After listening to the podcast, I understand the decision more now (although he did dodge the second to last question pretty deftly)
Basically, Irrational doesn't want their game to be known as "that game where you can shoot little girls in the face". That's not the game they're trying to make. The choice is still there, no matter how its done, and I would be very surprised if they didn't want there to be any negative consequences to harvesting every little girl you see.
The option to kill them is still there. It's just not graphic, but done in a presumably tasteful manner.
See, that seems insane to me. So, you kill kids, but in a very mechanical and detached manner that's ritualistic? That seems creepier. I mean, I wouldn't have made a game with child-killing in it because of monetary concerns anyways... but this deftly dodging it seems to be a bit silly.
Actually, what annoys me is the whole "save" option. So now killing off big daddies is just what you have to do to save the little girls? I like them! They seem big and melancholy. I don't want them to be a speedbump for my good character too.
Mimic had 2 children getting killed, though it was kind of dark.
Didn't Pitch Black have a similar scenario?
...we're going to turn this into a list of child deaths, aren't we.
I'll withhold judgement until I see how it's implemented. Needless to say, though, I've always disapproved of indestructible allies/neutrals (cough cough Half-Life 2).
There are many horror films where the kid gets it.
It's rather dodging the point of bringing the idea up to select scenes from 18A rated features. The problem with Pirates 3 is really in that ITS A GOD DAMN FAMILY MOVIE.
See, that seems insane to me. So, you kill kids, but in a very mechanical and detached manner that's ritualistic? That seems creepier. I mean, I wouldn't have made a game with child-killing in it because of monetary concerns anyways... but this deftly dodging it seems to be a bit silly..
I don't know about that. Imagine if you could shoot them, that'd open up a whole new ballpark of creepyness. Like shooting them in the leg so they crawl around leaving a bloodtrail screaming for help, etc. (I'm sure someone else can come up with something sicker than that)
Now, imagine that scene in contrast to the footage they've already shown. It seems very out of place to me. Bioshock is a dark game, but not that dark. It's not Berserk, children are not torn in half or impaled on spikes. I think this is a perfectly rational decision without necessarily being an "OMG CENSORSHIP" deal.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
This reminds me of the best game allies ever. The BOBs from Marathon.
They'd murder you with fusion pistols if your shots "went wide" too often.
FROG BLAST THE VENT CORE
Back to the idea of modeling morality in a game, without holodeck-esque technology I think the best we can ever hope for are
a) decisions trees, as BioShock has just elected for
b) really half-assed AI based models that do nothing but show you how weak the system is (say, Oblivion? There has to be a better example)
I'm glad they've set this decision, controlled expectations, and moved on to making the game rock out.
You don't often see children being killed in cinema either. I can't offhand think of a time a child was killed onscreen in any kind of graphic way.
Pirates of the Carribean : At World's End pushes this envelope and the results are pretty much entirely distasteful.
Pfft, If you're talking about a kid at the start, I doubt there was a single person in the audiance that didn't want that trap door to open.
I didn't want it to open. I was surprised as hell that it did.
It was so painfully contrived to show how evil the bad people were (not to mention possibly the worst plot device I've ever heard of in existance - singing to the coins? WTF?). Almost as bad as the 300 style Kiera Knightly speeches.
You don't often see children being killed in cinema either. I can't offhand think of a time a child was killed onscreen in any kind of graphic way.
In a way, it sucks, because it removes gameplay options and reduces immersion and all that. On the other hand, I honestly didn't miss children in Oblivion, and I think that in the end, it's a fairly redundant feature to have in a game. I mean, when you think of Deus Ex, no one says "wasn't it awesome that you could kill louis pan?"
It's also not censorship, it's market forces.
I only killed Louis Pan once, and I reloaded right after. I just wanted to see what, if anything, would happen.
Developpers have always been wary of allowing players to hurt children in their games. But when we say there's nothing wrong with videogame violence (as long as we can make a distinction between games and reality, of course), why is it worst to shoot a bullet in a virtual child's face than it is to choke a virtual adult to death with a plastic bag?
Both actions are made in a virtual world and have the same outcome in reality: If I kill innocent bystanders in GTA and don't aquire the taste to kill them in the real world, I won't aquire the taste to kill children if I get to kill em in a game.
