- Status
I'd like it if there was a diegetic explanation for this, Like Johnny doesn't like it, so he downloaded a program to stop you if you try. Or V had an abusive past, and did it to themselves, as they didn't want to ever become like the one who hurt them.
The rating systems and whatnot work a certain way. It may not make sense. You may not agree with it. You could probably poke all sorts of holes in it. The fact remains they work a certain way and developers have to consider it. It's the unfortunate reality.
My question is why this is such a huge issue? I'm genuinely curious. Yeah, certain titles allow you to do all sorts of horrific things to other characters in the game world. Why the fuss over extending those actions to children in the game world? It seems like such a small thing to be up in arms about. Such behavior doesn't need to exist in order to create interesting content and keep the player engaged in a game. It feels like more trouble than it's worth to me.
I've never expected children to be killable, so I didn't see a problem with the news back in July. And still don't.
While NPC children can certainly be extremely annoying (like Balgruuf's kids in Skyrim) being able to kill them wouldn't add anything of real value to the gameplay, in my opinion. Just ignoring them works well enough, and they do indeed sometimes die or at least suffer due to story reasons.
While NPC children can certainly be extremely annoying (like Balgruuf's kids in Skyrim) being able to kill them wouldn't add anything of real value to the gameplay, in my opinion. Just ignoring them works well enough, and they do indeed sometimes die or at least suffer due to story reasons.
lol, I feel like Rawl's point is skipped over plenty just to continue with something I don't think should even be an issue thing.
In essence, it's kinda like asking for characters to be able to poop and fart because logically speaking, when a player eats to replenish their health or stamina then players should be able to pass gas and poop, too. Right? But also in essence, why would pooping and farting be needed for immersion? And just so, it's trivial and not at all necessary to be featured. Would it be neat, maybe? And honestly, I feel like the reasons against the whole child thing pretty much outweigh the excuses for it. You got an organization that will give it an AO on the rating system ( not good for sales), and it'll spark an unwanted controversy that'll hurt the company, the game industry, and video gamers when the politicians and news outlets get in on the frenzy slapping that same ol' scapegoat that video games are the cause of gun violence; but mainly, for me, its so unnecessary - I mean what would be the point? It'll be like pooping and farting.
In essence, it's kinda like asking for characters to be able to poop and fart because logically speaking, when a player eats to replenish their health or stamina then players should be able to pass gas and poop, too. Right? But also in essence, why would pooping and farting be needed for immersion? And just so, it's trivial and not at all necessary to be featured. Would it be neat, maybe? And honestly, I feel like the reasons against the whole child thing pretty much outweigh the excuses for it. You got an organization that will give it an AO on the rating system ( not good for sales), and it'll spark an unwanted controversy that'll hurt the company, the game industry, and video gamers when the politicians and news outlets get in on the frenzy slapping that same ol' scapegoat that video games are the cause of gun violence; but mainly, for me, its so unnecessary - I mean what would be the point? It'll be like pooping and farting.
Isn't that kind of the point, though? NPC mortality isn't a feature, it's a consequence. Accidentally hitting a kid with minigun fire in the original Fallout is a punch to the gut. Shooting a random person in The Outer Worlds is rarely worth making everyone hostile and potentially losing out on an interesting sidequest. Meanwhile, I can't resist being a serial killer in Bethesda games because there are no downsides to violence and it's efficient.
Player decisions are more interesting when there are stakes. Invincible NPCs who could survive a nuclear blast unscathed are just a reminder that those stakes are being kept from you. The AO rating argument is a good one, but I'd prefer no children and instant game over screens when killing plot-crucial characters over inconsistent NPC mortality.
what do you mean by that? in most rpg games u can't hv sex so hving sex isn't normal.
because cdpr already has working dying function that could be simply applied to all npcs. if player doesn't have possibility of killing children npcs, he shouldn't be having possibility of killing any human npcs. if player wants to murder npcs in an rpg game where u can kill npcs, player wants to be able to murder any npcs he wants (if it will not break the game by killing important story characters), no matter if they r old people or children, they should all die equally whenever player wishes to kill them. if there would not be any existing npc dying function in the game, there would be no issue at all.
but children npcs could be easly made killable since there's already npcs dying function coded in the game. adding more possibilities for the player is actually giving more value to the game.
no, there's a big difference, because there's no evidence of existance of pooping or farting function for the npcs in the game, (which isn't really relevant because the game isn't about that and killing is definitely big part of the game) so asking devs to do that would b asking them to code a new function for the npcs, unlike dying function that has been already made and could be simply applied to all the npcs equally.
also cp2077 will already get lots of controversy for pornography in the media that will just make a free advertisement for the game and cdpr doesn't really care about that.
