Killing kids: why and why not?

[mondblut]

Arcanum sort of had that, and beyond a certain part of the main quest, you are basically locked into the Evil ending and lose two entire chapters of the game. Fallout had it also in that you get the Childkiller or Slaver reputation and a lot of things are closed to you.

"You awful human being, we'll let you do that doubleplusungood thing, but we'll punish you by cutting lots of content and generally making the game as unpleasant as possible". Nice try, but pearlclutching by any other name is still pearlclutching. Give us fully fledged alternate outlaw or slaver gameplay experience instead of "things closed to you", or shut up with this "muh consequences" moralizing.

 

[Cael]

Arcanum sort of had that, and beyond a certain part of the main quest, you are basically locked into the Evil ending and lose two entire chapters of the game. Fallout had it also in that you get the Childkiller or Slaver reputation and a lot of things are closed to you.

"You awful human being, we'll let you do that doubleplusungood thing, but we'll punish you by cutting lots of content and generally making the game as unpleasant as possible". Nice try, but pearlclutching by any other name is still pearlclutching. Give us fully fledged alternate outlaw or slaver gameplay experience instead of "things closed to you", or shut up with this "muh consequences" moralizing.

No. Being an outlaw comes with consequences, and that includes being pilloried in civilised areas. If the quests are based on civilised areas, you lose access to them, and if it is part of the main quest, you're fucked. Sucks to be you.

Consequences, bitches. Learn it.

 

[AW8]

Killing NPC's makes sense in most games as they're treated as obstacles for you to overcome - enemies to be neutralized and civilian witnesses to be silenced.
So does stealing quest objects, as well as general items if the game features merchants who pay for them.
As for killing children, it always feels ridiculous when you can slaughter innocent adults but not the kids. In that case the game is better off not having children at all, in my opinion.

With rape, I see only two ways it would be a viable player choice.

• One is if the goal is to further your bloodline, like in Crusader Kings 2. In this case it makes perfect sense to rape a specific NPC, at least for heterosexual rape.
• The other is if the player has some kind of condition that creates a need for sexual relations, like a vampire needing human blood. So you'd have to choose between accepting a debuff/death or force yourself onto someone to avoid the negative effect.

The vampiric idea is very silly, but the bloodline one isn't farfetched for a game to utilize at all. I would be perfectly fine playing a game featuring either of the ideas. However, if a game features the option to rape for no other reason than to cause an edgy controversy, or give some heavy-handed lesson about how rape is bad (duh) then it would be better if the option wasn't included at all.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Arcanum sort of had that, and beyond a certain part of the main quest, you are basically locked into the Evil ending and lose two entire chapters of the game. Fallout had it also in that you get the Childkiller or Slaver reputation and a lot of things are closed to you.

"You awful human being, we'll let you do that doubleplusungood thing, but we'll punish you by cutting lots of content and generally making the game as unpleasant as possible". Nice try, but pearlclutching by any other name is still pearlclutching. Give us fully fledged alternate outlaw or slaver gameplay experience instead of "things closed to you", or shut up with this "muh consequences" moralizing.

I'd be entirely unsurprised if there are people on the codex who would argue that simply being able to quit the game is a form of C&C

 

[Doktor Best]

Children lack the life experience and complexities required to be compelling characters. I can't think of a single memorable child character

Alvin in Witcher 1

 

[Cael]

Arcanum sort of had that, and beyond a certain part of the main quest, you are basically locked into the Evil ending and lose two entire chapters of the game. Fallout had it also in that you get the Childkiller or Slaver reputation and a lot of things are closed to you.

"You awful human being, we'll let you do that doubleplusungood thing, but we'll punish you by cutting lots of content and generally making the game as unpleasant as possible". Nice try, but pearlclutching by any other name is still pearlclutching. Give us fully fledged alternate outlaw or slaver gameplay experience instead of "things closed to you", or shut up with this "muh consequences" moralizing.

I'd be entirely unsurprised if there are people on the codex who would argue that simply being able to quit the game is a form of C&C

Wrong. If the game is about a guy trying to save his tribe from starvation and not being a bandit sim, then it is acceptable that there is no full blown bandit sim with the product. Don't like it, go buy a bandit sim.

 

[Excommunicator]

As long as games intersect with art and exploration of human nature then a developer should be able to explore any idea they want. If you think you have a good game idea then do it, don't let someone stop you.

I don't think I'd seek out a game with extreme content like that but there's valid game ideas to be explored with it. There are countless movies where the inclusion of that kind of extreme content made the movie better or was even essential to the movie. Games are no different. Just don't expect to be able to distribute the game without heavy pushback.

