Point taken, however this could be carefully scripted by the programmers so that the children are in safe areas, and you would not be attacked when near them, so you would not have a need to arm yourself.
For example the children could be indoors. You try to arm your self with a bow, and they quickly hide, so that by the time you have equiped youself theyhave dissapeared.
At that point their behavior will be unrealistic on the face of it. If theyâre only immortal, youâll be pulled out of immersion if you try to kill one, but if they act in such a strange way, youâll notice it without having to do anything.
I see the idea is to try to make it so players donât realize theyâre immortal, but the sheer fact that the game is actively protecting them would make it just as evident.
Think about it this way. You are in a restaurant with your family and kids, and a man suddenly pulls out a gun. Are you going to admire the gun, attack the person that is waving the gun, run away, or try to protect your children? The point is that, with a little thought, and careful programming it must be possible to create an area with children, to at least give the game/world the feeling, that it is not just populated by adults.
Yes there is, just place them in natural positions - Wherever theyâd actually be, and make them immortal. Theyâd be immortal in your plan as well, but what youâve said requires additional unnatural behavior and restrictions.
Of course they werenât added at all, and so discussion about how best to do it seems pointless.
In some other games, I would agree with you. However I understand that the story/plot in this game is that some people havebeen attacked and killed, and war is brewing. So in this scenario I would imagine that people would be fearful, they would be keeping their children close to hand, and away from dangerous places. The idea is to make this feel real, and the game story can explain the behavior of the children and parents.
How is indoors safe? Letâs say you lock yourself up alone in a room with a kid. So where does it hide? Where does it run? Door is blocked/locked, windows closed/too small. Indoors is a perfect trap for a childkiller 
1 Like
You are forgetting that this in the control of the programmers, they would not place the children in that environment in the first place.
Got it! The game would never let me near the children. I could only observe them from a distance âstalker styleâ. Yet if i tried to kill them from a distance with a bow, the would hide. Hide where? Every village has a vault 13 for distressed children in case I equip a weapon in my inventory? Into the woods and meadows? What about their daily cycles. They would be pretty screwed up being interrupted five times a day with running and hiding.
If a tried to kill them from a close range, instead of swiftly drawing my sword like a level 100 warrior, I would all of a sudden fumble up in my inventory like a retard to give the kids a headstart while their parents would form a human chain tryin to âdistractâ me. Good luck to developers with creating a safe environmentâŠ
Iâm begining to see why the developers left the kids out 
6 Likes
Hmm, I think that the point is that players should NOT be trying to kill the children.
I understand that Warhorse are trying to recreate a realistic medieval sandbox world. It seems to me that the world would not be complete without children. However I find the idea that players could kill children morally repugnant, hence my suggestions. I envisioned scenarios where a player either accidentally kills a child in the game, or has a moment of curiosity - (ie, I wonder what would happen if I fired my arrow at that kid), my ideas are, as far as possible, to keep the immersion in the game for the player, although I accept that compromises may have to be made.
HOWEVER if someone wants to use the software to use a computer game to act out their fantasy of killing children, then this is completely different. (I am sure that no one reading this post would ever dream of doing such a thing.) Then I do not care that they keep their immersion, and in my view - if the game detects that a player is actually hunting children then it should immediately throw the player out of the game and display a warning message, and in the case of repeated attempts delete all of the players saved games as well!
If someone had that fantasy, acting it out in a game would be a good thing. If thatâs enough for them, GOOD. Do I have to spell out the alternative to you?
This is utterly ridiculous. So many things wrong with it. First off, itâs hypocritical to hold pretending to kill kids so high over pretending to kill adults, both are awful in real life yet only one is awful in video games? Secondly, even if someone did this, it affects nothing in real life whatsoever. That includes you. An option existing in a false reality does not affect you or anyone else at all.
Youâre acting as if there are some sort of real life consequences for this. There arenât. The thought upsets you, so you feel your ârighteous moral outrageâ should be enforced upon on others. That isnât right.
2 Likes
Sadly there have been real life cases where people have done just that, which is why I believe it it is illegal to create games that allow children to be killed.
I am not generalising, I know that the vast majority of people will not do this, however there are some sick individuals that do.
The game is a violent game, I understand that, and have no issue with it, I play games like this all the time. But the line must be drawn at killing children!
All I am saying is that to have a realistic game it should include children, and that there should be mechanisms to prevent them from being killed. In Skyrim the children are simply immortal, and do not take any damage at all - which is not realistic. The conversation in this post is about making the children unkillable without breaking the immersion of the game, and keeping it as realistic as possible.
I feel that compromises have to be made, however some commentators seem to get very upset if their character would be unable to kill children in the game. Which is why I made my previous post.
It is wrong to fantasise or worse, act out - killing children, even in a game! and ANY parent will tell you the same.
