Will the game have children on the streets?

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

If the story is so great, why would you want to kill key characters or just go on a random rampage?

Morrowind had a great story. You could go on a GTA rampage if you so wanted but the game is not remembered as such.
You could kill key characters (IIRC including Vivee) but why would a PC do so unless its his second or third replay?

Skyrim did not have a really good story and neither did Oblivion and thus I was motivated to kill Martin and key characters in the game.

For their loot (evne though Martin was a broke monk)

Except now I couldn't and it made the game worse.

If you people really don't want killable everything, maybe the dev should have a password protected parental lock. Maybe just type a random password like this

afnklasfnklasfnlkasfnkasgnqwhruy1ui4yu12it5uibgmzxcbjksdjkvbsdjkbjdsk

There you go. Best of both world.

One of the major reason Oblivion sucked is because they scaled back on the freedoms the player had in morrowind. It was more like a classical RPG in spirte of the improved combat.

 

[Garrison72]

If they allow the killing of children, the game will be banned in so many places CDPR will have to censor it damn near everywhere. And to what end? The larger point I'm making is, if you want your immersion, if you want to kill for the hell of it, fine. But you should end up dead or in jail within minutes. None of this outrunning the cops crap like GTA.

 

[thewarsend]

They should have children in game.. But the extra content (content that allows sex and killing children and other stuff) should be accessible only via download like the first Witcher game.. That way the game won't be banned anywhere and it will be a true RPG without limitations.. Not that i'm saying we should be able to kill children.. That just sounds wrong...

 

[gregski]

Oh FFS, immersion-schrimmersion. How many children have you people killed in real life that you can state with such obviousness that lack of such possibility in the game will mean worse immersion/realism?

It's not Second Life or even GTA, it's Cybperunk 2077 and there are many other themes the game should dwell on and many other areas where the player should be given "free" will (like he can ever have full free will in videogames in the first place) better than a mere fact that he can or can't kill an NPC, be it a child or not.

Also, what Slimgrin said. Why would CDPR want their game to ba banned and ostracised? Yeah, sure, it's free publicity but CDPR doesn't need this kind of publicity, the game will be hyped well enough.

 

[chriswebb2020.736]

...If we go rampage there needs to be heavy consequences. Otherwise it's, 'hey I'm in vidya game land, I can do anything!'

I know it's been said before, but this is a HUGE bugbear for me. There HAS to be repercussions for actions, and they have to scale with those actions.

As a relevant example; Should a player decide to start offing defenceless kids, then the character should immeditely draw the attention of everyone. That character should get shot up and killed at the soonest opportunity. No arrest, no fine, no jail time. Dead! It shouldn't matter if they are in the Combat Zone or the Corporate Plaza, no-one likes a child killer.
(Even the most derranged nut-jobs don't tolerate people that target kids.)

 

[thewarsend]

Oh FFS, immersion-schrimmersion. How many children have you people killed in real life that you can state with such obviousness that lack of such possibility in the game will mean worse immersion/realism?

It's not Second Life or even GTA, it's Cybperunk 2077 and there are many other themes the game should dwell on and many other areas where the player should be given "free" will (like he can ever have full free will in videogames in the first place) better than a mere fact that he can or can't kill an NPC, be it a child or not.

Also, what Slimgrin said. Why would CDPR want their game to ba banned and ostracised? Yeah, sure, it's free publicity but CDPR doesn't need this kind of publicity, the game will be hyped well enough.

I know it's been said before, but this is a HUGE bugbear for me. There HAS to be repercussions for actions, and they have to scale with those actions.

As a relevant example; Should a player decide to start offing defenceless kids, then the character should immeditely draw the attention of everyone. That character should get shot up and killed at the soonest opportunity. No arrest, no fine, no jail time. Dead! It shouldn't matter if they are in the Combat Zone or the Corporate Plaza, no-one likes a child killer.
(Even the most derranged nut-jobs don't tolerate people that target kids.)

I completely agree you two.. Even thinking of harming children gets on my nerves and CDPR doesn't need that kind of negative publicity.. Like i've said, in my opinion even the existence of kids (if they absolutely have to be in game) should be extra content and we should have to download that content separately.. Also, if it exists in game, repercussions should be more than severe and not only for children.. Killing/harming random NPC's in middle of street should have serious consequences...

 

[Sardukhar]

In the eventual role-playing games of the future, you will be able to do as much as you could in real life, as well as whatever abilities the game world allows you. Or takes away, for thematic, internally consistent reasons. This will include go into any houses you can sneak or force your way into, steal any cars or food you can get away with, swim in anything vaguely liquid large enough for you to do so. Climb things.

Those options are generally questions of resources and I am confident they will be solved one day.

This is not a question of open world or not, simply any story-teller's desire to give his players the freedom of choice - and consequence, Chris, of course consequence - that a role-playing game truly allows for.

