I think add some kids npcs will be good

Story & Setting
#44

With all the talk about making this game as realistic as possible, there is definitely a case to be made for people such as women and children being able to be injured or killed. However, just because people CAN do something doesn’t always mean they should be ABLE to in a game.

Here’s a basic question: what, exactly, do you get out of being able to kill a child in a video game? What part of you does that satisfy so much that you need to demand it be part of the game?

I won’t lie: it’s fun to play a game like Grand Theft Auto and run over everybody. But, what happens? The cops come after me and they bring out the full arsenal to kill me. Not arrest me, but kill me. Why? Because I’ve done something normal people simply do not do.

Does that mean I’d do it in real life? Of course not! Yes, we understand it’s a game, we understand when we shut the game off that’s that, and maybe we were just bored so we decided to go on a rampage without saving the game. Poof. All gone. It’s like it never happened.

But, Grand Theft Auto is not really trying to promote realism in the games. It’s all built around being a massive parody of real life. Sure, it looks realistic, but that’s because games look more and more realistic because of the tech we now have.

For KCD, which IS going for as realistic an approach as possible, it may be fine to allow people to hurt, maim, kill, whatever anyone Henry comes across. In fact, a poll Dan conducted here a few months ago was pretty heavily in favor of just that, if I remember right.

That still doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences. In fact, I would expect Henry to pay the price similarly to what happens in GTA, like the example made in the image further up the thread. Commit heinous acts, and you aren’t getting away with them.

But, I don’t really agree with the mentality of “Make the game as realistic as possible but it doesn’t matter - it’s just pixels on a screen!” If immersion and believability is the whole point, it should naturally leave you against harming women and children, because doing so in real life is wrong.

4 Likes
#45

I can only repeat myself, immortal villagers anyone? What part of you does that satisfy so much that you need killable innocent villagers to be part of the game?

Don’t get it, so you say that it’s not believable in real life that someone would not be against harming children and women? Have you seen news in the recent…ever?

It also strikes me when you say that harming women and children is wrong. And what about men? Is it not wrong to harm a man? Let’s kill hundreds of innocent villagers, but dare you, you shouldn’t harm a woman or child because it’s wrong! I mean, wtf? Such hypocrisy blows my mind.

1 Like
#46

Traditionally, men are a lot more capable of defending themselves against someone than women or children. I understand that is not always 100% the case, but in the general sense it holds true.

A man with a weapon is also a lot more capable of defending himself than a man without one.

@Freix - I get the point you’re trying to make, but let’s not try to paint it like people who question the “you can kill anybody you want!” mentality are hypocritical simply because they leave males out of the equation. In any kind of conflict-based game, the vast majority of who you end up fighting are men. At least in stuff like the Fallout games, you’ll come across female raiders, so that’s something. You can’t harm children in that game, though. However, you can kill various NPCs with varying degrees of consequences.

For me, Warhorse can do what they like when it comes to who can and can’t be harmed. It’s their game. If there are certain NPCs you can’t hurt, fine. If you can hurt anyone, that’s also fine - but there had better be a set of consequences in place if someone does choose to go down that path. It can’t happen without anyone noticing, and Henry is not just going to be able to kill everyone he comes across and walk off into the sunset none the worse for wear.

#47

So a higher hypothetical ability of men to defend themselves makes such a big difference that you feel it’s alright to omit the fact that it’s still wrong to kill them?

This is actually very crucial. An unarmed civilian man against an armed and trained soldier has about the same chance to defend himself as a woman. So my point stands still, let’s have immortal villagers, it’s terribly wrong to kill innocent civilians.

Not all, only those who use morality argument.

Heh, you just shooted to your own leg. Original versions of Fallout 1 and 2 HAVE killable children, you can actually get childkiller reputation title… Only some european versions were CENSORED so they removed that possiblity. However, even if it were true, it means little to nothing in our discussion about “morality lines”. Actual state of things doesn’t confirm that they are logical or right. It’s the same with violence in TV on a daytime. It’s absolutely ok that kids can watch people murdering each other all day long, but TV gets fined in the very moment when it broadcasts a bare nipple…

I absolutely agree, never said otherwise. Believable consequences are neccesary in order to create a realistic world.

#48

FYI, I only briefly played the first Fallout. Only with Fallout 3 and Fallout: NV did I get more into them. I should’ve been clearer on which ones I was referring to.

I’m sure not going to argue about what US standards tend to be and not be when it comes to what’s “okay” or not.

#50

By the way, this is the (rather informal) poll I was referring to:

#51

Interesting discussion … the question was: IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE; NPC IN THE GAME TO HAVE CHILDREN? :wink:

Do you notice while the discussion went immediately? Is it possible to kill, that is morally acceptable? Can a game allow this to happen? Oha, which makes us think. What are games for us today? Substitute for our true (and quite secret free) I?