Do you understand what I meant here^? If someone has that fantasy it is is better to act it out in a game than in real life. Do you think someone that already has that fantasy is more or less likely to actually do it in real life if they have no âoutletâ at all?
Done what, you didnât quote anything. Killed children? No shit. Whatever you meant, no that isnât why games that allow that are so often barred from countries, itâs because of people like you that believe their emotions should dictate what can and canât be depicted in games.
Based on what. Your argument is âBecause I PERSONALLY hate it, my opinion should be enforced on everyoneâ. Why is mass murder of adults so much more palatable to you than one child dying, why is this the arbitrary line at which fictional violence is suddenly connected to real life?
We understand it canât be done thanks to a lot of countries not allowing it, we get upset that some people think their emotions and opinions should dictate what can and canât be added, that them feeling bad about something is a good enough reason to cut a single thing.
Guess what, itâs wrong to kill ANYONE, and yet for some reason people are rational enough to grasp that killing adults in video games means nothing despite that, while there is some sort of mental block that stops them from thinking clearly when itâs children instead.
Try to rationalize the fictional murder of children as something entirely different from the fictional murder of adults, why it doesnât matter at all unless theyâre a certain age. So far all youâve done is proclaim this as fact.
3 Likes
Killing innocents is wrong. However this game is a war game, and that involves battles, with the opponents fighting back. Having a sword fight with an enemy is completely different to shooting an innocent child with an arrow for target practice. I donât understand how someone could look at a a child playing in the street and think that the little girl is a valid target
Do you understand what I meant here^? If someone has that fantasy it is is better to act it out in a game than in real life. Do you think someone that already has that fantasy is more or less likely to actually do it in real life if they have no âoutletâ at all?
I think that happens to start with, but sadly I also think that this does not cure their itch, I fear that it only feeds it, and makes it worse; which is why I am concerned enough to continue contributing to this post.
I can see that a lot of people are passionate about this topic. I am trying to find a way for Warhorse to include children in their game. So I started writing my posts within this topic to suggest ways that this could be achieved. I have given my suggestions and yes, they have compromises. However it seems that a lot of people are not willing to compromise, and wish to have killable children in the game. I donât think that will happen (Otherwise they would already be in the game).
So instead of finding fault in every word I write, how about either;
Suggesting some good reasons for allowing the killing of âin gameâ children (Which seems to be the argument you are making).
Or
Suggesting other ways to make this work so that everyone is happy; even if that means accepting some compromises.
It would be a sad day if Warhorse decide to keep children completely out of the game.
Then why are you fine with people murdering innocent adults, random farmers, etc? Your argument is that theyâre children, not that they arenât your enemy. Youâd say the same about all non-combatants otherwise. Donât be a hypocrite=/
Prove it then. What data are you basing this on. Why is this not an argument agasint killing in games in general? Why wonât the ability to murder adults get people to that for real? Why is that different? Why donât we see any correlation at all between violent game and violent murder? Explain yourself.
Thatâs called criticism. I asked questions Iâd like answered. Please go back and actually try to answer me. If your position is reasonable, it wonât be any issue for you at all.
Killable children wonât be added due to ratings boards, thatâs it. Iâm not even 100% sure if theyâre in this game at all. Why should they be killable, if the ratings boards didnât exist? There isnât any reason why not. It would be totally hypocritical not to, and would be a pointless restriction, that accomplished nothing other restricting freedom, and making moral busybodies feel good about themselves. The same exact reason why random adults should be killable.
There is no compromise there. They have to be immortal to appease ratings boards, if they didnât exist there is no argument for not making them killable whatsoever. Do you have one? (No, your emotions donât count, sorry)
It is a video game. It isnât real. You continue to talk about this like it somehow is not, and refuse to answer my questions about this.
Why are you so passionately arguing for killable âin gameâ children?
Iâm arguing against removing it for no good reason.
You quoted me asking for answers, then ask your own question? Really?-___-
Try to answer this time please.
Lets agree to disagree.
However I think we both agree that killable children wonât be in the game; so lets try to find believable ways that they can be included*, instead of digressing into philosophical moral discussions.
ie. by finding acceptable and realistic ways and scenarios that will allow children to not be killed, otherwise we will end up with a game with no children in it.
There is no believable way, none at all. Realistically you could kill a kid if you really wanted to. There isnât a single realistic way to get around this. You have to make people psychic, selectively turn Henry into a retard that canât aim, make people act very strangely/unrealistically, etc. It canât be done.
The game having children in it is not contingent on this, theyâll be there or they wonât, and will be immortal if so.
Lets agree that I answered your question, but you refused to answer mine. Sweet, glad weâre in agreement.
May be - if you look at it that way, but thatâs called a compromise, and what is better; this compromise or the compromise of having a game world without any children?
Actually I donât think that a parent protecting a child is strange or unrealistic, and if it is cleverly done - I think that most people wonât notice.