And then you have cultural and moral limitations. I won't go into them in depth, since they are mostly ugly, but we all know what they are. Some are minor and prohibited only in places like Saudi Arabia. Others are much more severe and prohibited everywhere society grows healthily.

This last is the choice of designers, not one of tech. IF you can do certain things in a game world, like cheat at cards or steal money, and the mechanics are in place for such actions, and the designer deliberately locks them off, yes it seems odd. You can cheat at cards, but not priests? Or steal money, but only from bad guys? You can kill people, but not loot them?

When these things are technically possible but prohibited due to cultural considerations, it does jar me. When the setting is a grim, dark future where you can take mind-shattering drugs, murder for money every hour of every day but not harm the people you walk past or certain types of those people? Yes, that seems the weaker choice to me.

I don't confuse killing children in a videogame with those in real life any more than killing people in the game with real life. If I did it in a good game, I would hope for some kind of reasonable consequence. Everyone would not hunt you in Cyberpunk 2077, no. No more than they do in the real world. Sadly, evil here can go on for months and years without detection or apprehension. Cyberpunk is hardly a more just world.

But the joy of role-playing is that you -offer- players these choices. Without, preferably, some magical morals meter. Let them do as they wish within the boundaries of the game mechanics and technological-financial resources and let the world react to that.

Without choice, there really isn't much validity to difficult decisions or troubling consequences, is there?

 

[gregski]

This is not a question of open world or not, simply any story-teller's desire to give his players the freedom of choice - and consequence, Chris, of course consequence - that a role-playing game truly allows for.

I don't think ANY storyteller's desire is to give players freedom of choice. No, any storyteller's desire is to tell his story. Good storytellers in games - like CDPR - let players SHAPE the story the writers came up with, they let players CHOOSE one of the pre-written paths - but that doesn't mean unlimited choice & consequence, no. A good story has its structure, its pace and in no way equals to freedom of choice.

But the joy of role-playing is that you -offer- players these choices. Without, preferably, some magical morals meter. Let them do as they wish within the boundaries of the game mechanics and technological-financial resources and let the world react to that.

Without choice, there really isn't much validity to difficult decisions or troubling consequences, is there?

You know what's better than choice in an RPG? A meaningful choice. A choice that shapes your character's story in a way that is relevant to it. A choice that keeps you guessing - what if...? The thing you are talking about is not a choice - it's a gameplay decision made by game designer's, usually coming from inevitable need of confining certain aspects of the game in order to make it a finished product. There will always be compromises to be made, be it from cultural, technical or time reasons. Making children unkillable is definitely one of those that I will gladly give up for other, more important features.

 

[Sardukhar]

I'm a storyteller and have spent hundreds of hours running games. The reason I prefer RPGs is that freedom of choice I desire to give to players. Absolutely. I want to and will tell a story, but it will be a story that they share in, not one that I force upon them. That's not a role-playing game, that's an interactive click-fest.
That's player-passive storytelling, such as books and movies. And Call of Duty, of course. Fun, but a waste of RPG potential.

Telling stories in a role-playing game - I don't know if you've ever done this, but I think most GMs here will agree with me - is a case of cooperation and encouragement. You have a plotline, supporting characters, secondary characters, setting, acts, climax and denouement, but within a flexible framework. The PCs can alter and change nearly any part of it - that's good GMing. It also makes storytelling in that medium a very...quick-thinking experience.

Not every choice will shape your character very much, but what I am talking about is choice. As much choice as technically possible. The rest are cultural and setting limitations. To kill kids, or even put them in the game, in a setting like CP2020, is not a technical choice - it is a cultural one. It amounts to flicking the can-shoot-this switch on NPCs, including children. That's not much and is hardly unprecedented.

Fallout 1 and 2 did it, (along with so much else). they were hardly reviled and damned for that. It really is very much a media-supported, political-correctness-caused tempest in a teapot. If we don't have it in, no big deal. If we do have it in, no big deal. However, as soon as you introduce secondary limitations to a game mechanic, ( you can kill, but not children), it feels more on the rails that it does free. Or real.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Basically the only real argument of the "Nays" is that CDPR should please a demographic that will most likely never play the game in its entirety and most likely do not enjoy them in the first place(the censors, Bill Clinton's wife,etc).

To which I will simply reply: if everyone is your market, then no one is your market.

The second is that it offends their sensibilities. Boo hoo hoo.

You know what is truly offensive?

A game that does not show the true effects of a lawless society and ends up glorifying it as a result.
Adults who want to play the fantasy life of a member of an idealized and romanticized underworld.

In their mind, a futuristic lawless society is a gangsta rap album with punk influences(which is a very questionable depiction of criminality in itself) BUT where hilary clinton has editorial countrol roflmao.

