Every person who things klling an adult is OK but killing a kid is not - he is just messed up in the head!
Killing is killing no matter what kind of person you kill - young, old, black, white, man, woman… you got my point now? I don’t judge whether it is right or wrong, nor advocate doing it. But IF Deliverance gives an option to kill people (anyone), it should give the option to kill kids as well as negros as well as mongoloids as well as grannys because that’s the way it is supposed to be.
As far as ‘killing’ pixels and 3d models - no, I don’t think there should be any line to cross. This is a game after all, if you don’t like ‘killing’ kids - just don’t do it, capish? And if you in the same time endorse ‘killing’ adults then you are really a hypocrite. For example, I don’t force anyone to like my opinion, just prove how absurd are most of the statements regarding kids.
@tunak seems to understand my point of view - thank you! In a matter of fact, in my country there isn’t a nonsense legislation which forbids me to do something in a VIDEO GAME! So, my thoughts about this topic may be too unortodox for some people…
2 Likes
Yes, I only see false morality and hypocracy here… That’s why I find it so hard to settle down with it!
As you said: ‘Every single thing you have said can be applied also on innocent civilians. So, do we need a possibility to play such sociopath? Why we simply don’t make all NPCs except soldiers immortal?’
I totally agree!
1 Like
@TobiTobsen
in fact, this news makes me very happy!
If your team leaves children out of this, you probably would spare too much problems and complete the game faster without considering/programing/censuring many nonsense solutions. Dan said many times he dislikes misconcepted ideas and implementing children in-game will most definitely be one of them which gives him a headache. IMHO.
1 Like
Like many moral dilemmas -
- Get clildren in-game but can not kill them for whatever REAL LIFE reason - complete nonsense.
- Get children in-game and can kill them for some reason - most realistic and sane approach.
- Get children in-game and can not kill them (all of them) for some gameplay/story/logical implemented reason - would probably work and be better for @warhorse.
- Don’t get any children in-game and manage to get rid of all possible conflicts with killing/dealing with them - best possible solution IMHO.
mmh, it has, however, done with the sandbox. The degrees of freedom used by the players should be logically understood and used by the game success (victory conditions). To make a selection, you need to also wrong or even absurd variants, otherwise the game would be “automatically” winnable.[quote=“Jlyga_u_onacHa, post:69, topic:18487”]
3. Get children in-game and can not kill them (all of them) for some gameplay/story/logical implemented reason - would probably work and be better for @warhorse.
[/quote]
I do not know how deep the reality is to go in the first Act. For example, if the judiciary is only planned in approach, this variant is likely to be the best solution.
@Wenceslaus
’You wont be probably able to play a football with head of your decapitated oponent neither." - yes, that’s true.
But it makes no sense at all to be able to kill someone and be unable to kill another based only on the fact that in REAL LIFE some ‘democracy’ country which kills REAL people every day just don’t allow us to ‘kill’ child 3d models in a video game. Do you even comprehend how ABSURD this sounds?!
‘Even if you will not be able to cut down some trees, it is still far more realistic to have forests than not to.’ - also true. But I honestly think that Deliverance should give the option to cut wood 
Like it or not, Dan and the rest of the team would have final word whether childred should be presented in-game or not and if they are to be killable. The team can make Deliverance region restricted if this would help - in more open-minded countries Deliverance could be fully unlocked, in other more mind-oppressing countries the game may be restricted so everyone’s happy. After all, I will accept and respect their decision. But I prefer @warhorse to decide how to make their own game and so be it rather than having US government tell me what I am ‘free’ to do in a video game! I won’t and can’t accept this.
Ultimately this is Warhorse’s decision to make in terms of what they want to have in their game based on their vision. Dan himself seems more than willing to go up against the critics who would tell him “You must make your game this way only, to satisfy me!”
At least as far as important NPCs go, we already know it could end up being a case of “You can kill anyone, but you may break the game and have to reload an earlier save.” If that extends to ANY character or not, no idea yet.
But, let’s face it: no matter how realistic they’re aiming to be, there’s no reasonable way they can account for, code for, or otherwise create something where literally anything we could think of to do with another character is possible - and I’m pretty sure a few of us could come up with some very creative ways to kill a character or deal with a dead body in the context of a video game world.
You mean something like, cutting a body into small pieces and making a stew out of it? Hmm, one could link this to a cooking minigame/profession. There you could actually find practical use for making children killable.
For certain other parts there might be a use in potions.
After all it should be your free choice what to put into your perfect stew. 
It will be interesting to see which way warhorse chooses in the end.
2 Likes
You’re totally right, but that’s how it goes. There are games that are banned in Germany because they contain swastika. Some devs just put it anyway and therefore won’t sell it in Germany. Of course you can’t compare it 100% but wouldn’t it be better to just replace it with an X and sell more copies?
