Games that allow the player to murder children/minors?

Should this be a taboo in gaming?

  • Total voters
    27
Makta said:
I have yet to try the expansion.. I really want to and hopefully my funds will improve soon :P
Click to expand...
I enjoyed it quite a lot. There's a noticeable difficulty increase from the base game to the expansion. Expansion enemies are nastier than the base game ones.
 
nkchan16 said:
BTW, I also hate Fallout's approach... Why would killing a children have bad consequences? Fuck no! If you made a game in which the game play is based on killing things and dying then there should be no exception.
Click to expand...
It makes more sense in Fallout 2, where society is more developed.
 
nkchan16 said:
Any game with unkillable characters drives me mad. Like Skyrim. I mean, why do you need a mortal Dragonborn to fight dragons? I am sure those immortal potatohead kids can easily take care of a dragon... or you can simply send the immortal Maven...
Click to expand...
They can just round up all the kids in Skyrim and lead them to kill Alduin.
 
0wing said:
It makes more sense in Fallout 2, where society is more developed.
Click to expand...
To some perhaps. The reality is Fallout games have already killed millions of kids in a thermonuclear war or in the aftermath and one less kid will not make any difference in any situation, even if it was the last one remaining, and their "value" is rather subjective anyway.
 
I personally want to be able to do so. I mean not everywhere it makes sense. However in a world like Fallout it makes sense. Imagine how would your character react after being attacked by legion child.

Instead of them being immortal and simply running away.
 
nkchan16 said:
To some perhaps. The reality is Fallout games have already killed millions of kids in a thermonuclear war or in the aftermath and one less kid will not make any difference in any situation, even if it was the last one remaining, and their "value" is rather subjective anyway.
Click to expand...

I would argue this comes down to both basic human psychology and sociology. People are hard-wired to be protective of kids on an emotional level, so the logical conclusion that 'thousands of kids already died' wouldn't really change much to anyone unless they were Rick Sanchez or a robot. Secondly, even post-apocalptic tribal societies would have social norms, traditions, and taboos. Based on the previously described psychological factors, human groups could almost always be expected to react to an act of child murder as something abhorrent, regardless of external factors like a nuclear war.

What you have stated is something logical, but what the writers of Fallout understood is that real humans rarely act logically.

Ediros said:
I personally want to be able to do so. I mean not everywhere it makes sense. However in a world like Fallout it makes sense. Imagine how would your character react after being attacked by legion child.

Instead of them being immortal and simply running away.
Click to expand...

Killing child soldiers would be an excellent moral dilemma to pose to players, not out of character for a Fallout game.
 
nkchan16 said:
Any game with unkillable characters drives me mad. Like Skyrim. I mean, why do you need a mortal Dragonborn to fight dragons? I am sure those immortal potatohead kids can easily take care of a dragon... or you can simply send the immortal Maven...

BTW, I also hate Fallout's approach... Why would killing a children have bad consequences? Fuck no! If you made a game in which the game play is based on killing things and dying then there should be no exception.

If you really want us to care for children in your game then make them mortal like everyone else.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this, but Fallout is not that game. The main theme of the series is to rebuild from the ashes of war, and progress, so killing a young age group who can continue this progression should have negative consequences, mainly because:
  1. Children are vulnerable human beings, so it should be frowned upon, regardless of which setting the game is set in.
  2. As I pointed out before, children are the future. If future generations aren't around, the human species would go extinct, and the whole entire theme of the series wouldn't have a solid theme to rely on.
As for Skyrim, that game has way too many obnoxious NPCs with an "essential flag" on their IDs - children or adults. I don't understand Bethesda's fixation on making every character an unlikable, irredeemable jackass that can't be killed. I miss the days of Morrowind where you can taunt NPCs into killing you, and kill them without earning a bounty. Those were the good old days...
 
Last edited:
5545Trey said:
The main theme of the series is to rebuild from the ashes of war, and progress, so killing a young age group who can continue this progression should have negative consequences, mainly because:
  1. Children are vulnerable human beings, so it should be frowned upon, regardless of which setting the game is set in.
  2. As I pointed out before, children are the future. If future generations aren't around, the human species would go extinct, and the whole entire theme of the series wouldn't have a solid theme to rely on.
Click to expand...
By that logic, killing Adolf Hitler when he was a kid would have negative consequences. Also, children may be the future, but you don't what that future will turn out to be. A previous generation of those children have managed to destroyed the human civilization, so why should the new ones be any different?
 
Godwin's Law argument right off the bat.
Also even without Hitler the German revolution was brewing anyway. It's like the people who think that "If he hadn't been a failed artist WW2 wouldn't have happened".