Excellent observation for the debate on videogame violence! Most of us do, afterall, have limits on the types of violent acts we will perform in-game. Don't let Jack Thompson find out! ;-)
well, fair enough, i'm listening now and while i didn't doubt that they'd strayed away from the emphasis on moral choices, it sounds completely like that element is still at the core. I was afraid that the system might water it down a little, make it more of a gameplay choice than a moral choice, but i feel fairly confident that it'll work out fine.
edit: also, i like to hear developers talking about their responsibilities, and acknowledging the boundaries they won't cross. Too many times the media likes to portray them as sensationalist jerks, so it's good to hear someone say where they will, and won't, go.
edit 2: from the way he talks about it, it almost sounds more like you have to take them to some kind of facility, to either harvest, or return them to a more normal, human state. That would be pretty disturbing, taking a small child off to be harvested.
Athough I personally would have not gone around killing the Little Sisters, I'm still kinda disappointed this was removed.
It almost feels like they're giving into controversy.
Athough I personally would have not gone around killing the Little Sisters, I'm still kinda disappointed this was removed.
It almost feels like they're giving into controversy.
You can still kill them. You just can't beat them to death with a wrench.
I don't like this one bit...it definitely sounds like an immerision-destroying thing to have these girls be invincible aside from when you make that choice. I mean, take a look at the "hunting the big daddy" video, where there's a huge firefight, bullets and grenades and fireballs flying everywhere...and now this little girl caught in the midst of it will always come out unscathed so I can make the binary "save" or "harvest" decision? That just feels off to me.
I do believe I'll be harvesting every last one of those kids though, since it's a game, and it's not real, and they've made it feel less real via this decision, I see no reason not to seek the solution that rewards me with more ADAM to use.
Athough I personally would have not gone around killing the Little Sisters, I'm still kinda disappointed this was removed.
It almost feels like they're giving into controversy.
yeah, what Rook said. I wouldn't say they've tried to avoid being controversial, but they're accepting responsibility for the game. He explains that they've thought long and hard about how to present this so as to get the most effect, without being labelled as 'that game where you shoot kids'. Which is how the media would, and still will, jump on it. But at least now they can say "no, we've gone a long way to make this a moral choice for the player", and hopefully it'll be defensible in the same way a film or novel would be.
I don't like this one bit...it definitely sounds like an immerision-destroying thing to have these girls be invincible aside from when you make that choice. I mean, take a look at the "hunting the big daddy" video, where there's a huge firefight, bullets and grenades and fireballs flying everywhere...and now this little girl caught in the midst of it will always come out unscathed so I can make the binary "save" or "harvest" decision? That just feels off to me.
I do believe I'll be harvesting every last one of those kids though, since it's a game, and it's not real, and they've made it feel less real via this decision, I see no reason not to seek the solution that rewards me with more ADAM to use.
You really ought to listen to the podcast before saying things like that. The choice you make is more than "kill little sister, get Adam" "don't kill little sister, don't get Adam". Your actions will have further consequences in the game world. By not killing them, you're showing to other NPCs there that you can be trusted not to go around fucking up Rapture for your own needs, and maybe those other NPCs might help you, just as you helped the little sisters.
The first scenario is the most likely one, I'm playing the good guy. And part of being the good guy is controlling my gun fire and protecting the little sisters during fights. Not just once the fight is over. I can't just throw grenades into a room with one in there, I have to plan my attack, like hostage rescue situations. But if they are invulnerable, this goes out the window, being the good guy becomes easy (or easier).
The second scenario is one of those whatif scenarios, where you play the intolerant man of faith. Everything in this place of sin is condemned. From the little sisters to it's creator, you are god's hand come to clean the filth. And by that, I mean you'll kill everything and it will be glorious. Ok so maybe I would play that way once through.
Meh.
Edit: I'm obviously still getting the game, I just can't see this as a smart move on their part.
You don't often see children being killed in cinema either. I can't offhand think of a time a child was killed onscreen in any kind of graphic way.
Pirates of the Carribean : At World's End pushes this envelope and the results are pretty much entirely distasteful.
Pfft, If you're talking about a kid at the start, I doubt there was a single person in the audiance that didn't want that trap door to open.
I didn't want it to open. I was surprised as hell that it did.
It was so painfully contrived to show how evil the bad people were (not to mention possibly the worst plot device I've ever heard of in existance - singing to the coins? WTF?). Almost as bad as the 300 style Kiera Knightly speeches.
Tell me the shot of the coin falling wasn't sweet.
Well, I'm still getting it for the other 99% of content.
Just saying.
not really. The moral aspect (and all its consequences) has actually been billed as a very large proportion of the game. People (myself, at one stage) feared that by changing it in this way, it would dilute that effect. After hearing Levine talk about the situation, it sounds like it'll work out just fine. Amusingly, the people that aren't buying this because you now can't shoot girls in the head or set them on fire, are probably the kind of people that Irrational wanted to avoid anyway.
