Fallout 3 maturity hasn't been "tempered"

By Robert Purchese Published 9 July, 2008

But nudity and child killings are out.

Bethesda power-dresser Todd Howard has promised that Fallout 3 will lose none of the "harshness and maturity" fans like about the series.

Howard said "slavery, children, drugs and addiction" will feature as themes, and that narcotics abuse will be a "key gameplay device". But child killing and nudity will not feature, as they were deemed to add nothing to the "flavour" of the game.

"I think the heart of this question is, 'Has the harshness and maturity of the world of Fallout 3 been tempered from the earlier games?' And I can certainly say, 'No, it hasn't been,'" explained Howard in a fan interview on the official forum.

"You will not be able to be a child killer. There are several reasons for this, some of them are very basic, like we wouldn't be able to sell the game anywhere to anyone if the children could be killed. I'm not using that as a scapegoat. We never wanted the game to offer any incentive or desire to be blowing kids away. From our initial designs we didn't know how we were going to handle [what happened] if you shot them, we just knew it was going to be a big no-no...

"Anyway, when attacked, all children flee and any regular NPCs friendly to the children will instantly attack you, so it feels good in the game, in that there is an appropriate response," he added.

Howard went on to weigh-up good and evil choices in Fallout 3, and said the moral grey area in some of its choices choices is a feature he's particularly proud of.

"The grey area comes into several quests where the situation is just 'bad'. Some feel like no-win situations and they come across as 'make a hard choice'," said Howard. "I think that's where it feels best, honestly, but we do need to mix it up between that and simpler good or bad [decisions]."

Dialogue will play a central role in Fallout 3, and you can often start a conversation with an opening line to set the tone. You could be strong and silent, for instance, or poke fun at someone. Whatever you're after, Howard promises lots and lots of it.

"They are big," said Howard of dialogue trees. "If you look at Fallout 1, it's deeper than that. To give you the scale, we have over 40,000 lines of dialogue, compared to a few thousand in Fallout 1."

Fallout 3 is a post-apocalyptic role-playing game for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360. It's due out this autumn and will let you make a bloody mess with big guns.

Head over to the full fan interview or our Fallout 3 gamepage for plenty more information.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (63) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • bdc #1 4 years ago

    PREORDER CANCELLED

    I WANT MY DEAD CHILDREN

  • Ciaran #2 4 years ago

    Too bad it probably won't run very well on my pc. I'm having trouble with Mass Effect ffs.

  • Xerx3s #3 4 years ago

    ""I think the heart of this question is, 'Has the harshness and maturity of the world of Fallout 3 been tempered from the earlier games?' And I can certainly say, 'No, it hasn't been,'""

    Considering that you scrapped quite a few things such as prostitution, I'd say that you are lying through your teeth just to save face. Not that I care as this is at the top of my list.

  • Widge #4 4 years ago

    Intrigued to see how the dialogue pans out... mainly because I found the choices in the likes of KOTOR awful.

  • Britesparc Verified Creative, ITV #5 4 years ago

    I think it's very unlikely we'll ever see an open-world game in the near future that lets you stove babies' heads in with a shovel, but I do wonder how they'll handle it. Where are the kids in GTA, for example? Do the Combine have some kind of suppression field in effect above Liberty City?

    I guess "crippling" the player's ability to go ANYWHERE and do ANYTHING might be the only answer.

  • space_ace #6 4 years ago

    sounds like the die hard 4.0 pre-release promise of toughness...

  • orakio #7 4 years ago

    more of a Fallout-themed oblivion, which is fine by me.

  • anomagnus #8 4 years ago

    what the fuck is wrong with people if they want dead children in their games

    bioshock for example, offered the illusion of choice, kill the little children or not.

    excuse me? what type of fucking choice is that? i don't want or need a fucking infanticide simulator!

    As for nudeness, its shit in games unless you can make the characters look real. The nudity in Conan for example, was embarrassing.

    maturity comes from the writing, not the tits or dead children

  • ruttyboy #9 4 years ago

    I love directly contradictory statements like this, it's a wonder people still trust anyone.

