vurt
serial 𝓶𝓸𝓭𝓭⻤
I'm pretty sure I know what I meant a little better than you do.
It's pretty sad and pathetic when someone attempts to turn a harmless poke into something more than it was meant to be.
I'm pretty sure I know what I meant a little better than you do.
A few games off the top of my head with children (and other NPCs) you cannot kill:
All of the Borderlands games
All of the Rockstar games
I think I can stop there, actually. Borderlands takes an anarchic, gleeful approach to murder and more. As a player, what you 99.9% do is shoot and blow up people. But can you kill Tiny Tina? No. Can you kill Brick or Lilith or any of the other major NPCs? No. And why can't you kill them? Because the game is full of killing, but killing is not THE point. There's narrative structure to the game, and that structure is communicated through those NPCs. Skyrim, of course, is the same way. If you feel like modding in the ability to kill those NPCs, go for it. But in doing so, you will render 90% of the game pointless. It will just be a sandbox to run around in, and nothing else. Expecting the designers themselves to do that is stupid.
Which is why I brought up a game like Rust earlier. There is no plot in Rust. There are no objectives, no characters, no story. That game is solely about building things and killing and being killed. So if that's what you want in a game, that's where you'll find it. You won't find it in Cyberpunk 2077, just like you won't, and haven't, found it in any story driven games.
And NONE of that is the same as saying that killing NPCs can't be a choice, or used for dramatic purposes. There is a huge and extremely obvious difference between killing or allowing the death of NPCs, potentially including children, as part of a scripted quest, and being able to kill anyone at any time, which is what everyone here has been talking about. There is no actual choice involved in the latter, no more than ramming your avatar into a wall over and over is a "choice". It's not a choice the game presents as a useful one. You might just as well get mad at the developers for not allowing you to make the "choice" to give yourself a severe head injury.
It's not fucking censorship, and the fact that you call it that tells me a lot about your critical thinking ability. At this point, if you keep screeching "but my immersion!" without even attempting to acknowledge or understand why there are fundamental issues to allowing you to randomly kill people that has nothing to do with robbing you of your free will, or accusing you of being a closet murderer, you never will.
Oh look…I can parrot you! I'm so cool!
The fault is in putting pixel children in to start with, because you want to add immersion, to them throw it all down the drain by making them immune to the world's hazards., which is pretty idiotic.
This has nothing to do with cultures. Within each culture you will find people with opposing viewpoints. It's just individual peoples opinions. I thought it was weird you brought up culture and wondered if you had an agenda or bias. fortunately you left no doubt with the following post.
.
Of course it's censorship, what else would you call it?
This discussion always heats up when words like psychopath are used, when drawing conclusions about the players personality and mental health, conclusions that are merely based on game preferences.
Every single scientific theory has a limited range of validity.I thought science long time ago came to the conclusion that violent games are harmless? (Unless you already have a personality disorder.)
But at least you had the freedom to explore that choice and suffer its consequences if you are so inclined.
Players do not come to vid products to suffer consequences. They come to vid products to be empowered, in which case, preventing them from killing is a limitation put on them and therefore ruining their feeling of empowerment.
Players reject choices and consequences. They want choices over consequences, they want to determine which consequences are associated to their actions. They pick consequences that suit them and cry until those they can not bear are removed.
[…]
A world without children would not be immersive.
But expecting that all kids, vital as an NPC or not, need to stay alive is welcomed by all players, or else be judged/labelled as mentally unhealthy is a bridge too far, imo.
I think this debate is quite disgusting in general. One side trying to bait the conversation into "Oh my, what kind of sick person needs to kill kids in a game?!" and people from the other side falling into it and feeling as if they have to make excuses for having a questionable morality, when they are being offended rather than being the offenders.
Either way I'm done with this thread. If anyone can't understand how anything that makes a RPG artificial and rigged is bad and subtracts from the "RPG" term itself (at least for some of us), I'm sorry. I can't help you anymore.
And now this, golden thread, golden thread. The result of two centuries of institutionalized double standard.I'm not sure why you think you can tell me what I play videogames for, but you're either very young or your views are too narrow and feel with the need to dictate that everyone's views should be like yours.
RPGs have always been about playing a role, making choices and bearing consequences to those choices. The point is that since a videogame (or text book, or board) are nto real, the consequences can be harsh and you suffer no repercussions in real life.
I think this debate is quite disgusting in general. One side trying to bait the conversation into "Oh my, what kind of sick person needs to kill kids in a game?!"