So, whats the big deal about popping a little girl in the first place?
some want to, some don't, and some would like the option as part of collateral damage. Irrational decided "maybe this'll upset too many people, and get us the wrong reputation", so changed it into a more binary choice, where you can either help them and turn them back into normal human girls, or harvest them for Adam, which is a process they won't survive.
I'm still picturing this as dragging them off to some kind of facility for the procedure, rather than right there in the street, so to speak.
I'm thinking Quake 4.
some would like the option as part of collateral damage.
This is what I'm thinking of. It does help to remove some moral ambiguity from the game.
I mean, if you're trying to kill the Little Sister, maybe it really doesn't matter if you "Harvest" or shoot her, so they went with what was more tasteful. But what if you've made the decision not to kill any of them, but one accidentally dies because you weren't a good shot or used something explosive on some actual bad guys? And even though it was an accident, do you then harvest the Adam from the dead body? Is that really that much different from killing the Little Sister intentionally?
But really, I don't care that much about it. I'll be getting the game either way and I'm not terribly disappointed one way or the other. That's just what popped into my head when I read the OP.
some would like the option as part of collateral damage.
This is what I'm thinking of. It does help to remove some moral ambiguity from the game.
I mean, if you're trying to kill the Little Sister, maybe it really doesn't matter if you "Harvest" or shoot her, so they went with what was more tasteful. But what if you've made the decision not to kill any of them, but one accidentally dies because you weren't a good shot or used something explosive on some actual bad guys? And even though it was an accident, do you then harvest the Adam from the dead body? Is that really that much different from killing the Little Sister intentionally?
But really, I don't care that much about it. I'll be getting the game either way and I'm not terribly disappointed one way or the other. That's just what popped into my head when I read the OP.
I had to admit when I first heard of it, the idea of your weapons being unable to harm the Lil' Sisters sounded a bit stupid. But if you look at it as Ken clarifying as easily as possible the absolute limits of what you can do, then hopefully people will be more relaxed about this. I pretty much trust Irrational not to break the immersion by having invincible little girls walking around the middle of intense firefights, oblivious to the destruction around them. They're better than that, and their pedigree more than clearly shows this. Hopefully when firefights start, they'll be running to their vents, or hiding behind the big daddies, who'll be doing their best to cover the girls, taking shots for them when needed etc.
Quite simply, if the game is done right, then that shouldn't be a scenario you need to worry about, because the AI will cover it.
Athough I personally would have not gone around killing the Little Sisters, I'm still kinda disappointed this was removed.
It almost feels like they're giving into controversy.
You can still kill them. You just can't beat them to death with a wrench.
Yes, but they're breaking the immersion, and forcing the whole thing down a black/white path.
If you could kill them by accident, it;d be horribly memorable.
Athough I personally would have not gone around killing the Little Sisters, I'm still kinda disappointed this was removed.
It almost feels like they're giving into controversy.
You can still kill them. You just can't beat them to death with a wrench.
Yes, but they're breaking the immersion, and forcing the whole thing down a black/white path.
If you could kill them by accident, it;d be horribly memorable.
for some. For others (seemingly some posters in this thread), it'd be a goal. That's the kind of attitude that Irrational want to discourage, it would seem.
This change undermines the whole moral decision thing of the game. I know it's something minor, but I'm not gonna let you "oh, you WANT to kill children" people try to discredit my opinion. The game descriptions and previews so far made it feel like you were constantly walking a moral tightrope of what you wanted to do, how far you wanted to go, and whether or not it was worth risking your very humanity to survive. By just turning it into a "yes/no" option I fear the game will lose some of the realism to it; it'll just be menu choices instead of an immersive experience.
I think a more salient issue is this: If the Little Sisters are more or less invulnerable to weapons fire, what the fuck do they need the Big Daddies as protection for?
This change undermines the whole moral decision thing of the game. I know it's something minor, but I'm not gonna let you "oh, you WANT to kill children" people try to discredit my opinion. The game descriptions and previews so far made it feel like you were constantly walking a moral tightrope of what you wanted to do, how far you wanted to go, and whether or not it was worth risking your very humanity to survive. By just turning it into a "yes/no" option I fear the game will lose some of the realism to it; it'll just be menu choices instead of an immersive experience.
Sorry, I really don't understand why you think the choice has changed. Aiming your gun and pulling a trigger is still a Yes/No option. You either do it, or don't.
I think a more salient issue is this: If the Little Sisters are more or less invulnerable to weapons fire, what the fuck do they need the Big Daddies as protection for?
For the same reason the AI will try to kill the player, despite him just reloading the game if he dies. Gameplay balance choices != universal truth of the setting you play in.