  • penhalion #10 4 years ago

    I would have respected Todd Howard more if he had simply come along and said "we consider the killing of children in any context, to be unacceptable and so have removed it from the fallout game". That would have been short, honest and anyone disagreeing would need to have been seriously considered for a police watch list somewhere.

  • miiiguel #11 4 years ago

    Video games are kidless, no kids in the +54k population of Dead Rising too, sux, really.

    Nothing to do with desire to be infanticide or some shit, it's just odd, why no kids zombies? Anyway, the ppl who were "ofended" by Bioshock's "children" should play on Wiis, just Wiis. And nudity... oh my god..., is that a breast ?!
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/08 @ 10:37

  • Svecke #12 4 years ago

    If we can't have dead, naked children, what can we have?!?!?! D:

  • Poorandugly #13 4 years ago

    I think the problem is that I no longer have the choice to not kill the children. Not that people can't wait to go around slaughtering kids. It's better to be able to chose to not do something, rather than being forced not to.

  • ZuluHero #14 4 years ago

    This doesn't bother me in the slightest... Other fallout fans may disagree, but if that's the case then maybe other fallout fans need to stop escaping to 'fantasy' and seek some professional help. In this day and age we developers have to take the morale high ground, especially so now as graphics become more 'realistic' and in an age where attack on our medium is commonplace. We have to come to understand that depictions of violence and depravity of this ilk *isn't* ok, regardless of if some feel that it somehow encroaches on their freedom of 'choice' or how it effects the artistic-integrity of the world being depicted.

    From what I’ve seen, Bethesda are doing a fine job, and I’m confident that they will still deliver an experience with enough depth without compromising on the important things that made the original fallouts great. Child murdering and prostitution omitted.

    Shame on you EG for this blatant goading.

  • Snidesworth #15 4 years ago

    The kill/save choice in Bioshock wasn't really a choice at all, given how you ended up with a extra plasmids and only slightly less ADAM if you went around saving the little scamps. If they wanted it to have weight then harvesting them should have given you a clear material advantage. At the cost of you being a horrible, deplorable child murderer.

    Child killing being "removed" I'm not fussed about, since it really doesn't add anything to the game. Nudity isn't a loss either so long as that's all that's lost. The original two games didn't have nudity either; they had some sexual content in places, but it was never graphically explicit. San Reno wouldn't be San Reno if it wasn't a den of vice with pushers, pimps and hookers lining the street, hawking their goods to you as you pass.

  • ZeroAX #16 4 years ago

    i can understand child killing but what's wrong with being naked? we're born that way ffs. quick hide your shame do other people don't know what exists between your legs

  • mrt181 #17 4 years ago

    will it be as moddable as oblivion. that is the only question that needs to be answered.

    if it is, than everything will be possible...

    and those of you, who want to kill children in a game: are you sick?

    the best solution would be, imho, to prevent they player to shoot at them. take aim at them and you can't pull the trigger (and get a on screen message, that is asking after your mental health)

    if you kill them indirectly like through a grenade or an exploding propane gas tank you shoot all nearby npcs should kill you within seconds instantly through a headshoot, game over.

    and just place the kids out of harms way in the game world.

    i am totally fine with nudity, a naked character is interesting for 5 seconds. if i want stimulating nudity, a game would be the last place i would look for it
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/08 @ 11:10

  • afghan_jones #18 4 years ago

    I killed a child in the first Fallout. It wasnt a child character model though so not too horrible.

    However, when I went to towns and settlements after that, there were wanted posters about and people really disliked me for being a child killer. So there was a tangible consequence.

    Its fucking depressing though that child killing and nudity are viewed as equally bad things. I really hate the way nudity is seen as worse than violence in film and games these days. gratuitious nudity is one thing but in a large RPG set in a psot apocalyptic and therefore somewhat morally vacuous world anyway, to declare that no one will get naked or have sex at any point seems jarring.

  • hiddenranbir #19 4 years ago

    Nudity patch plz.

    I think the maturity HAS been tempered. Instead of giving the player the engaging experience to deal with consequences of actions they're instead putting us, once again, in some magic bubble.

    It really tempers their nonsense hype of "choices" and "morally grey".

