PDA

View Full Version : Kids in ac3



deskpe
03-26-2012, 06:57 PM
On kotaku they confirm kids will be in the game, Not killable obviously.

Im so glad they finnaly added this, i remember they planned for it in AC1 but cut it cause it could be a little contorversiaol or something.. touble with rating board propably ;)


Kids in my opinion will help add a whole other layer or realism. Also stray dogs in the cities, but this has already been shown in screenshot.


Now lets just hope they dont remove this feature before the game is released :eek:

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 07:00 PM
I think kids should be killable, but cause Instant de-sync. I mean, you can kill cute bunnies, but not kids? pfft ;)

Mr_Shade
03-26-2012, 07:00 PM
The last thread on this subject had to be locked..


lets keep this one on topic and tasteful

deskpe
03-26-2012, 07:02 PM
I think kids should be killable, but cause Instant de-sync. I mean, you can kill cute bunnies, but not kids? pfft ;)

That would be anoying if you accidentaly kill a kid.

playassassins1
03-26-2012, 07:04 PM
Yeah, i just noticed that allot of games don't have kids.I also heard that there will also be dogs.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 07:05 PM
That would be anoying if you accidentaly kill a kid.

I can't Imagine how you could accidentally kill someone, unless bombs make a return.

deskpe
03-26-2012, 07:09 PM
I can't Imagine how you could accidentally kill someone, unless bombs make a return.

happened to me plenty of times in the ezio games, if u hit the wrong ****on, or your about to kill a guard thats right next to civilans and the game sort of picks the wrong target.

*Wants to gently push person away* *accidentaly hits X not A* *stabbs person to death*

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 07:13 PM
happened to me plenty of times in the ezio games, if u hit the wrong ****on, or your about to kill a guard thats right next to civilans and the game sort of picks the wrong target.

*Wants to gently push person away* *accidentaly hits X not A* *stabbs person to death*

I can't recall that happening to me, but I see your point.

kriegerdesgottes
03-26-2012, 07:22 PM
I'm glad they are finally adding domestic/wild animals and children. I've said before I thought the game should have them and I can certainly understand why Ubisoft would lock them from being killed. I'm just excited that they will actually be there and add some realism to the world.

souNdwAve89
03-26-2012, 07:24 PM
I'm loving all the news on AC3 so far. It definitely lives up to Yves Guillemot's statement that AC3 is the biggest AC game to date in terms of quality, scale, and production. I think it would be cool and funny when you are climbing a wall and the kids make some statement like "is that a superhero?!" or something. Too bad that the word "superhero" wasn't around yet =/

Poodle_of_Doom
03-26-2012, 07:26 PM
I think animals and kids are a great addition. Also, I understand why they wouldn't be killable, but they should be. I wonder how children will react in a crowd after watching their parents get killed in the game....

reddragonhrcro
03-26-2012, 07:31 PM
happened to me plenty of times in the ezio games, if u hit the wrong ****on, or your about to kill a guard thats right next to civilans and the game sort of picks the wrong target.

*Wants to gently push person away* *accidentaly hits X not A* *stabbs person to death*

Or your about to dual assassinate 2 guards and instead you dual assassinate 2 civilians then i m like this:
http://machfive.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/fuuu.jpg%3Fw%3D320%26h%3D290

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 07:32 PM
You could have kids selling newspapers, robbing food stalls and playing with dogs. Should be cool to see.

deskpe
03-26-2012, 07:33 PM
I think animals and kids are a great addition. Also, I understand why they wouldn't be killable, but they should be. I wonder how children will react in a crowd after watching their parents get killed in the game....

Oh I hope they have added options for that, I see possible super sad situations. Maybe they wont be walking about with their parents to avoid it.


I'd image the kids are the first to beat it at real signs of trouble, to get out of harms way.




You could have kids selling newspapers, robbing food stalls and playing with dogs. Should be cool to see.
You can see a kid selling newspapers in one of the screenshots .

Lonesoldier2012
03-26-2012, 07:42 PM
i just want to say. kids should be killable in videogames.

GeneralTrumbo
03-26-2012, 07:47 PM
i just want to say. kids should be killable in videogames.
Shut up. No they shouldn't. You are disgusting.

Lonesoldier2012
03-26-2012, 07:49 PM
Shut up. No they shouldn't. You are disgusting.
-_-

D.I.D.
03-26-2012, 07:54 PM
I think kids should be killable, but cause Instant de-sync.

That's the only way I can see it working. It has potential as an idea - perhaps your target is a coward, and hides among a group of innocent people. What's that, designers? "It would only work if we added manual aim"? Oh go on then, you've twisted my arm.

D.I.D.
03-26-2012, 07:56 PM
Or your about to dual assassinate 2 guards and instead you dual assassinate 2 civilians then i m like this:
http://machfive.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/fuuu.jpg%3Fw%3D320%26h%3D290

Yeah that still happens, same with distance weapons. Locking that doesn't lock... just let me aim with crosshairs myself!

LightRey
03-26-2012, 07:57 PM
i just want to say. kids should be killable in videogames.
I do hope you're joking.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 07:58 PM
That's the only way I can see it working. It has potential as an idea - perhaps your target is a coward, and hides among a group of innocent people. What's that, designers? "It would only work if we added manual aim"? Oh go on then, you've twisted my arm.

I think we do have manual aim, with bows, as said by Esco In another thread.

Lonesoldier2012
03-26-2012, 07:59 PM
I do hope you're joking.

No i'm not. they are always the most annoying characters in videogames just to troll us. like in Skyrim and Fallout.

D.I.D.
03-26-2012, 08:00 PM
I think we do have manual aim, with bows, as said by Esco In another thread.

Ah, nice! I hope so. Everything I'd heard about AC3 up to now seemed to be saying manual aiming was staying, so that's good news for me.

Sukramo
03-26-2012, 08:04 PM
The lokcing thing is so silly. Why cant single player get the multiplayer target funtion?

Dralight
03-26-2012, 08:13 PM
Am i the only one who finds it a little disturbing that people actually want to be able to kill kids in games? I really don't see why anyone would want to do that.

rileypoole1234
03-26-2012, 08:15 PM
This is a good thing. There will be a lot of realism now. I love when there's kids in the game. Having everything in a game that you see in real life really immerses you.

freddie_1897
03-26-2012, 08:39 PM
I'm just gonna go out and say that the reason you can't kill them is because you can't get low enough to stick your blade in them

freddie_1897
03-26-2012, 08:41 PM
I think animals and kids are a great addition. Also, I understand why they wouldn't be killable, but they should be. I wonder how children will react in a crowd after watching their parents get killed in the game....
okay, you can't kill children so you are looking for a way to make them mentally unstable by hoping you can kill there parents in order to watch them cry.

you are one sick, sadistic ****

xOMGITSJASONx
03-26-2012, 08:42 PM
Kids huh? Well that is something fresh.