Nope.
Cyberpsychosis varies, it doesn't forcibly makes you loose logic.
Adam Smasher was still a reliable Mercenary, still has goals, etc...
"killing random civilians and get wasted by MaxTac team in the end" is supported by the gameplay:
"- police won’t intervene when they see you commiting some smaller crimes, like for example beating up some random dude on the street, because they treat it as just an everyday occurence in Night City, but if they see you commiting more extreme crimes, like pulling a gun out and shooting bystanders or driving through them with your car, they will absolutely try to fry your ass "
If the mecanic is in the game then it's meant to be used.
Post automatically merged:
Just as cool and fun as killing any pixel mass representing any armless innocent, yet other armless innocents aren't immortals.
There is just no mechanics for that, it doesn't mean you cannot roleplay one unless you cyberpsycho immunity is explained storywise (plus cyberpsychosis was just an exemple anyway, there's a lot of reasons why your V may kill innocent people including childrens).
Or do you implies that if a mechanic isn't explicitely in the game you're not allowed to roleplay it?
Cause that would make it the most restricted RPG ever.
Post automatically merged:
But killing other armless innocent is perfectly normal?
Killing children is no different as killing any other armless innocents (besides market reaction) and you cannot justify one without justify the other.
Post automatically merged:
Trying to ignore something in a game is totally anti-immersive imho.
Post automatically merged:
Exactly my point.
Last edited:
I'm the opposite in that regard. I ignore annoyances (including annoying kids) in real life on a regular basis, and doing the same thing in a game certainly doesn't break immersion to me, especially if I'm roleplaying as "myself" (as much as the game allows me to).
The situation with immortal children running around amidst mayhem and carnage could be rather easily solved by not allowing the player to straightforwardly attack them (i.e. V lifts his gun up and won’t pull the trigger when you point it at them, and full auto fire that sweeps over a crowd...well the rounds might just evade the youth), but allowing them to be collateral damage via enemy fire and explosions.
I think it’s needless to say that those kinds of situations are few and far in between (I don’t believe there will be too many kids running the streets anyway, let alone enemy bases), so ”perverted” minds can’t really exploit it much.
And of course, if the player pulls a bazooka from his magic pockets and fires it into the crowd... it should have dire consequences, more so if there happens to be kids among the victims.
I think it’s needless to say that those kinds of situations are few and far in between (I don’t believe there will be too many kids running the streets anyway, let alone enemy bases), so ”perverted” minds can’t really exploit it much.
And of course, if the player pulls a bazooka from his magic pockets and fires it into the crowd... it should have dire consequences, more so if there happens to be kids among the victims.
Or they just slowly walk out of the raging fire, with a blank expression on their faces fixating you in their sight... then their mouth opens and a deafening high pitched metallic scream... Wait..
How is that what CDPR is doing porn? do you know what porn is? by that logic, every movie with a sex scene is a porno.
alright, but tell me, how blowing up a group of non-children people npcs should have more consequences than blowing up a group of children npcs? are children somehow better kind of human than everyone else to you?
i said that the game contains pornography. i said nothing about cp2077 being porno which would mean that it's a game ABOUT pornography.
Last edited:
Don't worry. At Q&A panel developers assured us that they will. With extreme prejudice.
And I agree that I find killable NPC's to be kind of overrated feature. I would rather have immortal, outside of combat, NPC's with more extensive interaction system then the ability to kill anyone in the game.
There are two different questions being asked here:
1. Should killing children be censored?
2. Does it break the immersion?
Users are arguing with each other based on different assumptions. Let's split up the discussion and answer the questions separately. Note: everything below is my personal opinion.