 

[Cael]

As long as games intersect with art and exploration of human nature then a developer should be able to explore any idea they want. If you think you have a good game idea then do it, don't let someone stop you.

I don't think I'd seek out a game with extreme content like that but there's valid game ideas to be explored with it. There are countless movies where the inclusion of that kind of extreme content made the movie better or was even essential to the movie. Games are no different. Just don't expect to be able to distribute the game without heavy pushback.

That is not the problem. The problem is idiots demanding that the game go out of its way to accommodate their fetishes. Uh-uh. The game will portray what the developer wants it to portray. If you don't like it, play another game more to your liking. If the game says "Ultima" up the front, for example, it is highly unlikely you will be able to play murder-rape-kill sim with it.

 

[Haba]

So... when will someone make a Steam page for "Abortion Simulator 2019"?

 

[Falksi]

Killing kids is usually linked with paedophilic urges & desires. It's a no from me.

 

[Reinhardt]

When kittehs are harmed.

What about catgirls?

 

[vota DC]

Killing kids is usually linked with paedophilic urges & desires. It's a no from me.

There are tons of novels were killing kids is just a step for wiping an enemy dinasty.

 

[Cael]

Killing kids is usually linked with paedophilic urges & desires. It's a no from me.

There are tons of novels were killing kids is just a step for wiping an enemy dinasty.

There is a vast difference between saying the kids were wiped out and actually pulling the trigger yourself.

 

[Excommunicator]

As long as games intersect with art and exploration of human nature then a developer should be able to explore any idea they want. If you think you have a good game idea then do it, don't let someone stop you.

I don't think I'd seek out a game with extreme content like that but there's valid game ideas to be explored with it. There are countless movies where the inclusion of that kind of extreme content made the movie better or was even essential to the movie. Games are no different. Just don't expect to be able to distribute the game without heavy pushback.

That is not the problem. The problem is idiots demanding that the game go out of its way to accommodate their fetishes. Uh-uh. The game will portray what the developer wants it to portray. If you don't like it, play another game more to your liking. If the game says "Ultima" up the front, for example, it is highly unlikely you will be able to play murder-rape-kill sim with it.

If you're going to use the artistic expression argument when making a game about extreme things then you have to be willing to accept the other consequences - poor sales, negative reviews, general backlash.

Should those "reviews" be able to talk about how much they dislike the extreme content and rate it negatively because of that? Yeah absolutely. Should they be calling for it to be banned or saying that the dev shouldn't be allowed to make it? Definitely not.

Presentation is more than half of the equation IMO. If the violence is graphic then the reaction will be far more extreme.

E.g. Should a fallout-like game have "murder-rape sim" mechanics? I think you could definitely make the argument that it makes sense in the setting. But implementing it you would have to do it in a non graphic way to make people half willing to accept it. But I think you could potentially do it. But should you? Not if you're looking for any degree of commercial success. Make a choice.

 

[Cael]

As long as games intersect with art and exploration of human nature then a developer should be able to explore any idea they want. If you think you have a good game idea then do it, don't let someone stop you.

I don't think I'd seek out a game with extreme content like that but there's valid game ideas to be explored with it. There are countless movies where the inclusion of that kind of extreme content made the movie better or was even essential to the movie. Games are no different. Just don't expect to be able to distribute the game without heavy pushback.

That is not the problem. The problem is idiots demanding that the game go out of its way to accommodate their fetishes. Uh-uh. The game will portray what the developer wants it to portray. If you don't like it, play another game more to your liking. If the game says "Ultima" up the front, for example, it is highly unlikely you will be able to play murder-rape-kill sim with it.

If you're going to use the artistic expression argument when making a game about extreme things then you have to be willing to accept the other consequences - poor sales, negative reviews, general backlash.

Should those "reviews" be able to talk about how much they dislike the extreme content and rate it negatively because of that? Yeah absolutely. Should they be calling for it to be banned or saying that the dev shouldn't be allowed to make it? Definitely not.

Presentation is more than half of the equation IMO. If the violence is graphic then the reaction will be far more extreme.

E.g. Should a fallout-like game have "murder-rape sim" mechanics? I think you could definitely make the argument that it makes sense in the setting. But implementing it you would have to do it in a non graphic way to make people half willing to accept it. But I think you could potentially do it. But should you? Not if you're looking for any degree of commercial success.

No. You misunderstand.