LightRey
03-26-2012, 08:54 PM
The lokcing thing is so silly. Why cant single player get the multiplayer target funtion?
Well for one MP doesn't have combat, just kills and nonlethal counters.


No i'm not. they are always the most annoying characters in videogames just to troll us. like in Skyrim and Fallout.
They're children for god's sake. Them being annoying shouldn't be reason to kill them, not even in video games.

What the hell, people. This is just ridiculous. Being able to kill innocent children in a game is absurd. Killing innocent people in a game is already controversial enough, but these are children we're talking about. It's borderline sadistic.

freddie_1897
03-26-2012, 09:05 PM
completely agree with lightrey, what the hell is wrong with you people, its okay if its a joke but seriously

killing children isn't just borderline sadistic, its full on sadistic

Lonesoldier2012
03-26-2012, 09:07 PM
Well for one MP doesn't have combat, just kills and nonlethal counters.


They're children for god's sake. Them being annoying shouldn't be reason to kill them, not even in video games.

What the hell, people. This is just ridiculous. Being able to kill innocent children in a game is absurd. Killing innocent people in a game is already controversial enough, but these are children we're talking about. It's borderline sadistic.

-_-

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 09:09 PM
Being able to repeatably stab people, then continuously stomping on there head while proceeding to T-bag them Is messed up enough In video games (or a certain video game). Ubi don't want to see people killing children with their Iconic creations. And It wouldn't be passed off for retail because killing children Is taboo In video games.

LightRey
03-26-2012, 09:15 PM
-_-
Just because it's virtual doesn't mean you can't cross any lines. They're not going to show physical torture or the like either. You know why? because it takes a person to cross a certain psychological threshold to actually enjoy such a thing. If you actually do enjoy it, I strongly recommend you go see a psychiatrist or at the very least a psychologist.

SixKeys
03-26-2012, 09:16 PM
I'm definitely happy they are adding kids into the game, it's something I've wanted to see for ages. I can also understand why Ubi made them unkillable to avoid controversy. With that said, I really don't understand why people get so up in arms about killing kids in video games as opposed to adults. Why do we often see so many people here complaining about the fact that we aren't allowed to go on a murderous rampage throughout the city without desynching, yet are disturbed by the idea of kids getting killed? What's so different about innocent children vs. innocent adults?

(Again, not saying I want to kill kids in these games, just like I don't like killing any civilians. I'm just curious why there's supposedly such a huge difference.)

Edit: in reply to LightRey's post, the first AC game did show physical torture when Garnier ordered his men to break the patient's legs. Does that not count as torture?

LightRey
03-26-2012, 09:18 PM
I'm definitely happy they are adding kids into the game, it's something I've wanted to see for ages. I can also understand why Ubi made them unkillable to avoid controversy. With that said, I really don't understand why people get so up in arms about killing kids in video games as opposed to adults. Why do we often see so many people here complaining about the fact that we aren't allowed to go on a murderous rampage throughout the city without desynching, yet are disturbed by the idea of kids getting killed? What's so different about innocent children vs. innocent adults?

(Again, not saying I want to kill kids in these games, just like I don't like killing any civilians. I'm just curious why there's supposedly such a difference.)
Because of aforementioned psychological threshold.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 09:19 PM
I'm definitely happy they are adding kids into the game, it's something I've wanted to see for ages. I can also understand why Ubi made them unkillable to avoid controversy. With that said, I really don't understand why people get so up in arms about killing kids in video games as opposed to adults. Why do we often see so many people here complaining about the fact that we aren't allowed to go on a murderous rampage throughout the city without desynching, yet are disturbed by the idea of kids getting killed? What's so different about innocent children vs. innocent adults?

(Again, not saying I want to kill kids in these games, just like I don't like killing any civilians. I'm just curious why there's supposedly such a difference.)

Because kids are pure and Innocent and can't defend themselves? I dunno', I personally wouldn't mind It In other video games, just not for AC.

Lonesoldier2012
03-26-2012, 09:19 PM
Just because it's virtual doesn't mean you can't cross any lines. They're not going to show physical torture or the like either. You know why? because it takes a person to cross a certain psychological threshold to actually enjoy such a thing. If you actually do enjoy it, I strongly recommend you go see a psychiatrist or at the very least a psychologist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-magGeDSS-c

LightRey
03-26-2012, 09:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-magGeDSS-c
They're not showing any significant physical torture. If you really think that in any way comes close to actual torture you don't know what torture is and trust me, they will never ever show that in video games.

freddie_1897
03-26-2012, 09:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

SixKeys
03-26-2012, 09:27 PM
Because of aforementioned psychological threshold.

The psychological threshold being that including a certain feature in the game means people would have to enjoy it. Why are people expected to enjoy killing adults more than children, since killing adults (even NPCs) is permitted in these games?

freddie_1897
03-26-2012, 09:28 PM
and if anyone goes crazy in game, I've heard shutter island is just off the coast of Boston!

Jexx21
03-26-2012, 09:29 PM
Just a question.. would killing children in games be okay if they were possessed by demons and were trying to kill you?

reddragonhrcro
03-26-2012, 09:30 PM
Just because it's virtual doesn't mean you can't cross any lines. They're not going to show physical torture or the like either. You know why? because it takes a person to cross a certain psychological threshold to actually enjoy such a thing. If you actually do enjoy it, I strongly recommend you go see a psychiatrist or at the very least a psychologist.

True,i always try to avoid killing people in games when i can.(MGS for example)

freddie_1897
03-26-2012, 09:32 PM
there are people who are mentally unstable, and through games decide to start killing people, I'm sure those columbine murderers were influenced in some way by video games

deskpe
03-26-2012, 09:32 PM
Just a question.. would killing children in games be okay if they were possessed by demons and were trying to kill you?

I'd say yes, demon babies in dante's inferno.

Is still abit shady though... in the right contest things can be justified in my opinion. i think games should try and stay away from killing kids tho.