    Edited by 4 at 09/07/08 @ 11:23

  • Subquest #20 4 years ago

    Hope this is better than Oblivion. Was bored to tears playing that.

    Maybe non-linear rpgs just ain't your bag mate. Oblivion was great.

  • RexRunti #21 4 years ago

    I wish developers would just make the game they want to, then censor all the bits they need to for each appropriate market e.g Japan/Europe/Canada get the intended version America get's the same with all the sex scenes and nudity removed and Germany get's a game about cuddly cartoon animals learning about the importance of sharing.

    It's quite a silly situation in GTA IV where you can sniper innocent passer-bys, steal cars, deal drugs, swear like a sailor and pick up prostitutes but as soon as you enter a strip club the game suddenly decideds it's a PG. There are simular situations with the Witcher and Vampire the Masquerade.

    Not that I have a strong desire to see pretend women naked or anything. It's just consitencey i'm looking for. If Fallout 3 doesn't go anywhere near a strip club, have any prostitutes or gratuitous sex (the sex scene in Mass Effect was pitch perfect) then no nudity isn't an issue.

    As for killing kids. If the game allows you to shoot kids, there should be severe consequences for killing them (perhaps even game ending) but giving small consequences and turning the kids into some strange invulnerable immortal creature seems to be wussing out to me.

    Edit: for clarity
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/08 @ 11:42

  • qoobah #22 4 years ago

    penhalion: I would have respected Todd Howard more if he had simply come along and said "we consider the killing of children in any context, to be unacceptable and so have removed it from the fallout game". That would have been short, honest and anyone disagreeing would need to have been seriously considered for a police watch list somewhere.

    Totally agree. What he is doing is just marketing talk.

    afghan_jones: Its fucking depressing though that child killing and nudity are viewed as equally bad things. I really hate the way nudity is seen as worse than violence in film and games these days. gratuitious nudity is one thing but in a large RPG set in a psot apocalyptic and therefore somewhat morally vacuous world anyway, to declare that no one will get naked or have sex at any point seems jarring.

    Again, my thoughts exactly. For fucks sake, noone is asking for textures to jack off to, and if someone is, then there is already terabytes of porn on the net. I am asking however for a consistent and immersive experience. I doubt that a post apocalyptic world would be as prude as it is in 2008.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/08 @ 11:43

  • 7creature #23 4 years ago

    Who cares about nudity (and those Oblivion mods are laughable - turning cheesy Oblivion into Deathstalker 2 fantasy film (though I have to admit it was definitelly more funny than Oblivion - Deathstalker 2 :-), but Fallout without killable children is weird.

    WTF is bad about killing children? And before you start labeling me child killer - I mean, you can mass murder whole villages, cities, countryside, roast and mutilate every elf, dwarf, mutant, whatever and be Savior of Humankind, but no, you cannot even scratch the child's hair - if that happened, you are immediately labeled Hitler's ugly, despicable twin.

    So basically: one children >>> other humanoids combined.

    Funny thing is that while it is basically forbidden harming children in games and mainstream movies (unless it is supposed to be hearbreaking movie about harmed children, of course), it is really widespread in the real world. But of course, games are not about reality, are they? *rolls eyes*

    Not that I ever killed innocent (well, this term is really open to discussion, though .-) humans in Fallout games (or other games). Hmm, have you ever tried to set the timer on the bomb, leave it in inventory and wander around Flick's shoppe in Den? XD





    With this all said, it is sad but Bethesda is right - I guess nowadays they would be roasted alive if they released game in which you can kill children, guess they are too high profile to be able to slip without attention...

    So please, just leave the children from the game completely - nothing breaks the suspension more than being unable do do somthing... You know, Lord British got killed too...
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/08 @ 11:58

  • ligurmatic #24 4 years ago

    To everyone saying how terrible it is to kill virtual children in games: How much less sick is killing adults?

    It strikes me as hypocracy of the highest order to complain about killing one section of humanity and then relishing in killing the rest.

  • RedPanda #25 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • anomagnus #26 4 years ago

    @7Creature

    The act of killing children in the game is one of those invisible lines. Crossing that takes the game into very uncomfortable territory.