1. Should killing children be censored?
My rule of thumb is that as little content as possible should be censored, preferably nothing at all. A game shouldn't needlessly censor stuff and I hate it when it does happen. I understand that there are certain laws (especially in some countries) and CDPR doesn't have unlimited (creative) freedom. But even within those laws, a lot should be possible. Besides regulations, the (public) image of the game (and, by extension, the studio) could be in jeopardy when CDPR (dis)allows some (explicit) content. It's never an easy choice.
Regardless, it does set a double standard. We are all fine with playing GTA and running and gunning everyone in the streets. It's not cool behavior, but, nonetheless, we accept it in games. Violence is in our blood, it seems. At the same time, when someone plays, let's say, a pornographic game it's not widely accepted and usually shameful even, especially when it involves -well- illegal activities.
While one could stand on principle to allow the above, the real impact comes from the question below...
2. Does it break the immersion?
That depends on which kind of future the devs want to create. If it's one that shows how little worth a human life is and that death does not make a special exemption for children; if you want that cold hard reality, then yes, for some players, it might break immersion. However, there are other ways to deal with this. For example, having immortal children is always a lazy design decision. Better would be the inability to target children at all.
Either way, there are a lot of things that could break the immersion. For some players, it might be not being able to buy a different apartment. For some others, maybe something as simple as not having the need to eat and sleep. In the end, CDPR cannot cater to everyone and make every aspect immersive. The outcry in this thread mostly seems to be about the first point, while the second one truly matters, in the end.
1. Should killing children be censored?
2. Does it break the immersion?
Users are arguing with each other based on different assumptions. Let's split up the discussion and answer the questions separately. Note: everything below is my personal opinion.
1. Should killing children be censored?
My rule of thumb is that as little content as possible should be censored, preferably nothing at all. A game shouldn't needlessly censor stuff and I hate it when it does happen. I understand that there are certain laws (especially in some countries) and CDPR doesn't have unlimited (creative) freedom. But even within those laws, a lot should be possible. Besides regulations, the (public) image of the game (and, by extension, the studio) could be in jeopardy when CDPR (dis)allows some (explicit) content. It's never an easy choice.
Regardless, it does set a double standard. We are all fine with playing GTA and running and gunning everyone in the streets. It's not cool behavior, but, nonetheless, we accept it in games. Violence is in our blood, it seems. At the same time, when someone plays, let's say, a pornographic game it's not widely accepted and usually shameful even, especially when it involves -well- illegal activities.
While one could stand on principle to allow the above, the real impact comes from the question below...
2. Does it break the immersion?
That depends on which kind of future the devs want to create. If it's one that shows how little worth a human life is and that death does not make a special exemption for children; if you want that cold hard reality, then yes, for some players, it might break immersion. However, there are other ways to deal with this. For example, having immortal children is always a lazy design decision. Better would be the inability to target children at all.
Either way, there are a lot of things that could break the immersion. For some players, it might be not being able to buy a different apartment. For some others, maybe something as simple as not having the need to eat and sleep. In the end, CDPR cannot cater to everyone and make every aspect immersive. The outcry in this thread mostly seems to be about the first point, while the second one truly matters, in the end.
Wouldn’t that be a twist.
It’s a social taboo. You can’t run around flaying kids like you could in Fallout or Deus Ex anymore. The moral compass there might be skewed, but there’s little to be done with that.
The point was to try and get around it in at least somewhat more feasible manner than having immortal beings roaming in the streets or having a world with no children in it. Purely practical pondering.
It is realistic in that children are generally considered more ”precious” (for the lack of a better word) than adults. That’s how societies work (even with a lot of animals).
There might be a weird existential debate to be had about how ultimately every life has as little value since life has no intrinsic purpose and that value is even impossible to measure since we all are individuals in individualistic groups and view the world differently through the self-created social constructions in our cultural bubbles that have been evolving for thousands of years. But there’s no room for that here, and I doubt it’d be very fruitful.
Last edited:
Anyway: No children in the game at all > immortal children
Less immersion breaking.
Less immersion breaking.
I doubt there's narrative justification for random child killing in CP77. It was an oversight in Deus Ex and DXHR. You CAN do whatever you like to anyone, but it's not defined by writing whatsoever. So I would personally prefer a game to be consistent within itself, so it's not a problem in CP77 for me.
- Status