Lonesoldier2012
03-26-2012, 09:39 PM
They're not showing any significant physical torture. If you really think that in any way comes close to actual torture you don't know what torture is and trust me, they will never ever show that in video games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6ZRfMp4yKM

http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/violent.jpg?w=550&h=359

A game called Chiller.

Tetsou88
03-26-2012, 09:39 PM
I can't recall that happening to me, but I see your point.

I did not have this issue until AC:R, people would get in the way of guards.

LightRey
03-26-2012, 09:42 PM
The psychological threshold being that including a certain feature in the game means people would have to enjoy it. Why are people expected to enjoy killing adults more than children, since killing adults (even NPCs) is permitted in these games?
I don't think you quite understand. Humans (normally) have some basic "parameters" set in their minds, either by nature or through nurture. One of these is an automatic disgust for killing children, which is mostly a natural one. It is relatively unusual for a person to cross that threshold, even if they don't have the natural inhibitors of this behaviour, most human cultures will still have created artificial thresholds to prevent them from resorting to such behavior.

Aside from the obvious danger of basically removing any final inhibition of such behavior for people who are mentally ill by removing that second threshold, it presents another problem. If culture were to start encouraging or allowing encouragement of said behavior (for example by making it possible to kill children in video games), it could actually cause people who are not mentally ill to start exerting such behavior.

The main difference I'm trying to express here, is that it does not lie in human nature to kill children, while it does to kill other adult humans. There are species that kill the children of their rivals, but humans and their (recent) predecessors are not part of that group. In fact quite to the contrary, humans and their predecessors are known to adopt children instead of killing them. Moreover, it is even more against human nature to kill children for amusement. Regardless of the fact that "it's just a game", to your mind it is actually happening in a sense. Human brains have neurons that are referred to as "mirror neurons", which are in many ways responsible for why we like being spectators. They cause our brains to basically think that we're actually doing what we're seeing ourselves. Get the picture?

Every time you kill someone in a game, part of you thinks you actually killed someone. That's not a problem per se, since nobody gets hurt and it in a way satisfies primordial instincts that shouldn't be satisfied in more realistic ways and it's more healthy than repressing them, but actually going against your nature doesn't satisfy, but creates "needs", which is dangerous, especially to people that are predisposed to mental illnesses.

SixKeys
03-26-2012, 09:44 PM
In a game like AC where kill moves are always brutal, killing kids would definitely not work. However, as a general rule, I think seeing kids killed can create great drama and emotion. Just think of the brilliant cinematic trailer for Dead Island. The reason it worked so well was exactly because we're not used to seeing brutality and children in trailers and it created this sense of despair and sadness, "no-one is spared" type of feel. While it wouldn't be suitable for the hero of an AC game to go around slaughtering innocents, I wouldn't mind having like a cut scene where he finds some dead children at a burned-down village or battlefield, to make the player suitably upset and determined to bring justice on the murderers.

D.I.D.
03-26-2012, 09:51 PM
Just a question.. would killing children in games be okay if they were possessed by demons and were trying to kill you?

That happens in quite a few games - Dead Space 2, for instance, Bioshock...

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 09:51 PM
I don't think you quite understand. Humans (normally) have some basic "parameters" set in their minds, either by nature or through nurture. One of these is an automatic disgust for killing children, which is mostly a natural one. It is relatively unusual for a person to cross that threshold, even if they don't have the natural inhibitors of this behaviour, most human cultures will still have created artificial thresholds to prevent them from resorting to such behavior.

Aside from the obvious danger of basically removing any final inhibition of such behavior for people who are mentally ill by removing that second threshold, it presents another problem. If culture were to start encouraging or allowing encouragement of said behavior (for example by making it possible to kill children in video games), it could actually cause people who are not mentally ill to start exerting such behavior.

The main difference I'm trying to express here, is that it does not lie in human nature to kill children, while it does to kill other adult humans. There are species that kill the children of their rivals, but humans and their (recent) predecessors are not part of that group. In fact quite to the contrary, humans and their predecessors are known to adopt children instead of killing them. Moreover, it is even more against human nature to kill children for amusement. Regardless of the fact that "it's just a game", to your mind it is actually happening in a sense. Human brains have neurons that are referred to as "mirror neurons", which are in many ways responsible for why we like being spectators. They cause our brains to basically think that we're actually doing what we're seeing ourselves. Get the picture?

Every time you kill someone in a game, part of you thinks you actually killed someone. That's not a problem per se, since nobody gets hurt and it in a way satisfies primordial instincts that shouldn't be satisfied in more realistic ways and it's more healthy than repressing them, but actually going against your nature doesn't satisfy, but creates "needs", which is dangerous, especially to people that are predisposed to mental illnesses.

You are one smart dude. Maybe reading Into It a little bit much though. Anyone who Is stable can compartmentalize and understand that what they do In a video game, In no way expresses any real world desires. But I suppose It's different from person to person. Different levels of morality perhaps.

LightRey
03-26-2012, 09:51 PM
In a game like AC where kill moves are always brutal, killing kids would definitely not work. However, as a general rule, I think seeing kids killed can create great drama and emotion. Just think of the brilliant cinematic trailer for Dead Island. The reason it worked so well was exactly because we're not used to seeing brutality and children in trailers and it created this sense of despair and sadness, "no-one is spared" type of feel. While it wouldn't be suitable for the hero of an AC game to go around slaughtering innocents, I wouldn't mind having like a cut scene where he finds some dead children at a burned-down village or battlefield, to make the player suitably upset and determined to bring justice on the murderers.
That's an entirely different matter though. If the context is right and the player/spectator is meant to feel bad about the child's death, it's a good thing as it reinforces the idea that children should not be killed. It's mostly the part where your mind tries to "simulate" the experience of performing such an act that's dangerous.


You are one smart dude. Maybe reading Into It a little bit much though. Anyone who Is stable can compartmentalize and understand that what they do In a video game, In no way expresses any real world desires. But I suppose It's different from person to person. Different levels of morality perhaps.
It's not about understanding I'm afraid. Human behavior is largely governed by the subconscious, not the conscious. I'm not saying you can't make conscious decisions, that's still under heavy debate, but I can assure you that most of the decisions you make will at the very least be heavily influenced by thoughts you aren't even aware of.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6ZRfMp4yKM

A game called Chiller.
Irrelevant because of lack of graphical detail.

Lonesoldier2012
03-26-2012, 09:58 PM
Irrelevant because of lack of graphical detail.

-_- You can't admit you/'re wrong about one thing?