    In theory, any adult could turn around and defend themselves. While you're mowing down adults, you to have to remember, on some level, they have 'earned' their deaths by their actions, and secondly, they have the potential to either save themselves or run away.

    Now, in sandbox games like GTA4 , its slightly different, but the game inst about grabbing a gun and mowing people down for no reason. People might try it first and a few times, like i did, its funny i suppose. Would it be as funny if it was a bus full of children? No.

    But, if you're putting virtual children in there, then they really are innocent parties. Its unlikely, from the story point of view, that they choose their situation, rather they were born into it, and secondly, its unlikely they could defend themselves to any true degree.

    In that case then, you've gone from reaping justice, to killing innocents with no capability of defending themselves.

    If killing children was an integral part of the game, i'd pass on it.

  • Feanor #27 4 years ago

    Won't somebody please think of the chil... oh, they did.

  • BurningR #28 4 years ago

    WHAT?!

    I had hoped they might even allow me to torture the naked children, but now I can't even kill them! This is a disgrace!

  • RedPanda #29 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • muscleblade #30 4 years ago

    "To everyone saying how terrible it is to kill virtual children in games: How much less sick is killing adults? "

    Its a huge difference. Children are a lot more innocent and cant defend themselves.

    There are no children in GTAIV because there are som crazy maniac loose killing innocents on the streets so they have to stay inside as long as that maniac isnt captured. Seriously though its just a game. If you want it to be realistic there are many other more unrealistc things in GTA than the lack of children.

  • ZuluHero #31 4 years ago

    @anomagnus

    well said - and a similar response i was going to use against ligurmatic's arguement. :)

    EDIT: oh and muscleblade above me :)

    TBH, if people feel they have to somehow justify their right to exersise their freedom to kill children if they so choose then like i said earlier please seek professional help. And anyway, when have games ever been about giving people ultimate freedom to do whatever they please?
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/08 @ 12:30

  • Artemus #32 4 years ago

    You could kill kids in Deus Ex if I remember correctly.

  • Vasenor #33 4 years ago

    I'd say it's a sound decision. Being able to kill children would leave a wide open goal for the moral outrage brigade, same with nudity considering how much of a hang-up they have about it in the US.

    It is annoying how all the moral crusaders care about is what you can do and not how it is actually implemented in game. In real life I could go on a killing spree or streak through a shopping mall etc but for (very very many) good reasons I don't. As long as you can always feel and see the repercussions of your actions I think it is better if you are allowed to make that choice.

    In fact that's why I hated the way the little sister decision was watered down so much. It is so sanitised that it never really drives it home to you how much of a monster you are. It doesn't strongly re-enforce your natural revulsion for the act (well I certainly hope people feel that it is a monstrous act...).

  • 7creature #34 4 years ago

    So according to you, basically the reason why killing of children is bad is because they are "innocent"?

  • crazyhorse174 #35 4 years ago

    Why is this such a big deal? Its not going to change the way the game plays in any way. Anyone trying to justify this by saying that it takes the realism away from the game should stop and think about the fact that it isnt real life in the first place. Its a game.

    I think the big question people should be asking though is - why are there never any toilets in any of the buildings in games these days!?!

  • NegativeZero #36 4 years ago

    No child murder? Australia does not approve. Consider your game banned, Bethesda.






    I am only partially joking too. I need to move to a better country.

  • Snidesworth #37 4 years ago

    I disagree with every adult being theoretically able to defend themselves. If you, a skilled wasteland warrior, stride into a village of farmers clad in power armour and carrying a gattling laser and begin mowing them down then there's dick all they can do about it. They've got the same choices as a child does: run, cower, cry, beg, hide, etc.

    Also, I wonder if "child killing" in games would be less of a problem if said children were 14 year old killers with knives and guns themselves.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/08 @ 13:19

  • schachmatt #38 4 years ago

    If he wouldn't have brought it up, it probably wouldn't have been an issue even if killing was possible.
    It just bothers me that people are so prude nudity in games became such a big issue.

