I wouldnt consider killing little girls fun anyway, which is the sole aim of a game.
Alright, this isn't even the point of the thread (as apotheos and many of us have pointed out), but I have to say something. That's not the point of playing games for me. I've played games that have, at times, kicked me in the balls emotionally and mentally. I wouldn't call it fun at the time. I would, however, be very grateful for having played them.
A game should be enjoyable. It should not be the sole aim of the game. That's boring.
Im not sure I would be entirely comfortable killing little girls anyway.
The CG trailer really made me sad when hes standing over her with the wrench. It wasnt pleasing.
I wouldnt consider killing little girls fun anyway, which is the sole aim of a game. The moral choice impact is important but I can imagine some people making horrible youtube montages of all the various ways to kill these kids and that would be wrong.
Please enlighten me. How would that be "wrong" in any definition of the word?
You might feel it's inappropriate, or kinda fucked up...but wrong? No.
Maybe you just dont have the same morals as everyone else.
Guys, I'm going to complain about Pirates of The Caribbean: At World's End and realism. My first complaint is Davy Jones. I mean, he's part squid. That's not realistic. People aren't part squid. And because it isn't realistic, it isn't fun. Also, he has a locker named after. First of all, who names a locker after a person? That doesn't happen. Secondly, it's not even a locker. That's not realistic.
And the movie is condensed into 2 and 1/2 hours. That's not realistic. None of these events could take place within 2 and 1/2 hours. The film should be months long, because that would be realistic. Everybody knows realism is fun, and if it isn't realistic it's boring and stupid.
While we're at it, what about Pacman? He's not a man. He's a yellow ball with a pie-slice removed. How does he eat those little dots? A fully functional digestive system couldn't fit in there. And those ghosts. Ghosts aren't real. And even if they were, they wouldn't come in a variety of bright colors. Stupid Pacman. Stupid things that aren't realistic.
Guys, I'm going to complain about Pirates of The Caribbean: At World's End and realism. My first complaint is Davy Jones. I mean, he's part squid. That's not realistic. People aren't part squid. And because it isn't realistic, it isn't fun. Also, he has a locker named after. First of all, who names a locker after a person? That doesn't happen. Secondly, it's not even a locker. That's not realistic.
And the movie is condensed into 2 and 1/2 hours. That's not realistic. None of these events could take place within 2 and 1/2 hours. The film should be months long, because that would be realistic. Everybody knows realism is fun, and if it isn't realistic it's boring and stupid.
While we're at it, what about Pacman? He's not a man. He's a yellow ball with a pie-slice removed. How does he eat those little dots? A fully functional digestive system couldn't fit in there. And those ghosts. Ghosts aren't real. And even if they were, they wouldn't come in a variety of bright colors. Stupid Pacman. Stupid things that aren't realistic.
Oh oh, someone doesn't know the difference between realism and consistency within a game/movie setting.
Or hey, maybe I know the difference between consistency and fun. Maybe you can't kill the little children with traditional weaponry because it isn't fun. Gameplay > Story. I don't care what reasons they give me for things that don't make sense, as long as it makes the game more fun.
I think that having to be careful in order to save the girl's lives is better for gameplay. Being a chaotic douche means you have to harvest "adam" from their corpse while you cry like a bitch.
Saving them successfully means you raise your arms as champion of little girl freedom.
Or hey, maybe I know the difference between consistency and fun. Maybe you can't kill the little children with traditional weaponry because it isn't fun. Gameplay > Story. I don't care what reasons they give me for things that don't make sense, as long as it makes the game more fun.
Oh I agree with you. But that's not what you said. You pulled the realism card, which is retarted and often used when someone says something doesn't make sense. Making sense is not the same thing as being realistic.
Or hey, maybe I know the difference between consistency and fun. Maybe you can't kill the little children with traditional weaponry because it isn't fun. Gameplay > Story. I don't care what reasons they give me for things that don't make sense, as long as it makes the game more fun.
Oh I agree with you. But that's not what you said. You pulled the realism card, which is retarted and often used when someone says something doesn't make sense. Making sense is not the same thing as being realistic.
I pulled the realism card because people were complaining about realism. "Why aren't the girls able to die, but Big Daddies are? That makes no sense." You know what, it doesn't. But nobody should care because we play videogames for fun.
Or hey, maybe I know the difference between consistency and fun. Maybe you can't kill the little children with traditional weaponry because it isn't fun. Gameplay > Story. I don't care what reasons they give me for things that don't make sense, as long as it makes the game more fun.
Oh I agree with you. But that's not what you said. You pulled the realism card, which is retarted and often used when someone says something doesn't make sense. Making sense is not the same thing as being realistic.
I pulled the realism card because people were complaining about realism. "Why aren't the girls able to die, but Big Daddies are? That makes no sense." You know what, it doesn't. But nobody should care because we play videogames for fun.
In fact, no one should care about anything. This message board should consist of poll threads. One for each game that exists, where each member says whether or not they think that game is fun.
They shouldn't be allowed to elaborate or argue either. You write "FUN" or "NOT FUN" and that's fucking IT.
Don't be such a fucking jack ass. Arguments (read debates) can be highly enlightening and entertaining. Just because people on 4chan can't elaborate or explain their points doesn't mean the rest of the internet can't.
The girls cant die and the big daddies can because one of them is a child and the other is a hulking monster.
Why cant people understand this? Its not a fucking question of whether its right or not, its a question of whatever the censor says is law, period.
And for the last time, Levine has stressed that no censor has come anywhere near Bioshock yet.
Do you honestly think they want a month long delay because they sent an unsuitable release candidate to the censor.
They sort that shit before certification.
Bioshock knows its not gonna be a massive hit, so they are gonna do all they can to get sales. Getting an AO rating would kill it dead. M or possibly T would improve sales a lot, especially with the target demographic being what it is.
Don't be such a fucking jack ass. Arguments (read debates) can be highly enlightening and entertaining. Just because people on 4chan can't elaborate or explain their points doesn't mean the rest of the internet can't.
I see very little enlightenment going on in here, just a bunch of people saying the same stupid shit over and over again. This is it, I've already been warned so I'm going to stay out of this one.
The girls cant die and the big daddies can because one of them is a child and the other is a hulking monster.
Why cant people understand this? Its not a fucking question of whether its right or not, its a question of whatever the censor says is law, period.
And for the last time, Levine has stressed that no censor has come anywhere near Bioshock yet.
Do you honestly think they want a month long delay because they sent an unsuitable release candidate to the censor.
They sort that shit before certification.
Bioshock knows its not gonna be a massive hit, so they are gonna do all they can to get sales. Getting an AO rating would kill it dead. M or possibly T would improve sales a lot, especially with the target demographic being what it is.
Are you sure that it would get an AO for this?
I mean... going back to my old point. Tons of games are out there right now with M ratings where I can beat the everloving piss out of any harmless woman I like.
There's a twisted moral double standard when it comes to the value of human lives? In ART?!
I know this is true. I just want someone to say it.
Say your society is sick.
I said they deserved the benefit of the doubt. They have nearly flat out stated there WILL be a reason in game for the invincibility, there WILL be a story driver attached to this and the implications to the Big Daddies, and it WILL be integrated into the game.
You're spinning wild fantasies about how it would suck if they didn't do the things they say they are trying. What, should the game accommodate the players moral choice to lay down arms and instead provide lemonade and butter cookies to the characters of the world with a little easy bake oven, a sack of fruit, and some sugar?
Everyone, developers included, is aware of all the things you said.
I tried saying this last night but I just don't think people realize that Levine isn't just going to make it so if you try to shoot the LS that the bullets just hit invisible walls. He has told us that there is an in-game reason as to why LS don't get hurt by random flying bullets/explosions. What this is we'll just have to wait and see.
Whether you think the change is OK or not, it's a horrible idea to release the gameplay videos before they find out if the gameplay is actually viable. We really don't need another developer following in the footsteps of Molyneux. Time for a media blackout to ensure Bioshock doesn't raise expectations too high? I think so.
Meh.
They'll probably throw a forcefield on the girl and call it a day.
I'll look at it the same way I see important NPCs in Oblivion being invincible (Pound them with DEATH FROM HELL SPELL #666 all day and they'll be knocked out, but fine).
Deus ex machina for games, to borrow an overused phrase. It's irritating, but it just tells me "oh, so and so is important so I'm not allowed to kill this person. It's stupid but I'll live.".
The girls cant die and the big daddies can because one of them is a child and the other is a hulking monster.
Why cant people understand this? Its not a fucking question of whether its right or not, its a question of whatever the censor says is law, period.
And for the last time, Levine has stressed that no censor has come anywhere near Bioshock yet.
Do you honestly think they want a month long delay because they sent an unsuitable release candidate to the censor.
They sort that shit before certification.
Bioshock knows its not gonna be a massive hit, so they are gonna do all they can to get sales. Getting an AO rating would kill it dead. M or possibly T would improve sales a lot, especially with the target demographic being what it is.
Are you sure that it would get an AO for this?
I mean... going back to my old point. Tons of games are out there right now with M ratings where I can beat the everloving piss out of any harmless woman I like.
There's a twisted moral double standard when it comes to the value of human lives? In ART?!
I know this is true. I just want someone to say it.
Say your society is sick.
women =/ children
BIG difference when it comes to censorship.
you could show brutal rape in a film long before you could show a child getting hurt or killed. I assume the same rules apply to all forms of media, TV or games.
This is how it should be. with an adult game character you do get a certain sense of detachment, but with a child, well, i dunno. i wouldnt feel comfortable killing one unless i absolutely had to.
which is guess, is the whole fucking point of it being in this game. which means if they can wrangle this mechanic to work it should be great. not many games can illicit that kind of emotional response from the player. heck, killing children out of neccessirty is pretty much the only dramatic stance that hasnt been taken in games before. im hoping it works well.
you shouldnt be comfortable in killing them, thats the point. its not like the game designers wanted you to go around murdering all these kids to become super powerful, why not just make adam spawn in crates and not have to worry about censorship. the point of including this mechanic was the emotional response from the player. if anything, they should be under strict censorship due to this.
either way, itll be a marvellous game. what are we looking at here? september?
What I'm saying is that we all (for the most part) play games that involve people who "don't deserve it" dying because we fucked up. The only difference here is the age of the victim and that somehow makes their life more valuable to people, which offends me.
you being offended offends me.
it's a pretty well-established psychological principle that the death of a child affects us greater than the death of an adult. the reason is two-fold.
1. Humans as a whole consider children 'more innocent' than adults, especially younger children, and especially younger girls, because even 'innocent' adults have probably done some bad shit and are less worthy of pity.
2. When a child dies, it is a greater blow to our species' chance for survival, so it affects us on a very primitive, subconscious level.
So, you can go ahead and be offended that most peoples' brains are wired a certain way, but it's a completely empty and meaningless gesture.
I mean... going back to my old point. Tons of games are out there right now with M ratings where I can beat the everloving piss out of any harmless woman I like.
There's a twisted moral double standard when it comes to the value of human lives? In ART?!
I know this is true. I just want someone to say it.
Say your society is sick.
Our society is sick. Shocker? O_o
It's the same reason that it would be okay for me to walk into a bar and punch some guy in the shoulder, but horribly wrong were I to do that to a little girl, joking or not.
Same reason that I can swear at an adult, but not a child.
You know, I am all for adult content in games. I'm not one to shy away from these kinds of things. However, children do not always have the coping skills to deal with adult situations, nor the ability to always separate fantasy from reality. It's the whole developing brain thing. We protect our children to prevent them from being exposed to situations beyond their ability to cope. The problem is that we do not have a good way to keep games with adult situations away from kids. Be it retailers who just don't care to parents who just don't pay attention, it's all too easy for a child to get a hold of a game that deals with situations they just shouldn't see. I'm certainly not advocating censorship, but I am advocating moral and ethical responsibility. I think Irrational has done the right thing in this situation, and I'm confident they have a good "in-game" reasoning behind it.
Yeah, it sucks that our entertainment has to be watered down because of idiots and knee-jerk reactionists, but your energy would be better spent working on a better way to regulate adult content to children, rather than railing against a company for following its moral and ethical compass.
The girls cant die and the big daddies can because one of them is a child and the other is a hulking monster.
Why cant people understand this? Its not a fucking question of whether its right or not, its a question of whatever the censor says is law, period.
And for the last time, Levine has stressed that no censor has come anywhere near Bioshock yet.
Do you honestly think they want a month long delay because they sent an unsuitable release candidate to the censor.
They sort that shit before certification.
Bioshock knows its not gonna be a massive hit, so they are gonna do all they can to get sales. Getting an AO rating would kill it dead. M or possibly T would improve sales a lot, especially with the target demographic being what it is.
Are you sure that it would get an AO for this?
I mean... going back to my old point. Tons of games are out there right now with M ratings where I can beat the everloving piss out of any harmless woman I like.
There's a twisted moral double standard when it comes to the value of human lives? In ART?!
I know this is true. I just want someone to say it.
Say your society is sick.
women =/ children
BIG difference when it comes to censorship.
you could show brutal rape in a film long before you could show a child getting hurt or killed. I assume the same rules apply to all forms of media, TV or games.
This is how it should be. with an adult game character you do get a certain sense of detachment, but with a child, well, i dunno. i wouldnt feel comfortable killing one unless i absolutely had to.
which is guess, is the whole fucking point of it being in this game. which means if they can wrangle this mechanic to work it should be great. not many games can illicit that kind of emotional response from the player. heck, killing children out of neccessirty is pretty much the only dramatic stance that hasnt been taken in games before. im hoping it works well.
you shouldnt be comfortable in killing them, thats the point. its not like the game designers wanted you to go around murdering all these kids to become super powerful, why not just make adam spawn in crates and not have to worry about censorship. the point of including this mechanic was the emotional response from the player. if anything, they should be under strict censorship due to this.
either way, itll be a marvellous game. what are we looking at here? september?
I value grown men and women just as much as young versions of each.
Now we have communication.
Being detached from brutal rape is pretty bad, dude.
I feel that being able to run people over with my car in Godfather is just as bad as being able to blow up young children in BioShock. The people who're opposed to the 'possibility' should also be opposed to the possibility of this in other games.
The scientists in Half Life should be invincible. The NPCs in every free roaming game.
Essentially we should enforce Rules of Engagement in every game ever that state that you can only do harm to others if they intend to harm you.
That sounds kind of stupid doesn't it? Well, it's a good thing we don't value adult lives then!
I agree that you shouldn't be comfortable killing the Little Sisters, but thankfully that possibility has been taken away from us before we could bother thinking about it, right? So much for emotional response.
t Ender - Kids shouldn't be playing games where adults are killed either. It's just as bad. BioShock is just as bad because you kill adults. It makes no fucking difference.
I said they deserved the benefit of the doubt. They have nearly flat out stated there WILL be a reason in game for the invincibility, there WILL be a story driver attached to this and the implications to the Big Daddies, and it WILL be integrated into the game.
You're spinning wild fantasies about how it would suck if they didn't do the things they say they are trying. What, should the game accommodate the players moral choice to lay down arms and instead provide lemonade and butter cookies to the characters of the world with a little easy bake oven, a sack of fruit, and some sugar?
Everyone, developers included, is aware of all the things you said.
I tried saying this last night but I just don't think people realize that Levine isn't just going to make it so if you try to shoot the LS that the bullets just hit invisible walls. He has told us that there is an in-game reason as to why LS don't get hurt by random flying bullets/explosions. What this is we'll just have to wait and see.
Hunh. Okay, now I want to think of how I would swing that in-game.
Force field? Except then they can't be killed by anything at all, so there's no point to a Big Daddy... I suppose the easiest way to explain it would be that they are through the use of [technobabble] device, invulnerable. But "harvesting" was the original intent behind creating them, and therefore can be done regardless of their protection. The Big Daddies would still need to fend off aggressive claim-jumpers, and can rip them off before they complete the harvesting process.
I think people are really just basing this off of a lot of other experiences, which is understandable. I mean, it is annoying to not be able to kill the vortigaunts. If they provide a decent explanation in-game, and it makes gameplay better, of course it's great. What got on my nerves initially is the thought of your gun lowering by itself, because they wanted to avoid a lawsuit.
What I'm saying is that we all (for the most part) play games that involve people who "don't deserve it" dying because we fucked up. The only difference here is the age of the victim and that somehow makes their life more valuable to people, which offends me.
you being offended offends me.
it's a pretty well-established psychological principle that the death of a child affects us greater than the death of an adult. the reason is two-fold.
1. Humans as a whole consider children 'more innocent' than adults, especially younger children, and especially younger girls, because even 'innocent' adults have probably done some bad shit and are less worthy of pity.
2. When a child dies, it is a greater blow to our species' chance for survival, so it affects us on a very primitive, subconscious level.
So, you can go ahead and be offended that most peoples' brains are wired a certain way, but it's a completely empty and meaningless gesture.
Theres also the fact that they're young enough to not have had a chance at life. This is used to make Freddy same like a real prick but its never shown. Teenagers in movies on the other hand are always legal age for getting it on, do drugs, smoke, drink, etc. Every last teen in Freddy Vs Jason did. So basically they're asking for it. But its still a loss since they have siblings and parents to mourn them. Parents are older and got their kids and such so their loss isn't as impactful. If a grandad had disappeared in Spain, there would never be a 1.5 million reward for his return.
I said they deserved the benefit of the doubt. They have nearly flat out stated there WILL be a reason in game for the invincibility, there WILL be a story driver attached to this and the implications to the Big Daddies, and it WILL be integrated into the game.
You're spinning wild fantasies about how it would suck if they didn't do the things they say they are trying. What, should the game accommodate the players moral choice to lay down arms and instead provide lemonade and butter cookies to the characters of the world with a little easy bake oven, a sack of fruit, and some sugar?
Everyone, developers included, is aware of all the things you said.
I tried saying this last night but I just don't think people realize that Levine isn't just going to make it so if you try to shoot the LS that the bullets just hit invisible walls. He has told us that there is an in-game reason as to why LS don't get hurt by random flying bullets/explosions. What this is we'll just have to wait and see.
Hunh. Okay, now I want to think of how I would swing that in-game.
Force field? Except then they can't be killed by anything at all, so there's no point to a Big Daddy... I suppose the easiest way to explain it would be that they are through the use of [technobabble] device, invulnerable. But "harvesting" was the original intent behind creating them, and therefore can be done regardless of their protection. The Big Daddies would still need to fend off aggressive claim-jumpers, and can rip them off before they complete the harvesting process.
I think people are really just basing this off of a lot of other experiences, which is understandable. I mean, it is annoying to not be able to kill the vortigaunts. If they provide a decent explanation in-game, and it makes gameplay better, of course it's great. What got on my nerves initially is the thought of your gun lowering by itself, because they wanted to avoid a lawsuit.
I already suggested a force field many pages back, though I think it was ignored. I also suggested it be powered by a Big Daddy remotely. Hence its bulk, containing some gigantic battery.
Umm... If the Little Sisters are immune to being shot and killed, why do they need the big daddies to protect them?
If they are un-murderable anyway, what is the use of the big daddy, it kinda takes you out of the sort of experience a bit. (Not that im saying i want to murder little girls, just saying it kinda breaks the plot a bit)
Umm... If the Little Sisters are immune to being shot and killed, why do they need the big daddies to protect them?
If they are un-murderable anyway, what is the use of the big daddy, it kinda takes you out of the sort of experience a bit. (Not that im saying i want to murder little girls, just saying it kinda breaks the plot a bit)
once you kill the big daddy, you can kill the girl. it would follow, then, that their invulnerability will be tied to the big daddy.
problem solved!
Houk the Namebringer on
0
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
Umm... If the Little Sisters are immune to being shot and killed, why do they need the big daddies to protect them?
If they are un-murderable anyway, what is the use of the big daddy, it kinda takes you out of the sort of experience a bit. (Not that im saying i want to murder little girls, just saying it kinda breaks the plot a bit)
So people can't drag them off and toss em in a machine to get the Adam out of them.
I love how there is all this talk about moral issues when it's been made pretty clear this was a game design decision due to the game not working the other way around.
You guys just keep yelling at each other. Enjoy it. I'm getting a root beer.
If you'd elaborate on that, you'd probably have a very good point.
But you didn't, so enjoy the sugar suds and know that this post made about as much difference as people yacking about the moral implications.
Umm... If the Little Sisters are immune to being shot and killed, why do they need the big daddies to protect them?
If they are un-murderable anyway, what is the use of the big daddy, it kinda takes you out of the sort of experience a bit. (Not that im saying i want to murder little girls, just saying it kinda breaks the plot a bit)
Maybe because while they are completely immune to guns, bullets and psychic powers, they are physically little girls, and still have a weakness to the Harvesting Tools?
Maybe because if they didn't have the Big Daddies, you could just wander over and start surgery?
Posts
Alright, this isn't even the point of the thread (as apotheos and many of us have pointed out), but I have to say something. That's not the point of playing games for me. I've played games that have, at times, kicked me in the balls emotionally and mentally. I wouldn't call it fun at the time. I would, however, be very grateful for having played them.
A game should be enjoyable. It should not be the sole aim of the game. That's boring.
Maybe you just dont have the same morals as everyone else.
And the movie is condensed into 2 and 1/2 hours. That's not realistic. None of these events could take place within 2 and 1/2 hours. The film should be months long, because that would be realistic. Everybody knows realism is fun, and if it isn't realistic it's boring and stupid.
While we're at it, what about Pacman? He's not a man. He's a yellow ball with a pie-slice removed. How does he eat those little dots? A fully functional digestive system couldn't fit in there. And those ghosts. Ghosts aren't real. And even if they were, they wouldn't come in a variety of bright colors. Stupid Pacman. Stupid things that aren't realistic.
EDIT: I lied.
Oh oh, someone doesn't know the difference between realism and consistency within a game/movie setting.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Saving them successfully means you raise your arms as champion of little girl freedom.
Gameplay > Censorship
Oh I agree with you. But that's not what you said. You pulled the realism card, which is retarted and often used when someone says something doesn't make sense. Making sense is not the same thing as being realistic.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
That's right. I'm a 'nerd' and that means I think my arguments through alot more than underappreciated bear people. It is impossible to win.
I pulled the realism card because people were complaining about realism. "Why aren't the girls able to die, but Big Daddies are? That makes no sense." You know what, it doesn't. But nobody should care because we play videogames for fun.
I want to see it in action before I pass judgement. It sounds dumb at face value, but this is an Irrational argument.
You don't get to pull the nerd card here mate.
Why cant people understand this? Its not a fucking question of whether its right or not, its a question of whatever the censor says is law, period.
In fact, no one should care about anything. This message board should consist of poll threads. One for each game that exists, where each member says whether or not they think that game is fun.
They shouldn't be allowed to elaborate or argue either. You write "FUN" or "NOT FUN" and that's fucking IT.
And for the last time, Levine has stressed that no censor has come anywhere near Bioshock yet.
Even money is that if you post here, you are a nerd in someones eyes.
猿も木から落ちる
Don't be such a fucking jack ass. Arguments (read debates) can be highly enlightening and entertaining. Just because people on 4chan can't elaborate or explain their points doesn't mean the rest of the internet can't.
We're busy having a circular argument about something we can't change and something we haven't seen.
I at least have the excuse that I'm being paid to do this for 2 more hours.
Do you honestly think they want a month long delay because they sent an unsuitable release candidate to the censor.
They sort that shit before certification.
Bioshock knows its not gonna be a massive hit, so they are gonna do all they can to get sales. Getting an AO rating would kill it dead. M or possibly T would improve sales a lot, especially with the target demographic being what it is.
I see very little enlightenment going on in here, just a bunch of people saying the same stupid shit over and over again. This is it, I've already been warned so I'm going to stay out of this one.
Are you sure that it would get an AO for this?
I mean... going back to my old point. Tons of games are out there right now with M ratings where I can beat the everloving piss out of any harmless woman I like.
There's a twisted moral double standard when it comes to the value of human lives? In ART?!
I know this is true. I just want someone to say it.
Say your society is sick.
I tried saying this last night but I just don't think people realize that Levine isn't just going to make it so if you try to shoot the LS that the bullets just hit invisible walls. He has told us that there is an in-game reason as to why LS don't get hurt by random flying bullets/explosions. What this is we'll just have to wait and see.
They'll probably throw a forcefield on the girl and call it a day.
I'll look at it the same way I see important NPCs in Oblivion being invincible (Pound them with DEATH FROM HELL SPELL #666 all day and they'll be knocked out, but fine).
Deus ex machina for games, to borrow an overused phrase. It's irritating, but it just tells me "oh, so and so is important so I'm not allowed to kill this person. It's stupid but I'll live.".
*mutter mutter*
women =/ children
BIG difference when it comes to censorship.
you could show brutal rape in a film long before you could show a child getting hurt or killed. I assume the same rules apply to all forms of media, TV or games.
This is how it should be. with an adult game character you do get a certain sense of detachment, but with a child, well, i dunno. i wouldnt feel comfortable killing one unless i absolutely had to.
which is guess, is the whole fucking point of it being in this game. which means if they can wrangle this mechanic to work it should be great. not many games can illicit that kind of emotional response from the player. heck, killing children out of neccessirty is pretty much the only dramatic stance that hasnt been taken in games before. im hoping it works well.
you shouldnt be comfortable in killing them, thats the point. its not like the game designers wanted you to go around murdering all these kids to become super powerful, why not just make adam spawn in crates and not have to worry about censorship. the point of including this mechanic was the emotional response from the player. if anything, they should be under strict censorship due to this.
either way, itll be a marvellous game. what are we looking at here? september?
it's a pretty well-established psychological principle that the death of a child affects us greater than the death of an adult. the reason is two-fold.
1. Humans as a whole consider children 'more innocent' than adults, especially younger children, and especially younger girls, because even 'innocent' adults have probably done some bad shit and are less worthy of pity.
2. When a child dies, it is a greater blow to our species' chance for survival, so it affects us on a very primitive, subconscious level.
So, you can go ahead and be offended that most peoples' brains are wired a certain way, but it's a completely empty and meaningless gesture.
Our society is sick. Shocker? O_o
It's the same reason that it would be okay for me to walk into a bar and punch some guy in the shoulder, but horribly wrong were I to do that to a little girl, joking or not.
Same reason that I can swear at an adult, but not a child.
You know, I am all for adult content in games. I'm not one to shy away from these kinds of things. However, children do not always have the coping skills to deal with adult situations, nor the ability to always separate fantasy from reality. It's the whole developing brain thing. We protect our children to prevent them from being exposed to situations beyond their ability to cope. The problem is that we do not have a good way to keep games with adult situations away from kids. Be it retailers who just don't care to parents who just don't pay attention, it's all too easy for a child to get a hold of a game that deals with situations they just shouldn't see. I'm certainly not advocating censorship, but I am advocating moral and ethical responsibility. I think Irrational has done the right thing in this situation, and I'm confident they have a good "in-game" reasoning behind it.
Yeah, it sucks that our entertainment has to be watered down because of idiots and knee-jerk reactionists, but your energy would be better spent working on a better way to regulate adult content to children, rather than railing against a company for following its moral and ethical compass.
I value grown men and women just as much as young versions of each.
Now we have communication.
Being detached from brutal rape is pretty bad, dude.
I feel that being able to run people over with my car in Godfather is just as bad as being able to blow up young children in BioShock. The people who're opposed to the 'possibility' should also be opposed to the possibility of this in other games.
The scientists in Half Life should be invincible. The NPCs in every free roaming game.
Essentially we should enforce Rules of Engagement in every game ever that state that you can only do harm to others if they intend to harm you.
That sounds kind of stupid doesn't it?
Well, it's a good thing we don't value adult lives then!
I agree that you shouldn't be comfortable killing the Little Sisters, but thankfully that possibility has been taken away from us before we could bother thinking about it, right? So much for emotional response.
t Ender - Kids shouldn't be playing games where adults are killed either. It's just as bad. BioShock is just as bad because you kill adults. It makes no fucking difference.
Hunh. Okay, now I want to think of how I would swing that in-game.
Force field? Except then they can't be killed by anything at all, so there's no point to a Big Daddy... I suppose the easiest way to explain it would be that they are through the use of [technobabble] device, invulnerable. But "harvesting" was the original intent behind creating them, and therefore can be done regardless of their protection. The Big Daddies would still need to fend off aggressive claim-jumpers, and can rip them off before they complete the harvesting process.
I think people are really just basing this off of a lot of other experiences, which is understandable. I mean, it is annoying to not be able to kill the vortigaunts. If they provide a decent explanation in-game, and it makes gameplay better, of course it's great. What got on my nerves initially is the thought of your gun lowering by itself, because they wanted to avoid a lawsuit.
Theres also the fact that they're young enough to not have had a chance at life. This is used to make Freddy same like a real prick but its never shown. Teenagers in movies on the other hand are always legal age for getting it on, do drugs, smoke, drink, etc. Every last teen in Freddy Vs Jason did. So basically they're asking for it. But its still a loss since they have siblings and parents to mourn them. Parents are older and got their kids and such so their loss isn't as impactful. If a grandad had disappeared in Spain, there would never be a 1.5 million reward for his return.
I already suggested a force field many pages back, though I think it was ignored. I also suggested it be powered by a Big Daddy remotely. Hence its bulk, containing some gigantic battery.
Ack, double post. Sorry.
If they are un-murderable anyway, what is the use of the big daddy, it kinda takes you out of the sort of experience a bit. (Not that im saying i want to murder little girls, just saying it kinda breaks the plot a bit)
problem solved!
So people can't drag them off and toss em in a machine to get the Adam out of them.
If you'd elaborate on that, you'd probably have a very good point.
But you didn't, so enjoy the sugar suds and know that this post made about as much difference as people yacking about the moral implications.
Maybe because while they are completely immune to guns, bullets and psychic powers, they are physically little girls, and still have a weakness to the Harvesting Tools?
Maybe because if they didn't have the Big Daddies, you could just wander over and start surgery?