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 10:04 PM
That's an entirely different matter though. If the context is right and the player/spectator is meant to feel bad about the child's death, it's a good thing as it reinforces the idea that children should not be killed. It's mostly the part where your mind tries to "simulate" the experience of performing such an act that's dangerous.


It's not about understanding I'm afraid. Human behavior is largely governed by the subconscious, not the conscious. I'm not saying you can't make conscious decisions, that's still under heavy debate, but I can assure you that most of the decisions you make will at the very least be heavily influenced by thoughts you aren't even aware of.


Irrelevant because of lack of graphical detail.

Yes, but while seeing a child die In a video might make my subconscious cringe with anxiety, I can compartmentalize, understand why I feel like this and feel better knowing I would never do this In reality. It's like a mental defense strategy.

LightRey
03-26-2012, 10:04 PM
-_- You can't admit you/'re wrong about one thing?
Well I will admit I was wrong about the severity of the torture itself, but it's irrelevant to this particular discussion as the lack of graphical detail avoids the relevant psychological threshold.

SixKeys
03-26-2012, 10:11 PM
Yes, but while seeing a child die In a video might make my subconscious cringe with anxiety, I can compartmentalize, understand why I feel like this and feel better knowing I would never do this In reality. It's like a mental defense strategy.

I agree with this. Mortal Kombat is about as graphic as you can get yet we haven't heard lately from people going crazy after playing the game and going on violent rampages. Video games may normalize violence - as in our perception of it - but they don't create it. People who would not go out and kill kids in RL would not be more inclined to do so after playing a video game.

Lonesoldier2012
03-26-2012, 10:23 PM
Well I will admit I was wrong about the severity of the torture itself, but it's irrelevant to this particular discussion as the lack of graphical detail avoids the relevant psychological threshold.

Fine that's fair enough.

LightRey
03-26-2012, 10:24 PM
I agree with this. Mortal Kombat is about as graphic as you can get yet we haven't heard lately from people going crazy after playing the game and going on violent rampages. Video games may normalize violence - as in our perception of it - but they don't create it. People who would not go out and kill kids in RL would not be more inclined to do so after playing a video game.
I'm not saying one video game will cause a rampage of crazy murderers or something of course, but there most definitely have been instances of people who were predisposed to mental illnesses that through playing video games did find a psychological way to do the unthinkable. An example of not too long ago would be the Alphen aan den Rijn shopping mall shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn_shopping_mall_shooting), carried out by someone who exceptionally often played gun-related video games and who had an obsession with guns. Of course this person was already diagnosed with several mental illnesses, but this wasn't even regarding exceptionally violent video games.

Again this is regarding doing things that are against human nature. Allowing you to do things like killing children is basically opening a door to people that are trying or should be trying to repress that, to create a habit.

But finally, being able to kill children in a video game for the sake of realism is sick. You don't want to go to the bathroom for the sake of realism either. If your priorities are so messed up that you'd sooner want to be able to kill children in a video game than that you'd want to be able to take a dump, please for the love of god go see a psychiatrist.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 10:30 PM
I don't necessarily WANT to kill children In video games, I'm just saying that killing children COULD be In video games.

LightRey
03-26-2012, 10:32 PM
I don't necessarily WANT to kill children In video games, I'm just saying that killing children COULD be In video games.
And I'm saying it shouldn't be and likely will never be.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 10:35 PM
And I'm saying it shouldn't be and likely will never be.

When people become less sensitized to things, I believe we could see It In video games In some form. You know, when people get off their moral high horse.

D.I.D.
03-26-2012, 10:41 PM
When people become less sensitized to things, I believe we could see It In video games In some form. You know, when people get off their moral high horse.

I'll be amazed if there isn't a single game within the next decade which includes the protagonist killing kids - IF the kids in the game are trying to kill the protagonist. Most things you've ever seen in a film are very likely to happen in a game sooner or later.

I can't think of a film where the protagonist kills kids for any other reason than self-preservation, and I might never see one in my lifetime - that's the difference here. Some people want killable kids in a game which is centrally about contract killings, and we know kids won't be contract targets, which only leaves the sandbox aspects - and therefore we're looking at recreational killing. It shouldn't be in AC.

albertwesker22
03-26-2012, 10:42 PM
When people become less sensitized to things, I believe we could see It In video games In some form. You know, when people get off their moral high horse.

You downloaded the mod that let's you kill kids in Skyrim, didn't you?;)

LightRey
03-26-2012, 10:42 PM
When people become less sensitized to things, I believe we could see It In video games In some form. You know, when people get off their moral high horse.
Are you freaking kidding me? This has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with mental stability. It's just not normal for a human being to even consider it. Desensitation isn't a good thing. We have emotions and instinctive opinions for a reason. It's so we don't screw up how we live together. Desensitation would absolutely ruin human society because we wouldn't be able to properly sympathize or empathize and lack of empathy is one of the most common symptoms in mental illnesses.

I don't even get why you would want it to be possible. There's just no need. What is this absurd obsession with realism people have?

D.I.D.
03-26-2012, 10:44 PM
I don't even get why you would want it to be possible.

You'd be surprised. We've had people here who want the de-sync removed so that they can kill civilians indiscriminately, and the GTA forums are depressing - most people don't want to see kids in GTA V, but there's a significant chunk who really, really want it.

SixKeys
03-26-2012, 10:48 PM
I'm not saying one video game will cause a rampage of crazy murderers or something of course, but there most definitely have been instances of people who were predisposed to mental illnesses that through playing video games did find a psychological way to do the unthinkable. An example of not too long ago would be the Alphen aan den Rijn shopping mall shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn_shopping_mall_shooting), carried out by someone who exceptionally often played gun-related video games and who had an obsession with guns. Of course this person was already diagnosed with several mental illnesses, but this wasn't even regarding exceptionally violent video games.

The same can and has been said about violent movies. People argue violent movies should be banned because they might make people violent in RL, but there's been no conclusive evidence for this. It's completely imaginable that seeing violent imagery might cause already mentally unstable people to mimic the violence, like the guy in your example. Historically, even books have inspired violent behavior yet I'm sure most people here would agree that doesn't mean we should start unduly censoring books.

The fact is, people who are prone to aggression will always find something to trigger that aggression, whether it be a book, movie, game or another person. Should we start smoothing the edges off of every table for the sake of the few who might poke their eye out on them?