    Was it possible in Fallout 1/2 to kill anyone? I think so. And there were children featured as far as I remember, right?

  • Snidesworth #39 4 years ago

    schachmatt: Kids were in Fallout 2, but they got removed for the European release. Which lead to a confusing conversation in The Den and an uncompletable quest where you're trying to find a missing child.

  • 7creature #40 4 years ago

    crazyhorse174: I completely agree. Remove children from the game, completely. Either that, or make it possible to kill them.

    Oops, wait, this is Oblivion we are talking about... So I am looking forward to unkillable children companions - hopefully you can use them as 'party members'.

    Yes, children in Den were prone to pick your pocket for goodies. Too bad for them, when you 'accidentaly' left plastic explosive with timer set to 5 minutes...

    Regarding children with knives and guns - bah, you just have tell them that shooting is entertainment only adults, of course. They will melt with emotion, start sobbing and crawl to hug your legs, really :-)
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/08 @ 13:53

  • SpikeRocks #41 4 years ago

    Booo!

  • Whizzo #42 4 years ago

    I think the child killer status that the original games had was an excellent way of getting you not to kill children, you really couldn't get anywhere with that on you so you didn't do it.

    Well not without saving first before you laid waste to Shady Sands while wearing power armour and wielding a turbo plasma rifle when you just felt like seeing how long it would take to kill an entire town.

    Er, not that I ever did that.

  • kangarootoo #43 4 years ago

    I'm kind of surprised anyone would get pissed off about this.

    The absence of the things being discussed will have absolutely zero effect on the quality of the gameplay experience, yet some of us get sooo up tight when anyone is seen to restrict our lovely hobby in any way whatsoever that the rest of the planet must think us lunatics.

    That said, I'm actually quite pleased to see a relatively low number of "GIVE US OUR FREEDOM, LEAVE OUR GAMES ALONE, YOU BASTARDS" type posts on here.

  • kangarootoo #44 4 years ago

    "Remove children from the game, completely. Either that, or make it possible to kill them."

    Why make such a hard and fast rule. Does the suspension of disbelief required really impact the experience so heavily?

    The presence of the kids probably do more to build a realistic picture of a busling town than their invulnerability does to damage that same realism. I mean, if you simply avoiding trying to attack them, you don't even need to suspend disbelief at the results, so why not simply leave them in? I think the right decision was made personally, given the options available.

    And also, as an aside, the following should never be underestimated...

    "some of them are very basic, like we wouldn't be able to sell the game anywhere to anyone if the children could be killed."

    If they can't sell the game, it won't get made, which is bad for everyone.

  • karstux #45 4 years ago

    "I think the problem is that I no longer have the choice to not kill the children. Not that people can't wait to go around slaughtering kids. It's better to be able to chose to not do something, rather than being forced not to."

    This is very well said. In a world which is about choice, being "good" loses its meaning if you're physically unable to do "evil". Anyway, you know there will be mods that make the kids killable. And everyone else nekkid.

  • ZuluHero #46 4 years ago

    "Yes, because bending over backwards every time someone complains is exactly how we get past the problem.

    /b"

    I’m glad you agree. I for one would rather see a game released in its entirety than see it censored beyond the point of recognition (case in point, the aforementioned Den in FO2), or worst case, not released at all.

  • Snidesworth #47 4 years ago

    I may be remembering this incorrectly, but thinking back I could swear the kids were just invisible. Hence you still getting all your shit pickpocketed in The Den and not being able to do anything about it.

  • HelloWorld #48 4 years ago

    What makes child killing more wrong than adult killing? Basically you shouldn't kill people at all. In real life that is. In computer games it doesn't really matter.

    I tend to ignore the traffic lights in GTA, but not in real life.

    And what on earth is wrong with nudity? I never really understood that one.

  • ZuluHero #49 4 years ago

    @helloworld

    read up :)

    The arguement seems to be that an adult would be able to defend themselves in some capacity whereas a child would just be an easy '10 points', which IMO is a perfectly valid reason for them being ommited.

    And regarding nudity, there's nothing wrong with it par se, but try walking down your nearest high street naked and tell me how far you get. Then try and use that same arguement on the police that stop you ;)

  • Dynamize #50 4 years ago

    Todd Howardlol.