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2013/03/an-interview-with-teen-sicario.html
http://theragblog.blogspot.ca/2010/05/teenage-sicarios-colombias-child.html
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2010/11/ruthless-sicario-is-only-12-years-old.html

Let us not even talk about those that simply get caught in the crossfire.

 

[Garrison72]

Basically the only real argument of the "Nays" is that CDPR should please a demographic that will most likely never play the game in its entirety and most likely do not enjoy them in the first place(the censors, Bill Clinton's wife,etc).

.

It's late, I'm tired, so I'll keep this short. That's not what Gregski is saying . At all.

 

[dragonbird]

You know what is truly offensive?

Well, this is getting pretty close...

The second is that it offends their sensibilities. Boo hoo hoo.

Keep it polite please.

 

[Lolssi83.811]

Well for me it would add so much more to the gameplay. First it would make me less prone to start firefight if there are children around.

Perhaps kid caught a stray bullet, this would open several options.
Don't want that to happen -> reload and try prevent it.
Accept it -> perhaps the fight was just so difficult that it was the "best" outcome. This would tore me up inside but those are great moments when game makes you actually feel.
Or really dark option -> perhaps it was kid of your enemy and you're pushed over the edge or lost your humanity and you just don't care anymore.

Granted propably would be PR shitstorm, but pretty sure (hoping)game gets mature rating anyways.

 

[Sardukhar]

The vulnerability of civilians to stray bullets is a great point. And stray cars, acid paintgun rounds, etc. Especially on 2020 Mode, or whatever "realistic" save-deprived mode they run.

 

[Ciaphas_Cain]

Kids should probably be in the game, but not killable.

And I mean like tween and under little kids, 2077 is fairly dystopian I pretty sure there are 16-17 year olds who have guns and kill people.

Killing kids is just a no, I don't care about realism, rape is realistic too and probably abundant in Night City, but doesn't mean it should be done by the protagonist.

Maybe done by the really bad guys, but not the player.

 

[Deadbolt_Don]

Maybe we're not giving these kids enough credit.

I mean, our player character might have started out as a young gun on the streets. Same as these kids. The protagonist survived somehow right?

Maybe they know when to stay out of trouble. If they see our player character with weapons, they'll dart to shelter, and outta the fight.

 

[Mikedudeh]

Maybe we're not giving these kids enough credit.

I mean, our player character might have started out as a young gun on the streets. Same as these kids. The protagonist survived somehow right?

Maybe they know when to stay out of trouble. If they see our player character with weapons, they'll dart to shelter, and outta the fight.

What? you didn't like how in skyrim when a dragon attacked all the shop keepers and minor quest givers would get themselves killed trying to attack a dragon with an iron dagger? (BTW a great example of how to discourage murder, have it break the game a little, have a finite number of npc's with a purpose in the world. The insignificant respawnable color swap clones of Gta basically beg to be murdered.)

You idea is pretty genius though, as simple as it is. Though it doesn't stop people from shooting a kid first, before a firefight breaks out.

To me the only question left that needs to be answered is how bad the negative reaction to killable children in the vanilla game would be, and if they're worth adding in spite of this. And I don't think this can be answered through pure speculation. Since I can't think of any recent games that include killable kids, and all the past games i know of that delve into this matter have been censored/banned (anyone that thinks this is no big deal needs to do some research), I don't know if blazing this trail is the best route for CDPR, especially with a brand new IP and as a growing company with a potentially bright future. It's just a lot of risk.

On the other hand CDPR is not your average company, nor are they shy of a little controversy so it could go either way.

 

[Sardukhar]

and all the past games i know of that delve into this matter have been censored/banned (anyone that thinks this is no big deal needs to do some research).

Fallout 1 and 2 are neither censored nor banned. Maybe Germany? Postal series varies, but sold in the US. CDPR got flack for the nude cards and did it anyway. If they have a reason to put killable NPCs in CP2077, I don't doubt they will do it.

This thread is, to me, more a discussion on the reasons to do or not do it and why those reasons matter to us.

 

[Garrison72]

The vulnerability of civilians to stray bullets is a great point. And stray cars, acid paintgun rounds, etc. Especially on 2020 Mode, or whatever "realistic" save-deprived mode they run.

It is a great point, if it can illicit a gut reaction in the player instead of 'whoohooo! I gets to kill whoever I want!' It's kinda funny we're taking the death of digital children so seriously, I'll admit that much. But taboos and all...

 

[Mikedudeh]

Fallout 1 and 2 are neither censored nor banned. Maybe Germany?

It was censored in both Germany and the UK. All child NPCs were removed along with all content relating to them. I doubt CDPR would add children without having them play a big role in the narrative, be it in quests or as an tool for social/moral commentary or painting the worlds dark and merciless atmosphere. Censoring them out would likely be difficult and take a lot from the game.