But finally, being able to kill children in a video game for the sake of realism is sick. You don't want to go to the bathroom for the sake of realism either. If your priorities are so messed up that you'd sooner want to be able to kill children in a video game than that you'd want to be able to take a dump, please for the love of god go see a psychiatrist.

My question is not whether killing children (virtually or in RL) is sick, there's no question about that. My question is, why do you think killing children is MORE sick than killing innocent adults? Why do you condemn one type of killing as unacceptable while being perfectly okay with another? Using the example you provided, we allow people with violent tendencies to play video games where they kill grown-ups. One player goes out and slaughters a bunch of grown-ups in RL. We find this appalling, but you don't hear gamers saying "now we must ban all shooters because they clearly lead to violent behavior". Yet if you suggest a game where killing children is possible, they tell you you're a sick individual and in need of psychological help because killing children in a video game is a dangerous gateway to killing children in RL. Why the double standard? If you believe killing people in a video game can lead to killing people in RL, then all violent games should be considered dangerous regardless of whether they feature kids or not.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 10:48 PM
I'll be amazed if there isn't a single game within the next decade which includes the protagonist killing kids - IF the kids in the game are trying to kill the protagonist. Most things you've ever seen in a film are very likely to happen in a game sooner or later.

I can't think of a film where the protagonist kills kids for any other reason than self-preservation, and I might never see one in my lifetime - that's the difference here. Some people want killable kids in a game which is centrally about contract killings, and we know kids won't be contract targets, which only leaves the sandbox aspects - and therefore we're looking at recreational killing. It shouldn't be in AC.

There's a film called 'The children' where adults have to kill kids. I can't Imagine LightRey has ever seen It, due to his sensitive nature.

albertwesker22
03-26-2012, 10:49 PM
You'd be surprised. We've had people here who want the de-sync removed so that they can kill civilians indiscriminately, and the GTA forums are depressing - most people don't want to see kids in GTA V, but there's a significant chunk who really, really want it.

In AC 1, you could kill whoever you wish, after you complete the game. I guess even the AC team knew that people would want that in some form.

reddragonhrcro
03-26-2012, 10:50 PM
You'd be surprised. We've had people here who want the de-sync removed so that they can kill civilians indiscriminately, and the GTA forums are depressing - most people don't want to see kids in GTA V, but there's a significant chunk who really, really want it.

Was just now thinking about GTA and if they put in kids what that would be like.I belive there would be trouble around this topic there...

albertwesker22
03-26-2012, 10:52 PM
There's a film called 'The children' where adults have to kill kids. I can't Imagine LightRey has ever seen It, due to his sensitive nature.

A lot of people haven't seen that. It's indie garbage :cool: Besides in that movie, the kids were infected by a virus, that caused them to become feral. Doesn't explain why you want kids to be killable in the game.

LightRey
03-26-2012, 10:53 PM
The same can and has been said about violent movies. People argue violent movies should be banned because they might make people violent in RL, but there's been no conclusive evidence for this. It's completely imaginable that seeing violent imagery might cause already mentally unstable people to mimic the violence, like the guy in your example. Historically, even books have inspired violent behavior yet I'm sure most people here would agree that doesn't mean we should start unduly censoring books.

The fact is, people who are prone to aggression will always find something to trigger that aggression, whether it be a book, movie, game or another person. Should we start smoothing the edges off of every table for the sake of the few who might poke their eye out on them?



My question is not whether killing children (virtually on in RL) is sick, there's no question about that. My question is, why do you think killing children is MORE sick than killing innocent adults? Why do you condemn one type of killing as unacceptable while being perfectly okay with another? Using the example you provided, we allow people with violent tendencies to play video games where they kill grown-ups. One player goes out and slaughters a bunch of grown-ups in RL. We find this appalling, but you don't hear gamers saying "now we must ban all shooters because they clearly lead to violent behavior". Yet if you suggest a game where killing children is possible, they tell you you're a sick individual and in need of psychological help because killing children in a video game is a dangerous gateway to killing children in RL. Why the double standard? If you believe killing people in a video game can lead to killing people in RL, then all violent games should be considered dangerous regardless of whether they feature kids or not.

Of course it is more sick. That's what I've been saying this entire freaking time. One of my very first posts in this thread noted that there is a huge difference between being able to kill kids and being able to kill other adults. I've explained it thoroughly in several of my posts, referring to human nature and psychology.

But I'm done with this. I find it absolutely absurd that I'm even having to defend this.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 10:53 PM
OKAY, so at most, killing kids In video games would be distasteful. Stop making out It would cause psychological melt downs and that It's "sick". If films can do It, so can games. News shows some absolutely shocking Images that are REAL, they don't limit the images to adults neither. Seeing them Is desensitizing In Itself.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 11:00 PM
A lot of people haven't seen that. It's indie garbage :cool: Besides in that movie, the kids were infected by a virus, that caused them to become feral. Doesn't explain why you want kids to be killable in the game.

Even the sight of seeing an adult kill a child Is distasteful, no matter If they're feral. Especially when they look perfectly healthy. But because something Is distasteful, doesn't mean It can't be used to create emotion. It's a powerful tool.

albertwesker22
03-26-2012, 11:02 PM
Even the sight of seeing an adult kill a child Is distasteful, no matter If they're feral. Especially when they look perfectly healthy. But because something Is distasteful, doesn't mean It can't be used to create emotion. It's a powerful tool.

I wouldn't argue that. But to make them fully killable npc's is what I am against. As if some player is bored, he can blow a kids head off for kicks. If you are talking about showing them as casualties war, then I agree that it can be used within the story.

D.I.D.
03-26-2012, 11:03 PM
There's a film called 'The children' where adults have to kill kids. I can't Imagine LightRey has ever seen It, due to his sensitive nature.

Yeah, come to think of it I recently saw "F" which had teenagers and adults preying on each other. Not a very good film though, so it went clean out of my head.

xCr0wnedNorris
03-26-2012, 11:03 PM
First Post: Kids are in the game! :D
Second Post: We should be able to kill them!

WHAT. THE. HELL?

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 11:07 PM
First Post: Kids are in the game! :D
Second Post: We should be able to kill them!

WHAT. THE. HELL?

The subject of them being killable was also mentioned In the first post.

albertwesker22
03-26-2012, 11:08 PM
"Well, first of all, both George and I are very firmly against the murdering of toddlers."