  • johnnybrn #51 4 years ago

    Dont you kill little girls in Bioshock, how come that is ok?

  • Artemus #52 4 years ago

    Because they have glowing eyes!

  • HelloWorld #53 4 years ago

    @ZuluHero

    So it's a gameplay decision rather than to do with being afraid of what the Daily Mail will say? I doubt very much the children in the game are necessarily less well defended than the adults. Both can carry guns. If it's all about the points, make the kids -10 points instead of +10. I don't see how this is going to work. If you chuck a grenade into a crowd, all the adults get blown apart and everyone less that 18 or that hasn't started/finished puberty or met whatever other criteria to pass the "not a kid anymore" test remains standing?

    Also, i know if i run down the road naked people will look at me funny and call the cops. Similar things will happen if i drive my car down the road at a hundred miles an hour. I speed in videogames a lot. Does that make me a bad person?

    I heard that it's illegal to show your bum in public unless you are drunk! So the police would stop you, then give you a breath test! This country...

  • anomagnus #54 4 years ago

    @snidesworth

    I said theoretically every adult is capable of defending themselves, while you're cleaving the village with your sword, there exists every possibility of some dumb ass villager stepping up behind you and stabbing you through the neck with a pitchfork.

    You need to remember, that if 50 adult villagers swamp said knight, hes meat. Sure, he'll kill the first five or so, but the rest, its over. He only needs one or two people to hold down each limb, and its curtains.

    No amount of 6 years olds are going to do that.

    I literally can't believe some people are defending the right to kill children in a game. Seriously, get some air.

    For fucks sake, its not just games either. Can you imagine if Rambo was pounding through a village in rambo five killing kids? Career over. Robocop vs gangs - fine. Robocop vs 6 year olds - aha -BAN.

    As for nudity, i would say the reason it was ommitted is because in every game it has appeared in, it was complete, and UTTER shite, utterly embarrassing.

    If you need to get your tittie kicks from a game, again, get some air.

  • Silvervein #55 4 years ago

    As a fan of both fallout 1 and 2, I'd like to clarify why absence of killable children in fallout 3 is jarring.

    Fallout 1 and 2 were at their base a simulation of pen and paper game, and as such tried to give player as much freedom as humanely possible. Which included doing things that are considered criminal, like shooting people, adults or children. Or having sex with prostitutes. Because you could do it, it doesn't mean that everyone, or even most people did. But you knew you *could*, which simply translates into into game experience without artificial glass walls set there by politicians or developers. And that freedom is what many people found so appealing about fallout 1 and 2. Among other things.
    At the same time, both fallout 1 and 2 used small sprites to show game characters and removed isometric camera to show the world. It never did *show* anyone any human or creature being eviscerated with all anatomical details, and even sex scenes in both fallouts were a blank screen, followed by two people in bed after the...fun.
    Bottomline: fallout 1 and 2 used as much of player imagination as graphics to convey the experience.

    Now, fallout 3...
    If you check the fallout 3 forums, you can find a lot of arguments why fallout 3 can't be turn based game with isometric camera (even though blizzard uses that camera for both diablo 3 and starcraft 2). Their argument is that first person view is more immersive. All fine and well. However, using realistic first person view means that things suggested in fallout 1 and 2 can't be shown. And so, suddenly, we got glass walls going up everywere. Starting from children that can take a nuke to face and still prance around, prostitutes with hearts of gold that won't sleep with player character because he's 'too young' to game world being limited to one city and some suburbs. All due to first person view.
    And the problem with that is, in first person view, which is supposed to be more immersive, things are, strangely, much less immersive, due to artificially introduced dev limitation. Game feels like guided tour through politically correct fallout themed (or fantasy themed, in case of oblivion) disneyland. The choices you, as a player, can make, are getting quite limited, and revolve mostly around what gun should you use to kill next baddie. If people just want disgustingly gory shooter with name of cult series on it, but having nothing to do with it...well, fallout 3 might be your thing. But if you expected next fallout, you can easily pass it and rent it or get later from bargain bin.