For example, I make a Lone Wolf game. It will not definitely not allow the protagonist to go around raping and murdering. That is not in the guy's character. Would I allow him to be a tactless, rude idiot? Most definitely. A smart, diplomat? Of course. A psycho murderer and rapist? Hell no!
Another example is a LotR game. Playing Aragorn would most definitely not give you the chance to be a rapist and murderer.

The problem is that we have people who insist that the game pander to their fetishes without regard for the setting or story. What they want is basically a walking sim like the ones churned out by bethesturd that would cater for their fetishes. What they want, basically, is Fallout 76 with a rape simulator built in. If they can find one, good. They don't get to demand people turn their games into a rape simulator any more than sjws get a free pass to force people into inserting their shit into games.

Mind you, a rape simulator would probably still outsell a woke product.

 

[Excommunicator]

No. You misunderstand.

For example, I make a Lone Wolf game. It will not definitely not allow the protagonist to go around raping and murdering. That is not in the guy's character. Would I allow him to be a tactless, rude idiot? Most definitely. A smart, diplomat? Of course. A psycho murderer and rapist? Hell no!
Another example is a LotR game. Playing Aragorn would most definitely not give you the chance to be a rapist and murderer.

The problem is that we have people who insist that the game pander to their fetishes without regard for the setting or story. What they want is basically a walking sim like the ones churned out by bethesturd that would cater for their fetishes. What they want, basically, is Fallout 76 with a rape simulator built in.

But people are always going to ask for inappropriate stuff. What can you ever do about that (not give in obv)?

 

[normie]

 

[Cael]

No. You misunderstand.

For example, I make a Lone Wolf game. It will not definitely not allow the protagonist to go around raping and murdering. That is not in the guy's character. Would I allow him to be a tactless, rude idiot? Most definitely. A smart, diplomat? Of course. A psycho murderer and rapist? Hell no!
Another example is a LotR game. Playing Aragorn would most definitely not give you the chance to be a rapist and murderer.

The problem is that we have people who insist that the game pander to their fetishes without regard for the setting or story. What they want is basically a walking sim like the ones churned out by bethesturd that would cater for their fetishes. What they want, basically, is Fallout 76 with a rape simulator built in.

But people are always going to ask for inappropriate stuff. What can you ever do about that (not give in obv)?

As I said, they get a version of it that very quickly ends in a non-standard Game Over. I have no problems with that.

 

[tindrli]

i don't give a fuck. usually i don't even pay attention on them. but i just saw that fourth opinion. its a game so anything goes. also i noticed that if i play a game where i decide to rape everything its 100 % uninstall in like 20 minutes from it at most

 

[mondblut]

No. Being an outlaw comes with consequences, and that includes being pilloried in civilised areas. If the quests are based on civilised areas, you lose access to them, and if it is part of the main quest, you're fucked. Sucks to be you.

Consequences, bitches. Learn it.

Shmonsequences, granny. "Civilized" is in the eye of the beholder, and for every NCR and fucking Modoc there is a Great Slave Market and a Raider Meeting Ground. In a world not designed to shoehorn you into being plusgood citizen one way or another, that is.

Equating Fallout with being the avatar in Ultima. LMAO, that's a new one. What are Fallout's virtues you are supposed to follow, hm?

 

[NatureOfMan]

People that get butthurt about muh violent games fail to realise that 95% of the people playing them aren't retarded and are aware of the boundaries between real life and a fucking game.

 

[mondblut]

also i noticed that if i play a game where i decide to rape everything its 100 % uninstall in like 20 minutes from it at most

Maybe Crusader Kings 2 is just not your thing?

 

[Cael]

No. Being an outlaw comes with consequences, and that includes being pilloried in civilised areas. If the quests are based on civilised areas, you lose access to them, and if it is part of the main quest, you're fucked. Sucks to be you.

Consequences, bitches. Learn it.

Shmonsequences, granny. "Civilized" is in the eye of the beholder, and for every NCR and fucking Modoc there is a Great Slave Market and a Raider Meeting Ground. In a world not designed to shoehorn you into being plusgood citizen one way or another, that is.

Equating Fallout with being the avatar in Ultima. LMAO, that's a new one. What are Fallout's virtues you are supposed to follow, hm?

Who said anything about virtues? I addressed the Fallout game: You get an Evil rep, your face end up on Wanted posters in every town and you get runned out of every civilised town you care to name. End of your quest to find a GECK. Cue non-standard game over.

 

[JarlFrank]

No. Being an outlaw comes with consequences, and that includes being pilloried in civilised areas. If the quests are based on civilised areas, you lose access to them, and if it is part of the main quest, you're fucked. Sucks to be you.