Don't know if you'll catch that reference.

xCr0wnedNorris
03-26-2012, 11:10 PM
The subject of them being killable was also mentioned In the first post.
Yes, but it was in support of Ubisoft's decision to not make them killable. Not to mention the entirety of the second post was dedicated to suggesting that we should be able to kill them. :|

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 11:13 PM
Yes, but it was in support of Ubisoft's decision to not make them killable. Not to mention the entirety of the second post was dedicated to suggesting that we should be able to kill them. :|

The second post was obviously meant jokingly. This conversation was bound to arise when kids being In the game was discovered.

xCr0wnedNorris
03-26-2012, 11:14 PM
The second post was obviously meant jokingly. This conversation was bound to arise when kids being In the game was discovered.

That's a VERY dark sense of humor then...

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 11:16 PM
That's a VERY dark sense of humor then...

You should stay clear of Sikipedia then.

Jamison_J_B
03-26-2012, 11:27 PM
Shut up. No they shouldn't. You are disgusting.

A video game is a video game, it's not real life.

Almost all of the norms we associate to, are parental and/or society embedded. Murder is still murder regardless of age. There are many things in real life that does contradict the nature of survival of the species. To be honest, I could really care less, all I'm saying is we use censorship to "put a blinding tapestry over our eyes".

Poodle_of_Doom
03-27-2012, 12:11 AM
Just because it's virtual doesn't mean you can't cross any lines. They're not going to show physical torture or the like either. You know why? because it takes a person to cross a certain psychological threshold to actually enjoy such a thing. If you actually do enjoy it, I strongly recommend you go see a psychiatrist or at the very least a psychologist.

Wait... so someone who suggest allowing children to be killed in game is psychotic,... but every adult is fair game?


I'm definitely happy they are adding kids into the game, it's something I've wanted to see for ages. I can also understand why Ubi made them unkillable to avoid controversy. With that said, I really don't understand why people get so up in arms about killing kids in video games as opposed to adults. Why do we often see so many people here complaining about the fact that we aren't allowed to go on a murderous rampage throughout the city without desynching, yet are disturbed by the idea of kids getting killed? What's so different about innocent children vs. innocent adults?

(Again, not saying I want to kill kids in these games, just like I don't like killing any civilians. I'm just curious why there's supposedly such a huge difference.)

Edit: in reply to LightRey's post, the first AC game did show physical torture when Garnier ordered his men to break the patient's legs. Does that not count as torture?

In the comment I made about little kids, and how they should be killable, this was exactly what I was thinking.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-magGeDSS-c

I got a better throwback for you. Dungeon Keeper by Bullfrog.
They're not showing any significant physical torture. If you really think that in any way comes close to actual torture you don't know what torture is and trust me, they will never ever show that in video games.

Again,... Dungeon Keeper.



there are people who are mentally unstable, and through games decide to start killing people, I'm sure those columbine murderers were influenced in some way by video games

Video games got the raw end of the deal there. Just because a couple of psychos decide to use it for "Trainin Purposes" doesn't mean it will influence those of us with sound enough judgement to realize it's still a **** game...
I don't think you quite understand. Humans (normally) have some basic "parameters" set in their minds, either by nature or through nurture. One of these is an automatic disgust for killing children, which is mostly a natural one. It is relatively unusual for a person to cross that threshold, even if they don't have the natural inhibitors of this behaviour, most human cultures will still have created artificial thresholds to prevent them from resorting to such behavior.

Aside from the obvious danger of basically removing any final inhibition of such behavior for people who are mentally ill by removing that second threshold, it presents another problem. If culture were to start encouraging or allowing encouragement of said behavior (for example by making it possible to kill children in video games), it could actually cause people who are not mentally ill to start exerting such behavior.

The main difference I'm trying to express here, is that it does not lie in human nature to kill children, while it does to kill other adult humans. There are species that kill the children of their rivals, but humans and their (recent) predecessors are not part of that group. In fact quite to the contrary, humans and their predecessors are known to adopt children instead of killing them. Moreover, it is even more against human nature to kill children for amusement. Regardless of the fact that "it's just a game", to your mind it is actually happening in a sense. Human brains have neurons that are referred to as "mirror neurons", which are in many ways responsible for why we like being spectators. They cause our brains to basically think that we're actually doing what we're seeing ourselves. Get the picture?

Every time you kill someone in a game, part of you thinks you actually killed someone. That's not a problem per se, since nobody gets hurt and it in a way satisfies primordial instincts that shouldn't be satisfied in more realistic ways and it's more healthy than repressing them, but actually going against your nature doesn't satisfy, but creates "needs", which is dangerous, especially to people that are predisposed to mental illnesses.

I very much agree with your logic, but there's a very distinct seperation that I think is called for, and the need for that seperation is further suggested by your arguements. If it's "like you killed someone", I would imagine this only prompts the brain to become comfortable with the idea. But alas, anyone with sound judgement understands the difference.
In a game like AC where kill moves are always brutal, killing kids would definitely not work. However, as a general rule, I think seeing kids killed can create great drama and emotion. Just think of the brilliant cinematic trailer for Dead Island. The reason it worked so well was exactly because we're not used to seeing brutality and children in trailers and it created this sense of despair and sadness, "no-one is spared" type of feel. While it wouldn't be suitable for the hero of an AC game to go around slaughtering innocents, I wouldn't mind having like a cut scene where he finds some dead children at a burned-down village or battlefield, to make the player suitably upset and determined to bring justice on the murderers.


Really, in all of this, this is the only extent I think it should be taken too.


The same can and has been said about violent movies. People argue violent movies should be banned because they might make people violent in RL, but there's been no conclusive evidence for this. It's completely imaginable that seeing violent imagery might cause already mentally unstable people to mimic the violence, like the guy in your example. Historically, even books have inspired violent behavior yet I'm sure most people here would agree that doesn't mean we should start unduly censoring books.

The fact is, people who are prone to aggression will always find something to trigger that aggression, whether it be a book, movie, game or another person. Should we start smoothing the edges off of every table for the sake of the few who might poke their eye out on them?

Then there’s this…










Just because it's virtual doesn't mean you can't cross any lines. They're not going to show physical torture or the like either. You know why? because it takes a person to cross a certain psychological threshold to actually enjoy such a thing. If you actually do enjoy it, I strongly recommend you go see a psychiatrist or at the very least a psychologist.

Wait... so someone who suggest allowing children to be killed in game is psychotic,... but every adult is fair game?