    Although you might want to look for Afterfall. Seems it might be a real spiritual successor to fallout 1 and 2.

  • Skurmedel #56 4 years ago

    I say, fine with no child killing, but bring out the nudity damnit. HBO series "Big Love" is gonna be more gritty than this.

  • makeamazing #57 4 years ago

    I agree there is no place for child murder in games... sorry but its bad enough trying to defend perfectly acceptable forms of violent based games such as GTA to different quarters, going over that line as people have said would just give these people more fuel to the fire. Actually Im all for games having a bigger world and the ability to do more things in it, but seriously thats just going to far.

    On the nudity front, well that shouldnt be a problem to include, but then perhaps its more about the scope of the story... people walking about nude doesnt sound what would happen in a post nuclear world..

  • creepylizard #58 4 years ago

    nudity is evil....and so are little kids....

  • Silvervein #59 4 years ago

    @makeamazing

    You seem to be the last person who said that child killing has no place in games, so I'll reply to you, although it also goes for others who mentioned the issue.
    While killing children is, without doubt, an evil act, one has to think what does ability to do so change, if it's present in game. If you are the kind of person who likes shooting children, does the fact that you are prevented from doing so at the privacy of your room change that? No, it doesn't. When people say that child killing has no place in games, they are correct, however...it stands the issue on its head. True problem, as I see it, is not whether you can kill a child in game, but whether you will, or would if you could. Take me. I played fallout 1 and 2 and didn't even think about shooting kids. Not even one time. Though I knew that I could.

    The real problem is not with games for allowing to commit evil acts, but with people who want to commit them. So the outcry about children killing in game should not be against placing such possibility in a game, but against people who are twisted enough to live their dark dreams on computer screen.

    And even that might be beneficial. I'd rather have troubled people slaughter pixels on their screen than real people outside.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/08 @ 21:30

  • creepylizard #60 4 years ago

    I think everybody is taking the whole thing far too seriously. whether I kill a kid or not in a game is completely irrelevant to what kind of person I am in real. the fact that in grand theft, or any other game of its type, you can kill whoever you want, and often do, is also meaningless. its no less evil to kill some pedestrian rather than a kid and the people that have argued otherwise are just being pedantic and debating semantics.
    The point about 50 villagers being able to overpower the knight that just butchered the blacksmith, and therefore rendering the murder okay, is just putting some sort of real world mentality into the game whilst ignoring other points. if you want to go that far why not just say " actually, i refuse to play Halo because, as a non violent anti war protester I feel that earth has not fully explored all of the diplomatic solutions available to end this war before sending the master chief to the covenant homeworld to butcher our alien brothers"?
    in games you can do what you want. thats one of the many reasons we play them.
    I have no idea what my point is but anyway...

  • autogunner #61 4 years ago

    there is really no need for child killing in fallout 3, would add that much, and killing fully grown adults is fun enough. as for the arguements about adults being able to defend themselves or deserving it, not too sure on that.

    but come on, who didnt enjoy the dark brotherhood missions in oblivion, like the one where you had to kill every single member of a family that was spread out all over the game world. that was great. Also now i think about it there are a few odd villages where i slaughtered all the inhabitants because one of them looked at me funny or said something i didnt like...

  • m0thr4 #62 3 years ago

    Well, you can kill harmless, defenceless animals in Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway. You can kill defenceless adults in plenty of other games. Seems to me like a clear case of double standards.

    I reckon the real reason people find this too unpalatable is that they have kids themselves, and this is just too near the knuckle for them. Perhaps those same people might re-evaluate shooting wave after wave of faceless soldiers who are merely carrying out mandatory orders from their superiors... or maybe we should all calm the fuck down and stop being such hypocrites.

    I say: either anyone is fair game for a headshot in a videogame, or no one is.

  • m0thr4 #63 3 years ago

    @muscleblade

    > "To everyone saying how terrible it is to kill virtual children in games: How much less sick is killing adults? "
    >
    > Its a huge difference. Children are a lot more innocent and cant defend themselves.

    I'm guessing you don't yet have kids of your own then... wow are you in for a nasty shock.