On the subject. 1) Children are little people, and inexperienced in training for life as adults. It is comprehensible way that an adult is always near, to guide them.
2) In the Middle Ages children were grown by about 14 years. Girls married at this age, boys were (often much younger) in armed armies.
3) child abuse, murder and rape were punished with death. (Apart from hell and purgatory) With the death so the game ends, the target was not reached, the player has denied.
4) The middle ages is not comparable to our society, our standards would be ridiculous in the Middle Ages and was weak, had the community can not stabilize. An authentic medieval game is therefore necessarily shocking in some respects, do films from that period also.
5) A film looks at you, does not affect the plot. Unlike in games, the exploitation of opportunities lies in the player’s hand, these possibilities (and limitations) provided by the developer - not recommended, not enforced and this kind of violence is not necessary to win the game.

If a degenerate minority determines the bar for historical accuracy of games, we have already lost the game.

1 Like
#52

I have seen a few good points but I have to say, I don’t agree with “The character was written to be good therefor control him thusly.”

While I understand the point, from a gameplay perspective, this makes the game feel overly limited. Why can’t a player play Henry like a heroic guy in public but a complete psychopath when nobody’s around? He acts good when people are watching but commits crimes if he thinks he can get away with it… Which is kind of how a lot of people play sandboxes anyway (Fallout anyone?).

Just thought I’d play the DA. Maybe implement a conscience system where committing crimes causes Henry to feel some kind of guilt (proportional to the crime) which could lead to issues down the road (I lack the imagination to further develop this idea). All I’m saying is that story and character development should not completely eclipse the freedom often associated with sandbox games.

#53

lets just say it’s time rpg games catered to mature minded folks

#54

Warhorse guys should probably prepare some very carefully written disclaimer adressing their intentions with the game and the freedom of action in it.

Stressing that their aim is to create a realistic game environment that allows a maximal freedom of action within the boundaries of the game’s basic programming and intended plotlines and that they do not take any responsibility for what particular course of action the player decides to take in the game (leaving this solely to the player’s own conscience), or for any possible changes or modifications to the game content used by the individual players.

Something that could hopefully keep them a bit safer from hysteric asses that would go postal in the media over chunks of virtual data that look like children on the screen getting apparently “harmed”.
Or if some fanmade mod happens to bring some openly sexual content into the game. Which is most probably going to happen too. Every other game with a larger modding community has more than enough of that stuff already.

2 Likes
#55

That’s the point I intended to stress. There is a “killable children” mod for probably every post-daggerfall Bethesda game ever made. But it rarely belongs among the most or even more popular mods. People rather tend to be bothered by lack of quality UI, weird game design choices (or lack of weird game design choices) and especially the fatal lack of boobs. Skimpy armours evidently also help to take the wind out of modding community’s sails. :smile:

I would really like to meet some children in the game. I feel they could add to the atmosphere considerably. Imagine another alpha trailer shot containing children playing marbles or fencing with wooden swords. Make them non killable /essential if you must - that’s definitely non-issue. But add them to the game’s world. Add some pregnant women and older people too. Make the world as full of life as possible. Build the greatest sandbox ever made for our inner children to play with. :children_crossing:

4 Likes
#56

As far as the main point goes, there absolutely should be NPC children in the game. No reason for there not to be.

1 Like
#57

this is the point. Apart from the fact that “conscience” a far-reaching issue is the programming would be necessary only for the NPC. Henry is indeed an avatar of the player. the player decides which of the degrees of freedom offered exploiting.
The effect / consequences arises in the ranks of the NPCs.
@PhanTom_CZ As long as the aim of the game not only makes it necessary to violate those limits, I see absolutely no responsibility for the developer. Also, the term would be “damage” in a game ridiculous, it is a simulated model of reality, and on top of a presumed reality 500 years ago.

Each intentional crime consists of 1 Can you do it? The second one will do it? 3rd why / for what purpose. It concerns with crimes against children always to intention,
so it always draws the corresponding punishment be in real life and in a realistic simulation. KCD is not a tumbe shooting game but rather an RPG

The end - should come of it again one of these tiresome discussions in public, is there a better advertisement for a realistic game?
Intelligent people would make it rather curious, no? :wink:

#58

I agree and by giving the player the ability to make their own moral choices, you’re catering to a mature audience. Limitations are created to keep immature players from screwing up the game and/or ruining the experience the devs had in mind when creating the game. So I’m not sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me but I’d say that freedom is for the mature, railroading is for immature children and bad Dungeon Masters.

Seriously, I have no idea what you’re supporting by saying that (people are using the “mature” argument on both sides).

@tomtom Personally, I don’t think a mature game needs a conscience system. That was more of a compromise with all these people thinking every player wants to be a npc/child/chicken murdering psychopath.