This change undermines the whole moral decision thing of the game. I know it's something minor, but I'm not gonna let you "oh, you WANT to kill children" people try to discredit my opinion. The game descriptions and previews so far made it feel like you were constantly walking a moral tightrope of what you wanted to do, how far you wanted to go, and whether or not it was worth risking your very humanity to survive. By just turning it into a "yes/no" option I fear the game will lose some of the realism to it; it'll just be menu choices instead of an immersive experience.
I totally agree, you take out something they are pushing as a major selling point and you kinda change the scape of the game.
but on a side point I don think there is any moral decision. Games at least for me aren't at the point where killing a little girl type character is going to trigger a reaction with me. Holding a controller and looking at a television always brings me right out of it. Some games stories will trigger a reaction (MGS3's ending comes to mind) but a gameplay mechanic that was made to trigger a reaction? I don't think so it's not on the same level in the end.
This change undermines the whole moral decision thing of the game. I know it's something minor, but I'm not gonna let you "oh, you WANT to kill children" people try to discredit my opinion. The game descriptions and previews so far made it feel like you were constantly walking a moral tightrope of what you wanted to do, how far you wanted to go, and whether or not it was worth risking your very humanity to survive. By just turning it into a "yes/no" option I fear the game will lose some of the realism to it; it'll just be menu choices instead of an immersive experience.
I totally agree, you take out something they are pushing as a major selling point and you kinda change the scape of the game.
but on a side point I don think there is any moral decision. Games at least for me aren't at the point where killing a little girl type character is going to trigger a reaction with me. Holding a controller and looking at a television always brings me right out of it. Some games stories will trigger a reaction (MGS3's ending comes to mind) but a gameplay mechanic that was made to trigger a reaction? I don't think so it's not on the same level in the end.
Posts
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
See, that seems insane to me. So, you kill kids, but in a very mechanical and detached manner that's ritualistic? That seems creepier. I mean, I wouldn't have made a game with child-killing in it because of monetary concerns anyways... but this deftly dodging it seems to be a bit silly.
Actually, what annoys me is the whole "save" option. So now killing off big daddies is just what you have to do to save the little girls? I like them! They seem big and melancholy. I don't want them to be a speedbump for my good character too.
Congratulations on attending the film with an audience full of sick bastards.
猿も木から落ちる
Didn't Pitch Black have a similar scenario?
...we're going to turn this into a list of child deaths, aren't we.
I'll withhold judgement until I see how it's implemented. Needless to say, though, I've always disapproved of indestructible allies/neutrals (cough cough Half-Life 2).
They'd murder you with fusion pistols if your shots "went wide" too often.
It's rather dodging the point of bringing the idea up to select scenes from 18A rated features. The problem with Pirates 3 is really in that ITS A GOD DAMN FAMILY MOVIE.
猿も木から落ちる
I don't know about that. Imagine if you could shoot them, that'd open up a whole new ballpark of creepyness. Like shooting them in the leg so they crawl around leaving a bloodtrail screaming for help, etc. (I'm sure someone else can come up with something sicker than that)
Now, imagine that scene in contrast to the footage they've already shown. It seems very out of place to me. Bioshock is a dark game, but not that dark. It's not Berserk, children are not torn in half or impaled on spikes. I think this is a perfectly rational decision without necessarily being an "OMG CENSORSHIP" deal.
FROG BLAST THE VENT CORE
Back to the idea of modeling morality in a game, without holodeck-esque technology I think the best we can ever hope for are
a) decisions trees, as BioShock has just elected for
b) really half-assed AI based models that do nothing but show you how weak the system is (say, Oblivion? There has to be a better example)
I'm glad they've set this decision, controlled expectations, and moved on to making the game rock out.
猿も木から落ちる
Oh, and the third Star Wars prequel then. Kid Vader butchers a whole lot of "younglings". Just 'cos.
I only killed Louis Pan once, and I reloaded right after. I just wanted to see what, if anything, would happen.
He's an annoying little fuck, though.
edit: also, i like to hear developers talking about their responsibilities, and acknowledging the boundaries they won't cross. Too many times the media likes to portray them as sensationalist jerks, so it's good to hear someone say where they will, and won't, go.
edit 2: from the way he talks about it, it almost sounds more like you have to take them to some kind of facility, to either harvest, or return them to a more normal, human state. That would be pretty disturbing, taking a small child off to be harvested.
i'll be saving everyone.
It almost feels like they're giving into controversy.
You can still kill them. You just can't beat them to death with a wrench.
I do believe I'll be harvesting every last one of those kids though, since it's a game, and it's not real, and they've made it feel less real via this decision, I see no reason not to seek the solution that rewards me with more ADAM to use.
yeah, what Rook said. I wouldn't say they've tried to avoid being controversial, but they're accepting responsibility for the game. He explains that they've thought long and hard about how to present this so as to get the most effect, without being labelled as 'that game where you shoot kids'. Which is how the media would, and still will, jump on it. But at least now they can say "no, we've gone a long way to make this a moral choice for the player", and hopefully it'll be defensible in the same way a film or novel would be.
You really ought to listen to the podcast before saying things like that. The choice you make is more than "kill little sister, get Adam" "don't kill little sister, don't get Adam". Your actions will have further consequences in the game world. By not killing them, you're showing to other NPCs there that you can be trusted not to go around fucking up Rapture for your own needs, and maybe those other NPCs might help you, just as you helped the little sisters.
The first scenario is the most likely one, I'm playing the good guy. And part of being the good guy is controlling my gun fire and protecting the little sisters during fights. Not just once the fight is over. I can't just throw grenades into a room with one in there, I have to plan my attack, like hostage rescue situations. But if they are invulnerable, this goes out the window, being the good guy becomes easy (or easier).
The second scenario is one of those whatif scenarios, where you play the intolerant man of faith. Everything in this place of sin is condemned. From the little sisters to it's creator, you are god's hand come to clean the filth. And by that, I mean you'll kill everything and it will be glorious. Ok so maybe I would play that way once through.
Meh.
Edit: I'm obviously still getting the game, I just can't see this as a smart move on their part.
Well, I'm still getting it for the other 99% of content.
Just saying.
not really. The moral aspect (and all its consequences) has actually been billed as a very large proportion of the game. People (myself, at one stage) feared that by changing it in this way, it would dilute that effect. After hearing Levine talk about the situation, it sounds like it'll work out just fine. Amusingly, the people that aren't buying this because you now can't shoot girls in the head or set them on fire, are probably the kind of people that Irrational wanted to avoid anyway.
some want to, some don't, and some would like the option as part of collateral damage. Irrational decided "maybe this'll upset too many people, and get us the wrong reputation", so changed it into a more binary choice, where you can either help them and turn them back into normal human girls, or harvest them for Adam, which is a process they won't survive.
I'm still picturing this as dragging them off to some kind of facility for the procedure, rather than right there in the street, so to speak.
I'm thinking Quake 4.
I mean, if you're trying to kill the Little Sister, maybe it really doesn't matter if you "Harvest" or shoot her, so they went with what was more tasteful. But what if you've made the decision not to kill any of them, but one accidentally dies because you weren't a good shot or used something explosive on some actual bad guys? And even though it was an accident, do you then harvest the Adam from the dead body? Is that really that much different from killing the Little Sister intentionally?
But really, I don't care that much about it. I'll be getting the game either way and I'm not terribly disappointed one way or the other. That's just what popped into my head when I read the OP.
I had to admit when I first heard of it, the idea of your weapons being unable to harm the Lil' Sisters sounded a bit stupid. But if you look at it as Ken clarifying as easily as possible the absolute limits of what you can do, then hopefully people will be more relaxed about this. I pretty much trust Irrational not to break the immersion by having invincible little girls walking around the middle of intense firefights, oblivious to the destruction around them. They're better than that, and their pedigree more than clearly shows this. Hopefully when firefights start, they'll be running to their vents, or hiding behind the big daddies, who'll be doing their best to cover the girls, taking shots for them when needed etc.
Quite simply, if the game is done right, then that shouldn't be a scenario you need to worry about, because the AI will cover it.
Also, I'm certain that Postal movie shows a bunch of kids getting shot to death.
Yes, but they're breaking the immersion, and forcing the whole thing down a black/white path.
If you could kill them by accident, it;d be horribly memorable.
for some. For others (seemingly some posters in this thread), it'd be a goal. That's the kind of attitude that Irrational want to discourage, it would seem.
Sorry, I really don't understand why you think the choice has changed. Aiming your gun and pulling a trigger is still a Yes/No option. You either do it, or don't.
I totally agree, you take out something they are pushing as a major selling point and you kinda change the scape of the game.
but on a side point I don think there is any moral decision. Games at least for me aren't at the point where killing a little girl type character is going to trigger a reaction with me. Holding a controller and looking at a television always brings me right out of it. Some games stories will trigger a reaction (MGS3's ending comes to mind) but a gameplay mechanic that was made to trigger a reaction? I don't think so it's not on the same level in the end.
Are you confusing morals for emotions perhaps?
He was a teenager.
Tube, there's funny and then there's offensive.
It's making love.