Same goes here, surely there’s this “huge contra” that you can’t slaughter kids if you so desire, but you are rewarded with a more natural environment if they add them, and if you never wanted to kill them you wouldn’t notice it anyways. If they penalize you for killing I bet there are still countries that won’t appreciate that…
But I understand where you’re coming from.
2 Likes
Oops, that’s probably a typing error, right? Or?
We discuss here but positions, construct scenarios and look for solutions. Dogmatism through personal attacks or intimidation I find embarrassing and not effective in the matter. If your best weapons are, you are, unfortunately, completely unarmed.
Back to the topic: Since the Middle Ages the population had a very young average age, also families belonged to 6 (of initially 12-14) surviving children (not because of Henry, but because Kindstot, pestilence and famine) to normality, should kids NPS’ s course in’s game include.
I think it would be nice if Henry could talk to them (kids mouths of truth manifested :)) and things learns that adults would conceal from calculation. And when Henry for some of these children to the idol would, because he knows a few magic tricks and they greet him next time happy, I would find that beautiful. Then he can massacre them yes. Man, man, man, for which purpose do you play?
4 Likes
Look, I know this is not my argument but I have to interject. Jlyga didn’t say “don’t play the game if you don’t like brutally dismembering younger members of society.” He said “…if you don’t like killing kids - just don’t do it…”
By this he meant (sorry if I am misrepresenting you, Jlyga) “the option is there but the requirement is not.” You can slaughter children but you don’t have to do it if you have a moral opposition to the idea. While I’m personally in the damn-the-media-lets-make-this-like-real-life camp, I’m not thinking anyone here is arguing that you (the player) should be forced to impale a minor (in-game or in a cutscene).
Or maybe I’m misinterpreting your response, I don’t know.
3 Likes
truly mature player wouldn’t even have things like “hunt children hehehe” come across their mind, so inclusion of such features would be a waste of time.
just imho
3 Likes
first of we talk about children and kids but we probably all have different ages in mind. (what ever age seves the purpous of the current argument) Child could mean anything from unborn to 21 years old.
Secondly Children are humans like any others, we don’t gennaraly asume that the player kills male adults for the purpose of killing male adults. So why assume that the only reson for killing a child in a video game is pleasure? Yes, little children arn’t very threatening some even less so than others. In most situations nobody whould ever think about killing them but that doesn’t make them imortal. Also i think children deserve better than to be the boring innocent characters that need to be rescued all the time. Under some circustances they should be relevent enouth for the plot to be “worth killing”.
Assuming the player character never chooses to kill a child still leaves the possibility that henry does so by accident or other circumstances that he has no power over kill them. Should children be immortal in this case? What if you accedently hit one with an arrow? (Depending on the Level design this might actually happen) IIRC WH didn’t want to fokus on a burnable enviroment but does that mean that childran shouldn’t take damage from fire? (if there is such a thing) What about getting kicked by a horse or falling damage or falling damage cause by a horse kick? Or what if there is a conflict between NPC and there are children present? They have to act in some way, preferably running away, but doing so may actually turn them into a threat because they become witnesses.
Children are not imortal, in fact they are particulary vulnerable. That said I don’t want the game popularity to suffer just so we have the possibility to kill children regardless if there is a reason to do so.
3 Likes
I did indeed sorry for you, but if this is your best solution …
@thiomay - That is the point, very good!
1 Like
let’s try not to get this thread closed, please!
2 Likes
Also think it is all said on this subject. It will stupid and unnecessary.
1 Like
you know, I get the distinct feeling this topic is about to become supergeil.
3 Likes
I see what you did there
I think there was a similar topic quite some time ago. And as already mentioned there: yes, children would be nice in terms of atmosphere. It always is a little strange when there are no pets or kids around since it just isn’t that way in “reality”.
@Dramatic You are getting my opinion just right, thank you for this!
@Suporder, I haven’t missed your previous posts, nor your ‘answers’. I don’t want to respond to them, because my answers will be rude and impolite based on your behaviour. You can’t possibly know if anyone misinterpred my views or not, this is up for me to decide and I don’t like your bad attitude towards me. There are many nice fellows out here in the forums, but IMHO you are not one of them. If you feel offended by my arguments, just don’t read them. I am not addressing you personally anywhere in the topic, so you shouldn’t do it either. Lets stop the hate, because it is obvious that this won’t take us anywhere!
P.S. As far as Nazi Germany is concerned in gaming, I don’t approve banning swastika or Hitler or anything connected with that. Like it or not, it is history and it happened. What’s the point of banning it in a video game? How exactly does banning help the world? Just stupid, stupid governmental politics…
1 Like
truly mature player wouldn’t even have things like “hunt unarmed villagers hehehe” come across their mind, so inclusion of such features would be a waste of time.
just imho