1 Like
#59

Sorry, but disclaimers might fulfil some legal role but in terms of public opinion/PR/marketing they don’t have much power. If someone gets hysteric a disclaimer isn’t much help. Given the youtube generation the probability of a gameplay video showing Henry as serial killer isn’t that low. :wink:

That the appearance of children in itself is positive for the realism aspect demographic-wise probably isn’t much in doubt. The issue about the kill-ability of NPC in this case and in others is more a political aspect than anything else. How much work (e.g. ingame consequences) do you want to put into something that might blow in your face.

Personally, I don’t see the need in a story driven RPG given the general background of the player char, you can go overboard with sandboxing too much - better to put the effort into your story.

1 Like
#60

So if we only have to ask the Facebook community for absolution because everything, then is nothing with sandbox and realism. And also with release in 2015 then I see black. Opinions are still the cheapest thing there is. Success is not measured in that currency but in dollars = sale. The game has the expectations of the players do, not correspond to the opinions of any nonsense heads.
WH the Middle Ages does not think out, that was just so. And all those who are living today the descendants of those who were at that time alive long enough to beget at least one child / give birth.

#61

@Asgo @tomtom
It’s absolutely not about just putting up a simple legal disclaimer and pointing everyone in its general direction with “no comment” further. It’s about generally making yourself ready for false accusations by people that will misinterpret your intentions and will come bashing at your door, demanding you to explain yourself, if you make a step in a controversial direction.
They will see the fault on the game designer for giving a weapon to the hands of brutes and violators and be keen on proving you guilty of that bad thing they think you wilfully comitted by the * “anything you say will be used againts you” * rule.

  • They would care only about what they saw and what they saw was a “game” that allowed anyone to hurt poor little children. Bad! Very bad!
    (Approval -5)
  • If you claim that you wanted a realistic and authentic game that gives the player similar freedom of action as reality without forcing them to do anything wrong, it wouldn’t mean a thing to them, 'cos who cares about some gamer things like gameplay and immersion? People can still hurt poor children in that “game” of yours and even get encouraged to do that in real life. And anyway, that is just a poor and bad example to everyone.
    (Approval +1 at the very best…)
  • If you try to claim that you discussed that with your game community and they were against restrictions for the sake of that gameplay and immersion of theirs, you will only send a train full of explosive ammo to the likes of the gaming journalists prominently discussed in the recent #GG affair. 'Cos who knows what kinds of people are in that “community”, some kind of twisted bullies, child molesters and, worst of all, sexist misogyns and gamers!
    (Approval -10, if not more…)

But now…

  • If from the very beginning (way before anyone even found anything to complain about) you did make a clear statement about your standing in this issue - 1) that you acknowledge this, but you refuse to yield your design choices and creative vision to immature and unreasonable individuals, 2) that you disagree with and disencourage this course of action and 3) stress out that the one to blame is not you, but people that misuse the open design approach you offered them out of their own misled reasons - that can effectively help to prevent most of the previously mentioned shitstorm from heading unjustly your way.
    (Approval set back to 0)
  • And by the way, implementing some actual further gameplay mechanics to provide repercussions for harming innocents (and/or children in general), be it some standalone morality mechanics, or some integral part of general reputation mechanics, or whatever, would be a serious + for you as well, evening the odds a bit more.
    (Approval +10)

Being made able to do something and actually doing something are two wery separate things and only those that actually decide and go ahead commiting a questionable act deserve to be held responsible for it.
A kitchen knives manufacturer cannot be held responsible for the fact that his products list among the most popular means of commiting domestic homicide.

1 Like
#62

he can if he puts the knife actively and directly into the hands of an idiot.

my point is by actively opening the option to kill kid NPCs they provide nothing useful other the freedom of choice out of pure principle (and that’s the positive view of it). I rather doubt that the devs will add anything quest related where you would have to choose that road and getting rich by taking out kids is probably also not an option (if you go for realism).
So without bringing anything useful to the table it might not be worth the repercussions.

#63

That must surely apply in every case of advertising anything possibly dangerous like cars and lawn movers and ikea garlic presses. Because idiots happen.

Exactly. :thumbsup: The most valid point imho.

1 Like
#64

Funny, but it would be nice to draw comparisons at least to something probable.

Anyway, someone from Wahrose personally handing a copy of KCD to some kind of known children-hating lunatic and saying with a film-grade evil smrk: * “Go, go my dear apprentice and train yourself hard… in killing children!” * Srsly?
I didn’t exactly notice them announcing any extra-violent special edition for the mentally disturbed anyway.

If the game industry was supposed to run on this kind of mentality, we would have to ban all the shooter games based solely on the occasional youngster shooting sprees actually happening in the United States. Punishing the worldwide gaming public because of a bunch of idiotic nuts.

3 Likes
© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz