GamesRadar - The Infinite Potential of Fallout 3

[pkt-zer0]

I'm reading the Deathland series by Axler. Children can be killed, and are killed. What's the big deal?

I'm not sure you understand. Yes, children die, in literature, real life and sometimes, video games. In this case, they do not. Arguing that the game is not as good because you cannot murder children is fucking creepy.

Not "because you cannot murder children" but "because there are invincible children".

 

[mandrake776]

Not "because you cannot murder children" but "because there are invincible children".

And why is that an issue? Because people want to murder them.

 

[pkt-zer0]

And why is that an issue?

Immersion? Might as well show a huge "CENSORED" popup to remind you that the Wasteland's now rated PG-13, and is fully approved by Jack Thompson.
Either don't have children at all, or don't make them invincible just as a form of self-imposed preemptive censorship.

 

[Mephestys]

Not "because you cannot murder children" but "because there are invincible children".

And why is that an issue? Because people want to murder them.

I don't want to murder children, but if I were to launch a rocket into a crowded building I'd expect everything in there to be dead or dying, not a bunch of corpses surrounded by hale and hearty children just standing there like nothing happened.

 

[mandrake776]

Immersion?

Yeah, when I'm playing games, nothing pulls me out faster than not being able to kill children. If this kills your immersion, work on that, and see a psychologist.

Might as well show a huge "CENSORED" popup to remind you that the Wasteland's now rated PG-13, and is fully approved by Jack Thompson.

Oh, I see. You haven't seen anything else about the game at all.

Either don't have children at all, or don't make them invincible just as a form of self-imposed preemptive censorship.

Or have them run away as soon as they're attacked at all.

 

[pkt-zer0]

Or have them run away as soon as they're attacked at all.

With a miniature nuke. To the face.

Nah.

 

[mandrake776]

Well, yes, if you go out of your way to break the game, you will succeed.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Yeah, when I'm playing games, nothing pulls me out faster than not being able to kill children. If this kills your immersion, work on that, and see a psychologist.

What's really creepy here is your obsession with saving VIRTUAL puppies from big bad gamers everywhere. I'm sure each and every one of those hundreds of thousands of 0's and 1's they're made of will be eternaly gratefull to you and people like you for enabling them to walk through any kind of VIRTUAL danger, be it flame, steel, acid or blast, without so much as a 1 turning to 0 on their BINARY head.

Who needs a psychologist, me wonders.

 

[Tygernoot]

Arguing that the game is not as good because you cannot murder children is fucking creepy.

I recommend you don't ever play Bioshock . That game would have sucked if you didn't have the choice to do so

 

[mandrake776]

What's really creepy here is your obsession with saving VIRTUAL puppies from big bad gamers everywhere.

It's like you can't read. I said that having in the game isn't bad. It's when people get all up in arms because they can't kill children that it gets creepy.

 

[DexterMorgan]

It's like you can't read. I said that having in the game isn't bad. It's when people get all up in arms because they can't kill children that it gets creepy.

I can read plenty. For instance, I've noticed the person you were replying to just pointed out that there is a major immersion breaker in having an invulnerable anything in a world that's as dangerous, jaded and survivalist in nature as Fallout is, and you turn around and pull the same old tired "creepy" card.

It's not creepy. It's all a bunch of code. Wanting to "save" said code is what's really crazy.

Have you heard of the plight of Palestinian people? Crisis in Darfur? Plenty of real-life horrors to battle out there. Leave this crusade to the real crazies.

edit: typo

 

[mandrake776]

I can read plenty. For instance, I've noticed the person you were replying to just pointed out that there is a major immersion breaker in having an invulnerable anything in a world that's as dangerous, jaded and survivalist in nature as Fallout is, and you turn around and pull the same old tired "creepy" card.

There's good reasons for including it. There are valid reasons for not including it. It's not going to change, and saying that this is why you're thinking Fallout 3 is bad is either intentionally looking for reasons to dislike the game or creepy.

I't not creepy. It's all a bunch of code. Wanting to "save" said code is what's really crazy.

This is why I'm pretty sure you can't read. I already addressed this.

Crysis in Darfur?

I thought Crysis was in North Korea.

Edit: he fixed the spelling

 

[UncannyGarlic]

On a positive note killable children will be modded in 5 minutes after game release.

If/when people figure out how to mod it and if children can be made killable.

Well, yes, if you go out of your way to break the game, you will succeed.

A properly designed game cannot be broken and you want to test your game with people who will try their best to break the game.

Also I don't understand why killing children is any worse than killing anyone else, let alone children in a videogame. Are you suggesting that it's alright to want to be able to kill virtual adults but not virtual children? If so, why?

EDIT:

There's good reasons for including it. There are valid reasons for not including it. It's not going to change, and saying that this is why you're thinking Fallout 3 is bad is either intentionally looking for reasons to dislike the game or creepy.

What valid reasons are their for not including it in Fallout 3?

 

[DexterMorgan]

There's good reasons for including it. There are valid reasons for not including it. It's not going to change, and saying that this is why you're thinking Fallout 3 is bad is either intentionally looking for reasons to dislike the game or creepy.

There are valid reasons for leaving children out of a game where they are prone to get in the line of fire. Sacrificing the all-important immersion by including them and making them invincible serves what purpose exactly? Beth may as well have kept the iso view and 4-pixel chairs if they care so little about it /irony.

Crysis in Darfur? I thought Crysis was in North Korea.