Consequences, bitches. Learn it.

Shmonsequences, granny. "Civilized" is in the eye of the beholder, and for every NCR and fucking Modoc there is a Great Slave Market and a Raider Meeting Ground. In a world not designed to shoehorn you into being plusgood citizen one way or another, that is.

Equating Fallout with being the avatar in Ultima. LMAO, that's a new one. What are Fallout's virtues you are supposed to follow, hm?

Who said anything about virtues? I addressed the Fallout game: You get an Evil rep, your face end up on Wanted posters in every town and you get runned out of every civilised town you care to name. End of your quest to find a GECK. Cue non-standard game over.

It would still be logical to allow the player to ally with bandit groups in order to get closer to his goals. Bandit groups which do exist in the game but usually appear only as hostiles. They should be okay with accepting an asshole player into their ranks.

 

[Cael]

No. Being an outlaw comes with consequences, and that includes being pilloried in civilised areas. If the quests are based on civilised areas, you lose access to them, and if it is part of the main quest, you're fucked. Sucks to be you.

Consequences, bitches. Learn it.

Shmonsequences, granny. "Civilized" is in the eye of the beholder, and for every NCR and fucking Modoc there is a Great Slave Market and a Raider Meeting Ground. In a world not designed to shoehorn you into being plusgood citizen one way or another, that is.

Equating Fallout with being the avatar in Ultima. LMAO, that's a new one. What are Fallout's virtues you are supposed to follow, hm?

Who said anything about virtues? I addressed the Fallout game: You get an Evil rep, your face end up on Wanted posters in every town and you get runned out of every civilised town you care to name. End of your quest to find a GECK. Cue non-standard game over.

It would still be logical to allow the player to ally with bandit groups in order to get closer to his goals. Bandit groups which do exist in the game but usually appear only as hostiles. They should be okay with accepting an asshole player into their ranks.

You were sort of allowed to in FO2. You could join the slaver faction. The problem is that it basically screws you over because you gained the Slaver tag, and that has consequences.

The thing is, we have people here arguing that there should be no consequences to that kind of action because "everyone is a rapist and murderer in a post-apoc setting", which I find to be complete bullshit.

 

[JarlFrank]

No. Being an outlaw comes with consequences, and that includes being pilloried in civilised areas. If the quests are based on civilised areas, you lose access to them, and if it is part of the main quest, you're fucked. Sucks to be you.

Consequences, bitches. Learn it.

Shmonsequences, granny. "Civilized" is in the eye of the beholder, and for every NCR and fucking Modoc there is a Great Slave Market and a Raider Meeting Ground. In a world not designed to shoehorn you into being plusgood citizen one way or another, that is.

Equating Fallout with being the avatar in Ultima. LMAO, that's a new one. What are Fallout's virtues you are supposed to follow, hm?

Who said anything about virtues? I addressed the Fallout game: You get an Evil rep, your face end up on Wanted posters in every town and you get runned out of every civilised town you care to name. End of your quest to find a GECK. Cue non-standard game over.

It would still be logical to allow the player to ally with bandit groups in order to get closer to his goals. Bandit groups which do exist in the game but usually appear only as hostiles. They should be okay with accepting an asshole player into their ranks.

You were sort of allowed to in FO2. You could join the slaver faction. The problem is that it basically screws you over because you gained the Slaver tag, and that has consequences.

The thing is, we have people here arguing that there should be no consequences to that kind of action because "everyone is a rapist and murderer in a post-apoc setting", which I find to be complete bullshit.

Nobody is arguing against having consequences. I didn't see anyone doing that here. But I see people arguing for expanding the options you have when you go the path of slaver/raider/whatever bad guy the game allows you to play.

See, the game allows you to play that sort of character, but then it strips away a lot of options from you without giving you any others.

The options don't even have to be equivalent. The bad guy slaver path doesn't have to be as long as the normal guy non-slaver path. But it should offer you some options you don't get as a good guy. That's what adds replay value.

Arcanum did it rather well with allowing you to join the dark elves and giving you a couple unique quests for the evil playthrough. Yeah it's a bit shorter than the good guy path, but it still offers you a couple of unique quests only the bad guys get. Therefore it's a viable and different path, rather than just telling you "well you chose to join the bad guys and now nobody talks to you anymore lol".

When a valid choice locks you out of some content, it should also open up different content.

 

[vazha]

Children are not very interesting.

Wait till you have some. Interesting they might not be, but sure can make your life "interesting".

Also, all for killing those horrible creatures (in games). Would play King Herod:RPG