I'm definitely happy they are adding kids into the game, it's something I've wanted to see for ages. I can also understand why Ubi made them unkillable to avoid controversy. With that said, I really don't understand why people get so up in arms about killing kids in video games as opposed to adults. Why do we often see so many people here complaining about the fact that we aren't allowed to go on a murderous rampage throughout the city without desynching, yet are disturbed by the idea of kids getting killed? What's so different about innocent children vs. innocent adults?

(Again, not saying I want to kill kids in these games, just like I don't like killing any civilians. I'm just curious why there's supposedly such a huge difference.)

Edit: in reply to LightRey's post, the first AC game did show physical torture when Garnier ordered his men to break the patient's legs. Does that not count as torture?

In the comment I made about little kids, and how they should be killable, this was exactly what I was thinking.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-magGeDSS-c

I got a better throwback for you. Dungeon Keeper by Bullfrog.
They're not showing any significant physical torture. If you really think that in any way comes close to actual torture you don't know what torture is and trust me, they will never ever show that in video games.

Again,... Dungeon Keeper.



there are people who are mentally unstable, and through games decide to start killing people, I'm sure those columbine murderers were influenced in some way by video games

Video games got the raw end of the deal there. Just because a couple of psychos decide to use it for "Trainin Purposes" doesn't mean it will influence those of us with sound enough judgement to realize it's still a **** game...
I don't think you quite understand. Humans (normally) have some basic "parameters" set in their minds, either by nature or through nurture. One of these is an automatic disgust for killing children, which is mostly a natural one. It is relatively unusual for a person to cross that threshold, even if they don't have the natural inhibitors of this behaviour, most human cultures will still have created artificial thresholds to prevent them from resorting to such behavior.

Aside from the obvious danger of basically removing any final inhibition of such behavior for people who are mentally ill by removing that second threshold, it presents another problem. If culture were to start encouraging or allowing encouragement of said behavior (for example by making it possible to kill children in video games), it could actually cause people who are not mentally ill to start exerting such behavior.

The main difference I'm trying to express here, is that it does not lie in human nature to kill children, while it does to kill other adult humans. There are species that kill the children of their rivals, but humans and their (recent) predecessors are not part of that group. In fact quite to the contrary, humans and their predecessors are known to adopt children instead of killing them. Moreover, it is even more against human nature to kill children for amusement. Regardless of the fact that "it's just a game", to your mind it is actually happening in a sense. Human brains have neurons that are referred to as "mirror neurons", which are in many ways responsible for why we like being spectators. They cause our brains to basically think that we're actually doing what we're seeing ourselves. Get the picture?

Every time you kill someone in a game, part of you thinks you actually killed someone. That's not a problem per se, since nobody gets hurt and it in a way satisfies primordial instincts that shouldn't be satisfied in more realistic ways and it's more healthy than repressing them, but actually going against your nature doesn't satisfy, but creates "needs", which is dangerous, especially to people that are predisposed to mental illnesses.

I very much agree with your logic, but there's a very distinct seperation that I think is called for, and the need for that seperation is further suggested by your arguements. If it's "like you killed someone", I would imagine this only prompts the brain to become comfortable with the idea. But alas, anyone with sound judgement understands the difference.
In a game like AC where kill moves are always brutal, killing kids would definitely not work. However, as a general rule, I think seeing kids killed can create great drama and emotion. Just think of the brilliant cinematic trailer for Dead Island. The reason it worked so well was exactly because we're not used to seeing brutality and children in trailers and it created this sense of despair and sadness, "no-one is spared" type of feel. While it wouldn't be suitable for the hero of an AC game to go around slaughtering innocents, I wouldn't mind having like a cut scene where he finds some dead children at a burned-down village or battlefield, to make the player suitably upset and determined to bring justice on the murderers.


Really, in all of this, this is the only extent I think it should be taken too.


The same can and has been said about violent movies. People argue violent movies should be banned because they might make people violent in RL, but there's been no conclusive evidence for this. It's completely imaginable that seeing violent imagery might cause already mentally unstable people to mimic the violence, like the guy in your example. Historically, even books have inspired violent behavior yet I'm sure most people here would agree that doesn't mean we should start unduly censoring books.

The fact is, people who are prone to aggression will always find something to trigger that aggression, whether it be a book, movie, game or another person. Should we start smoothing the edges off of every table for the sake of the few who might poke their eye out on them?

Then there’s this…

JumpInTheFire13
03-27-2012, 01:44 AM
^^ Let's just quote the entire discussion so far...

SixKeys
03-27-2012, 01:58 AM
By the way, I find it kind of ironic how many people were all "woo, we need scalping in this game! Scalping people is awesome!" when news of AC3 first started dripping in and then say that killing kids in games is just sick and disgusting.

kriegerdesgottes
03-27-2012, 02:18 AM
By the way, I find it kind of ironic how many people were all "woo, we need scalping in this game! Scalping people is awesome!" when news of AC3 first started dripping in and then say that killing kids in games is just sick and disgusting.

I'd say both of those things are pretty f'd up. That's just me though.

UrDeviant1
03-27-2012, 02:31 AM
It seems quite a few of the people who've commented here are not opposed to the Idea being able to kill children In a game. I never expected that tbh.

Jamison_J_B
03-27-2012, 02:57 AM
It seems quite a few of the people who've commented here are not opposed to the Idea being able to kill children In a game. I never expected that tbh.

I don't care one way or the other. I think what is being done, however, is associating fiction (video games) with reality.

pirate1802
03-27-2012, 04:55 AM
happened to me plenty of times in the ezio games, if u hit the wrong ****on, or your about to kill a guard thats right next to civilans and the game sort of picks the wrong target.

*Wants to gently push person away* *accidentaly hits X not A* *stabbs person to death*

LOL happens to me alot of times!


Just because it's virtual doesn't mean you can't cross any lines. They're not going to show physical torture or the like either. You know why? because it takes a person to cross a certain psychological threshold to actually enjoy such a thing. If you actually do enjoy it, I strongly recommend you go see a psychiatrist or at the very least a psychologist.

I 100% agree with this.

thekarlone
03-27-2012, 07:45 AM
Well for one MP doesn't have combat, just kills and nonlethal counters.


They're children for god's sake. Them being annoying shouldn't be reason to kill them, not even in video games.

What the hell, people. This is just ridiculous. Being able to kill innocent children in a game is absurd. Killing innocent people in a game is already controversial enough, but these are children we're talking about. It's borderline sadistic.

I don't know why you are so dramatic. Kids also die.