Oh lovely, being a spelling-nazi is a sure-fire way to discredit me and win an argument. Well done, u b teh interweb winnah.

 

[thefalloutfan]

On a positive note killable children will be modded in 5 minutes after game release.

If/when people figure out how to mod it and if children can be made killable.

Since Fallout uses the same engine like Oblivion's, tweaking the CS for Oblivion to work with Fallout is not improbable. But I'm also sure about one thing, a CS will be released. I've got no fact to back this up, but if I can count on Beth for one thing, it's releasing a CS.

 

[mandrake776]

A properly designed game cannot be broken and you want to test your game with people who will try their best to break the game.

This is not an accurate statement, nor one that uses "properly designed" in a way that makes any sense.

Also I don't understand why killing children is any worse than killing anyone else, let alone children in a videogame. Are you suggesting that it's alright to want to be able to kill virtual adults but not virtual children? If so, why?

Who are you arguing with?

What valid reasons are their for not including it in Fallout 3?

Well, firstly, monetary ones. It costs money to rate a game and if the ESRB decides to give it an AO rating based on that it would greatly reduce their ability to get the game to market. Then, rerating costs money if they decide they don't want the AO rating. Not to mention the kind of negative press that could create.

For another, aesthetic reasons. Perhaps they have a moral opposition to including it in a game that they're making.

Oh lovely, being a spelling-nazi is a sure-fire way to discredit me and win an argument. Well done, u b teh interweb winnah.

You don't know what that term means. I've ignored many many mistakes in this thread. I'm not making an issue of it, your point was silly, so I deflected it with a joke. It's a joke, not a condemnation based on your ability to spell things.

 

[Anarchosyn]

Mandrake has a point, i.e. that the invincible children aren't an issue, but he's going about the argument all wrong.

Fallout isn't just for one market. It might surprise some of you but there are countries that would outright ban this game if it had killable children (see the censored versions of past Fallouts for reference). I'd rather have unkillable children than to not have the game marketed in places like Germany or deal with crappy work arounds like lazy devs just making all the children invisible.

I have good money on the fact this is the *only* reason Bethesda opted to protect the blighters. It's all 'bout business and localization expenses, not a morality debate.

 

[sarfa]

Well... if you look at football from the managers perspective (as opposed to the level of 'just having a kickabout') then football is a game all about using your pieces strengths well to take advantage of the oppononents pieces weaknesses, while minimising your pieces weaknesses.

I am talking about the level of 'just having a kickabout', the core concept of the game as it was when it was created way back in whenever BC.

The concept of the game way back then was more organised than just having a kick about. Just having a kickabout is not playing to win, once you're playing to win, tactics become important and suddenly the core of the game is very similar to the core of chess. Often just having a kick about doesn't even involve goals of any description, something that has been key to football as a game since day one.

The core concepts of the game are very tactical in nature, like I said. So it is quit elike chess.

Comparing having a kick about to chess is just plain daft. It's like comparing surfing the internet to being stabbed in the stomach. If you meant having a kick about, you should have said that.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

This is not an accurate statement, nor one that uses "properly designed" in a way that makes any sense.

I consider well designed games properly designed games and well designed games don't allow you to break them. That said, I'm doubtful that not being able to kill children will break the game mechanically but it certainly will shatter the immersion when it happens.

Who are you arguing with?

Don't be a jackass.

Well, firstly, monetary ones. It costs money to rate a game and if the ESRB decides to give it an AO rating based on that it would greatly reduce their ability to get the game to market. Then, rerating costs money if they decide they don't want the AO rating. Not to mention the kind of negative press that could create.

For another, aesthetic reasons. Perhaps they have a moral opposition to including it in a game that they're making.

Getting a game rated or rerated isn't that expensive and Bethesda obviously doesn't care about doing it considering the Australian rerating. If they were morally opposed to killing children then they wouldn't include them in the first place, that's what previous games did. Mortal children isn't going to give a game an AO rating, as proved by previous installments and Bioshock, so that argument is bogus. As for negative press, all press is good press and controversial press is the best press for games like Fallout 3 (just look at GTA). Also Germany isn't the country that raises a fit about killing children, they raise a fit about any killing, it's the UK that has (had?) the rating issues with mortal children.

The concept of the game way back then was more organised than just having a kick about. Just having a kickabout is not playing to win, once you're playing to win, tactics become important and suddenly the core of the game is very similar to the core of chess. Often just having a kick about doesn't even involve goals of any description, something that has been key to football as a game since day one.

The core concepts of the game are very tactical in nature, like I said. So it is quit elike chess.

Comparing having a kick about to chess is just plain daft. It's like comparing surfing the internet to being stabbed in the stomach. If you meant having a kick about, you should have said that.

Football and chess are nothing alike and your argument is bogus. Chess is balanced (opponents have the same pieces) and completely dependent on the two player's abilities while football is a game that depends on many player's abilities and their ability to work together. The coach's role is entirely different from that of a chess player as the coach recruits and trains players but has little impact, other than substituting, on how the game is played while a chess player controls everything that their pieces do.

 

[aenemic]

On a positive note killable children will be modded in 5 minutes after game release.

If/when people figure out how to mod it and if children can be made killable.

not gonna happen unless someone puts in a whole lot of effort and create models and animations for dying/dead children. it's not like they're gonna put all that in there and then just not use it.

there might be an animation for them falling to the ground, and then getting back up again (like the unkillable npcs in Oblivion).