The youth of any species is indispensable for it's preservation. Even animals protect their young, pretty basic stuff, if you go into an NCR town and shoot little Timmy in the face you will be branded the worse kind of murderer.
 
nkchan16 said:
By that logic, killing Adolf Hitler when he was a kid would have negative consequences. Also, children may be the future, but you don't what that future will turn out to be. A previous generation of those children have managed to destroyed the human civilization, so why should the new ones be any different?
Click to expand...

By this logic we should just kill every fucking kid out there because, you know, some of them will turn bad and we don't want that.

A real jewel, this post.
 
nkchan16 said:
By that logic, killing Adolf Hitler when he was a kid would have negative consequences.
Click to expand...

Logic being the key word here. You need to understand that human behavior is not always logical. The game is simply emulating societal reality, which is why people are defending the feature.

nkchan16 said:
Also, children may be the future, but you don't what that future will turn out to be. A previous generation of those children have managed to destroyed the human civilization, so why should the new ones be any different?
Click to expand...

Expecting the writers of Fallout to depict such fringe opinions is unrealistic, regardless of how you may personally feel. You are only setting yourself up for disappointment. It is a fact that most humans believe children are the future.
 
I wouldn't call an argument based on time travel "logical", specially any amount more logical than children being the only way you build a future for your society or species.
 
nkchan16 said:
Also, children may be the future, but you don't what that future will turn out to be. A previous generation of those children have managed to destroyed the human civilization, so why should the new ones be any different?
Click to expand...

Agreed. They brought nuclear death to us all. This will be the age of mutants-Mutants.
 
Walpknut said:
Godwin's Law argument right off the bat.
Also even without Hitler the German revolution was brewing anyway. It's like the people who think that "If he hadn't been a failed artist WW2 wouldn't have happened".
Click to expand...
People think that as a "possibility", just like you think the German revolution would happen anyway, which is also a possibility, but claiming that the same things would happen even without Hitler, is just ridiculous.

Walpknut said:
The youth of any species is indispensable for it's preservation. Even animals protect their young, pretty basic stuff
Click to expand...
That's instinct, not a rational behavior. Animals, including humans, will continue to reproduce and protect their offspring even if that leads to overpopulation and ultimately the extinction of their species. By the way, not all animals protect their offspring, some would gladly eat them.

Walpknut said:
if you go into an NCR town and shoot little Timmy in the face you will be branded the worse kind of murderer.
Click to expand...
Murder is murder, there is no objective difference between killing a child or an adult. If you think there is then you're biased. Some people, usually parents or prospective parents who like children have that kind of a bias.

Atomkilla said:
By this logic we should just kill every fucking kid out there because, you know, some of them will turn bad and we don't want that.

A real jewel, this post.
Click to expand...
The jewel is how you could come to that conclusion. All I've said is that there is no difference between killing a child or an adult. I've never even said that I approve murder of any kind.
 
Last edited:
Except that Murder is only a concept because a culture decides to condemn and catalogue killing another member of their culture as a crime. Thuse, Murder does have different levels of immorality, manslaugther, killing in self defense and such are all on a different scale than regular murder, thus commiting a murder on people or animals that have increasingly lower abilities to defend themselves does actually weigh on how we catalogue murder.

Like for example edginess, someone just saying they are Smart for liking Bojack Horseman is less edgy than someone trying to seem smart for advocating child murder.
 
Walpknut said:
Except that Murder is only a concept because a culture decides to condemn and catalogue killing another member of their culture as a crime. Thuse, Murder does have different levels of immorality, manslaugther, killing in self defense and such are all on a different scale than regular murder, thus commiting a murder on people or animals that have increasingly lower abilities to defend themselves does actually weigh on how we catalogue murder.
Click to expand...
Is the penalty for shooting a 5 year old or a 50 year old in the face different in the law of your country? Is it different in other countries? If murder is a concept a culture decides then it's not objective, which is what I say. "Murder is murder", in the context of "shooting Timmy in the face" or an shooting an adult in the face, which you've already accepted as a case of "murder".
 
Last edited:
If it's not objective then it can't just be "Murder is murder". Also, child murder usually results in aggravated sentences in most countries, so going to an NCR town and killing little Timmy would probably get you more hate than killing Mr Timothy.
 
Killing a cow in India would probably get more hate than killing it in another place, not to mention you'll get a life sentence for it, because they believe cows are sacred. I suppose in some people's minds children are sacred like cows in India, which is just as ridiculous.

By the way, I wonder who voted for child murder to be a taboo in games. Come forward, and let me add you to my ignore list. Never mind, I already did that.

I could easily kill the two brats and their parents sitting beside me in the metro today, if only I lived in the world of Fallout... I fucking hate children!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top