There's some I cannot understand of you: killing adults is good, but killing kids is extremely bad. What's the difference? Both are innocent people. I don't want to kill any kid, but I have to admit there is not enough reasons to lock them.

pacmanate
03-27-2012, 08:10 AM
I don't know why you are so dramatic. Kids also die.

There's some I cannot understand of you: killing adults is good, but killing kids is extremely bad. What's the difference? Both are innocent people. I don't want to kill any kid, but I have to admit there is not enough reasons to lock them.

That has to be some sort of joke right? Kids are small and vulnerable and in the game they are probably just running around playing and being kids. The fact that you even want to be able to kill them by accident just shows how sick of a person you are. I do not care if it is a video game, it shows how psychopathic you are that you actually want a feature in the game where it shows kids getting brutally murdered. Have you ever thought of all of the animations that Ezio had for combo hit kills? Can you imagine how sick that would look when put onto a child NPC? Or maybe you are and that turns you on, it wouldn't surprise me.

Any of you that think that it should be okay to add children into a game that you could freely kill are simply ****ed up in the head. If i'm totally honest I can't believe this thread is still up because it is basically psychopaths arguing their point that you should be allowed to slaughter children.

thekarlone
03-27-2012, 09:35 AM
That has to be some sort of joke right? Kids are small and vulnerable and in the game they are probably just running around playing and being kids. The fact that you even want to be able to kill them by accident just shows how sick of a person you are. I do not care if it is a video game, it shows how psychopathic you are that you actually want a feature in the game where it shows kids getting brutally murdered. Have you ever thought of all of the animations that Ezio had for combo hit kills? Can you imagine how sick that would look when put onto a child NPC? Or maybe you are and that turns you on, it wouldn't surprise me.

Any of you that think that it should be okay to add children into a game that you could freely kill are simply ****ed up in the head. If i'm totally honest I can't believe this thread is still up because it is basically psychopaths arguing their point that you should be allowed to slaughter children.

Connor killing kids would be absolutely disgusting, for sure, but if you remove this option the game loses realism. I'm just saying that.

D.I.D.
03-27-2012, 09:38 AM
Connor killing kids would be absolutely disgusting, for sure, but if you remove this option the game loses realism. I'm just saying that.

Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of me diving into a haystack from 100ft in the air. Say again?

pacmanate
03-27-2012, 09:38 AM
Connor killing kids would be absolutely disgusting, for sure, but if you remove this option the game loses realism. I'm just saying that.

Loses realism? How "realistic" would it be to have an Assassin killing kids?

D.I.D.
03-27-2012, 09:40 AM
Loses realism? How "realistic" would it be to have an Assassin killing kids?

I'll ask the magic people who died thousands of years ago when they next send me a psychic message

D.I.D.
03-27-2012, 09:42 AM
By the way, I find it kind of ironic how many people were all "woo, we need scalping in this game! Scalping people is awesome!" when news of AC3 first started dripping in and then say that killing kids in games is just sick and disgusting.

Are they the same people, though?

thekarlone
03-27-2012, 09:44 AM
Loses realism? How "realistic" would it be to have an Assassin killing kids?

I mean, despite how unpleasant it can be to see that, many children died in wartime. Connor didn't kill kids, like Ezio didn't kill civilians, but you can.

D.I.D.
03-27-2012, 09:48 AM
I mean, despite how unpleasant it can be to see that, many children died in wartime. Connor didn't kill kids, like Ezio didn't kill civilians, but you can.

So this has nothing to do with adding to the realism then, really, since the "realism" of AC is that you follow as closely as possible the actions of your fictional ancestors.

This is about some misguided notions of gaming freedom, not realism.

thekarlone
03-27-2012, 09:52 AM
So this has nothing to do with adding to the realism then, really, since the "realism" of AC is that you follow as closely as possible the actions of your fictional ancestors.

This is about some misguided notions of gaming freedom, not realism.

In that point you're right. Not everything is allowed. However, this is a personal decision of the devs, it is not justified by morality.

D.I.D.
03-27-2012, 10:21 AM
In that point you're right. Not everything is allowed. However, this is a personal decision of the devs, it is not justified by morality.

I agree in the case of other games that it can raise a problem in the illusion of a cohesive world - for example, any Skyrim-style fantasy game which boasts that you get the opportunity to be any kind of badass, and take a good or evil path, and then it turns out you can't be this kind of badass when you encounter children.

I found it odd though, when people complained first about GTAIV that they still hadn't put kids in the game and also now that some people miss there being no kids in AC so far, since I simply hadn't noticed. Despite Petruccio's presence in ACII, I never thought, "where are the other kids?". Besides this, there are quite a few characters you cannot kill in AC, presumably because it would mess up the flow more if you could kill them - better to stop you so you just play those parts of the game as they were intended to be played.

There is an unspoken issue with AC, which is that it's an ostensibly adults-only game which is not only known to be played by kids but is actually marketed to them now. I know for sure that the animated cartoons aren't being made to appeal to buyers like me, and this advert in particular really shows what's going on:


http://youtu.be/Us_LkG0Dkl8

And you see all the mini-Ezios turning up to the E3 seminars, kids who look about 12-13 at most, being rewarded with free copies of the game for turning up in costume. So yeah, they're going to tread very conservatively around a thing like infanticide. It's not tightly logical that some parents will balk at child murder but are happy for their kids to play adult murder games, but there's not much point in expecting perfect moral equivalency from a mass market.

pirate1802
03-27-2012, 11:46 AM
I say they should also show Connor taking a crap, you know.. that would bring unprecedented levels of realism xD

albertwesker22
03-27-2012, 12:25 PM
Can't we let this thread die? Like all the children we apparently want dead :confused:

De Filosoof
03-27-2012, 02:12 PM
"We wanted them in the world, and we don't think there's any awesomeness in letting people kill kids," Hutchinson says. "And even if you did it accidentally, or you did it once to see what would happen, it sort of colors your experience of the whole game. And it's slightly distasteful. So we were just like… lock them out."

It would indeed color the whole story in a wrong way. You would look more like a hypocritical [edit] than a freedom fighter.

Don't you guys understand?

Mr_Shade
03-27-2012, 02:18 PM
I can see that however many times this subject comes up - certain members feel the need to be 'dramatic' and 'controversial' by saying certain things..


Children are in the game..


Children are protected in the game from harm.


End of story...


Discussions about wanting to hurt these children, or other comments which arise from that, are not welcome on the forum.

This is a family forum and as such, if you want to 'joke' about things such as that, you can do it else where.