue in favor of having killable children [not that it matters to devs or censors]. No, I'm not going to go on a child killing spree. Though I admit I did try out the planted dynamite trick on a kid in Shady Sands once, just to see how it worked. I will also admit to laughing.

Anyone caught in the crossfire of rivaling factions in some beat-up, irradiated town, should be vulnerable. None of this invincible unkillable children crap. Just because they're not of majority doesn't make them impervious to wild bullets.

I imagine another situation where you're fighting for your life, but with innocent people in the field between you and the guy trying to kill you. Given my morals [which I always have a hard time shaking even in-game] I would feel terrible about firing back, possibly hitting innocent people (including the kids). However I would also feel terrible if the attackers shot and killed someone innocent. Also, I probably would fear for my character's life.

I would cautiously fire back, with the possibility of going beserk if someone innocent was tagged with a 10mm JHP.

Basically, non-killable children would gut the passion or urgency of such dangerous situations. I remember the best times in Oblivion were when your companions lost their Crown icon and could be killed.

The potential for death brings that certain drama to a story.
 
Killing the senator in NRC by planting dynamite on his kid and sending him to talk to his father gives me a hard-on. Nothing to do with this debate, just plain awesome.
 
That's wicked XD !
I didn't know that it's possible to kill the senator this way XD .
 
The thing about fallout has always been that you can kill whatever you want, whenever you want, for whatever reason you damn well please.

And besides, having no kids is stupid. It's like if they chose to leave out women or people with black shoes.

And we don't want FO3 to be like FOT anyway.
 
Counterquestion for Bethesda

...do you really want to be able to kill another human being?

They've so blinded themselves that they don't see that they are AFAIK (on the contrary) making it seem like ..killing's OK to an extent, but be sure not to kill kids on the way.. when AFAIK F1 and F2 clearly show that killing children for example is a horrible thing (Childkiller per), far more effectively than making them unrealistically immortal.
 
It's a Reputation, not a Perk.
Too bad they didn't make a Murderer Reputation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top