" Oh, the slaughter of the little lamplight children, now that was glory! We need mods on console versions... "

" @Ragdrazi said:

" @ryanwho:  And same thing happened in Doom. People look back at games that were vilified or could have easily been vilified, and they think just because they had shitty graphics by today's standards, parents weren't up in arms. It's the King Kong effect. People were convinced the 1920's King Kong was a documentary. We look back on that and think it's ridiculous. A prerendered sprite falling to the ground meant as much then as a polygonal model falling to the ground means today.  Not including child killing is a business decision. Nothing more. "

But it doesn't. Gaming is a much larger business now. You can't be outraged about something you've never heard of. Only thing I agree with is most people who would be outraged, much like with Doom, wouldn't even be looking at the game so its fidelity wouldn't matter. They just hear that the game their son wants has blood, naked women, and satanic imagery. "

You just got to play yourself some DnD. 

" @ryanwho said:

" @Ragdrazi said:

" @ryanwho:  And same thing happened in Doom. People look back at games that were vilified or could have easily been vilified, and they think just because they had shitty graphics by today's standards, parents weren't up in arms. It's the King Kong effect. People were convinced the 1920's King Kong was a documentary. We look back on that and think it's ridiculous. A prerendered sprite falling to the ground meant as much then as a polygonal model falling to the ground means today.  Not including child killing is a business decision. Nothing more. "

But it doesn't. Gaming is a much larger business now. You can't be outraged about something you've never heard of. Only thing I agree with is most people who would be outraged, much like with Doom, wouldn't even be looking at the game so its fidelity wouldn't matter. They just hear that the game their son wants has blood, naked women, and satanic imagery. "

I'm sorry. You say it doesn't, but you also agree with the fact that it is a business decision. Nothing about the culture has changed. Parents are still just as freaked out by the thought of little Jimmy learning to kill from Little Big Planet. Before all they heard was that their son wanted a bloody naked game, and now all they heard was their son wants a bloody naked game. Now there's just too much money on the line.
 
And if you think these games weren't being looked at, you clearly don't remember the game demos on the floor of congress. "

Dexter doesn't even kill kids you sick freak.

cause developers are pussies, and most news channels/politicians will go out of their way to exploit the ugly side of videogames

" cause developers are pussies, and most news channels/politicians will go out of their way to exploit the ugly side of videogames "

Although I have no interest in killing children in video games, this topic had the effect of reminding me how much more fun I had with the original games than with Fallout 3. Also, in games where you straight-up murder everyone, the restriction on killing children does seem kind of strange, and the best solution would probably indeed be not to include children, unless you are willing to brave the media shitstorm.

" @DH69 said:

" cause developers are pussies, and most news channels/politicians will go out of their way to exploit the ugly side of videogames "

Please don't remind us of tomorrow November 2nd. It's going to be a sad day for gamers if that law comes into place. "

" @ryanwho:  The best reason, and the only reason that needs to be said is that it is part of the artistic integrity of the game. As I've said, it gave the game a depth that it would not have had. I doubt anyone would suggest the child killing was a gimmick, unless they lacked the context of the original games, and do not remember the bravery the designers of 1 and 2 showed. They knew there was the potential for huge negative press. But there was a point in allowing you to accidentally shoot a child, and even a point in allowing you to shoot them on purpose, and the point is now lost.  What I'm saying is that I am upset that games have become an industry that thinks like an industry. Taking risk is now a problem, regardless of whether that risk is controversial or not. Right now, we are on the brink of games possibly being declared devoid of artistic value. I just wish the video game industry wouldn't be doing that for us all on its own. "

" @Ragdrazi said:

" @ryanwho:  The best reason, and the only reason that needs to be said is that it is part of the artistic integrity of the game. As I've said, it gave the game a depth that it would not have had. I doubt anyone would suggest the child killing was a gimmick, unless they lacked the context of the original games, and do not remember the bravery the designers of 1 and 2 showed. They knew there was the potential for huge negative press. But there was a point in allowing you to accidentally shoot a child, and even a point in allowing you to shoot them on purpose, and the point is now lost.  What I'm saying is that I am upset that games have become an industry that thinks like an industry. Taking risk is now a problem, regardless of whether that risk is controversial or not. Right now, we are on the brink of games possibly being declared devoid of artistic value. I just wish the video game industry wouldn't be doing that for us all on its own. "

I understand what you're saying, but I honestly see the camp of people who would acknowledge the artistic merit of such a decision, being far outnumbered by the people who'd be making thirty second youtube videos titled, "LoL, Blew up a school."  I'd rather lose a slight ping of realism in a very unrealistic game already than have this game locked up underneath a counter, having to ask for it specifically and show an id, only to be glared at by a grandma in a corner, cause I just bought a ticket to hell.  "

Apparently it's wrong or something. Who knew?

You know I ask that question about the real world every day.

what makes killing a kid worse than killing an adult? 
either way you are taking away someones chance at living, seems like the same thing to me

kids are not real people so it should be LESS offensive to kill them.

" @NickL said:

" what makes killing a kid worse than killing an adult? either way you are taking away someones chance at living, seems like the same thing to me "

I ask this question a lot. Maybe because kids are more innocent? I'm not sure of the reason, but it is a strong taboo. Just like sex, or being able to play as bad guys in videogames. "

It saves room for doing it in real life.  If you could kill kids in the game all the time you wouldn't ever want to do it for real.
 
"You'll spoil your dinner," and such.

" @AndrewB said:

" I can understand them being gun-shy about letting you harm kids. Even in the original Fallout, the option was patched out.

Not in the American version. "

Even if they released a game with Child death enabled, it wouldn't be released in Europe. Killable children in video games is apparently illegal. 

Fallout is the only game that made me want to harm a child
most games make them cutesy enough or enough of a non-factor for me not to care, or to even feel protective of them

" In case you're playing the PC version, there should be a mod either released or releasing soon that will enable you to kill them. FO3 had one.  "

" Even if they released a game with Child death enabled, it wouldn't be released in Europe. Killable children in video games is apparently illegal.  "

" @rbanke said:

" Oh, the slaughter of the little lamplight children, now that was glory! We need mods on console versions... "

Well let's see. New Vegas already has the nude patch, the unofficial bugfix patch, and several conversaions of FO3 mods. So I'd guess the child killing mod is maybe a month away? "

Does wanting to kill baby Mario, count as wanting to kill a child?

ive been meaning to off them kids... *looks at list of things to do*

" @Godlyawesomeguy said:

" @NickL said:

" what makes killing a kid worse than killing an adult? either way you are taking away someones chance at living, seems like the same thing to me "

I ask this question a lot. Maybe because kids are more innocent? I'm not sure of the reason, but it is a strong taboo. Just like sex, or being able to play as bad guys in videogames. "

Children are in general smaller, weaker, and more innocent.  Being able to play a grown adult that can just waltz up to a little boy and murder him in cold blood is really just beyond unnecessary. "

Shooting women and children is still socially frowned up more than shooting men due to the shield of innocence we cover them with and the roles they play in our society(killing women and children inherently kills the future of our population and civilization).  Fellow grown men are able to defend themselves better than women and children and therefore equal in a fight with you.
 
Basically, it would cause a ruckus in the media and certain social organizations if a high profile game allowed you to kill kids.

You can't kill them, but you sure can scare them. Good enough for me.

I eat babies so killing kiddies sounds pretty cool to me.

That sort of shit is messed up

You can do all manner of unspeakable things in HellMOO.

" Im playing an evil bastard and in freeside a kid tells me he wont give me his gun because he needs to shoot stacy, i decide i will shoot her for him just to find out the game wont let me shoot a child...  should games leave it up to the user if they want to kill a child or is it better the way it is? "