Kids are a bad idea and heres why.

[Albatross]

First scenario- Kids are killable. This game gets banned across multiple countries for featuring sofas made out of babies.

Second scenario - Kids are not killable and therefore break immersion .

There is no win here from adding children to our favorite murder, torture, drug fueled cannibalism fest.

[MortVent]

Messaggio originale di ᛁᚾᛏᛁᛘᚬᚱᛁᚾᛁ:

Messaggio originale di MortVent:

Falllout 2 was banned in Germany for that reason. Till they created a no kids regional version..

Much like Fallout 3 and the later ones had to have region specific versions over drug depictions.

As well as several TES games having ratings changes, and regional versions due to legal issues.

What people forget is there may be games that slip through the cracks because they don't get enough attention.

But take the hot coffee fiasco for Rockstar and GTA. The content was disabled, but still resulted in a couple legal hassles and a ratings change. Because the developer thought simply disabling it would be enough. Same as with Bethesda and using a separate layer for the undies in oblivion, the naked (and featureless ) skin texture was enough to trigger the review boards to re-evaluate the game.

Developers and programmers often think more about the shiny new feature, without thinking about how it will affect things down the road.

Funny thing about Fallout 2 being censored in some versions.. There are killable children in the Den who will pickpocket items from the player. In censored versions, the children aren't simply removed, they are just turned invisible. Meaning there will be invisible children stealing your stuff and the player back then had no idea what was going on.

Yep, was a quick fix done to let it be sold.

The items show up in vendors over time but still.

Other games have had to do kinda the same thing. Like replace undead with some other mob to be sold in China.

[Wilson]

This is a game that allows you to enslave others, harvest Organs, make hats and consume flesh, you're also able to be sexist with your colonist, THAT'S BASE game


Add the mods... The fact this game hasn't gotten more press for the base alone SHOCKS me, also it won't get removed from Steam.

[Morkonan]

Messaggio originale di UncreativelyNamed:

... things generally seen as objectionable can be added by third parties. People will argue both ways, and ultimately the "You people can't separate fantasy from reality!" line comes out. I don't think it's that people can't separate fantasy from reality. I think it's that some people are strongly empathetic, perhaps too much so, and nothing triggers an empathetic response like knowing that a child is in danger. It's how nature and evolution have developed our brain wiring, part of ensuring the survival of the species.

To me, it comes down to this: There are people who can compartmentalize their natural empathy and instincts when they know that the situation is entirely fictional, and there are people who can't do that as easily or at all, even when they know that the situation is entirely fictional. Neither group, IMO, is "bad." I happen to be one of the former group...to an extent. I could probably kill children in my Rimworld game if I felt I needed to do so (though I've not found a reason to do so, frankly, and I've had kids in my game for a long time, via mods), but I avoid killing animals in the game, to the extent that I don't do it at all unless a predator comes after me and I have no choice. And even then, I have the colonists bury the animal, not butcher and eat it. This might say bad things about me, but my empathy for animals, even sprites in a video game, knows no bounds, to the point that I can't compartmentalize it like I can compartmentalize empathy for human sprites, even "baby" ones, in a video game.

So that's what it boils down to, for me. ...

I think you've gone about halfway through the reasoning process. (Not a criticism.) And, btw, I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to think that your "empathy," which we'll get to, is inappropriate at all.

Games try to use all the tools at their disposal to engage their player. This, among other things, helps create "fun."

Attachment... Well, that's a thing, right? We've all probably heard about roleplaying games and MMOs and the like that try to engage players by promoting "attachment" to characters, right?

This is what you're describing.

So, it's not that human beings are naturally empathetic towards pixels and animated sprites on a 2D display. I do not wonder how a pixelated couch feels about its existence being defined by holding up human rear-ends, no matter how soiled those rear-ends may be. Those things do not do... what? What do those pixelated couches "not do" in a game? They do not "evoke" an empathic response. (Probably... maybe.)

All forms of good fiction, even electronic entertainment (games), that have "characters" in them, even if they're not human, try to engage their audience and develop an attachment or "empathy" for those characters. It's a "Step 1" of creating such entertainment. Otherwise, if the audience doesn't "care" about the characters, the audience is not going to be very well entertained, right?

Ever seen a movie where there's obviously supposed to be intense "drama," but you don't "care" at all about the characters at risk? How do you feel about such a movie? And... there ya go - Your lack of engagement and lack of concern and "attachment" to those characters means that million-monies special effect action sequence is... worthless.

If a player feels empathy for a game character, the game's developers have done a good job at their task. Feeling empathy for game characters is a natural reaction of the audience that is evoked by a developer's talent. It is not something that is to be derided - It's the intent of the game's construction.

If you feel empathy for an animal in the game, the developers did a good job somewhere... And, that intent is easily seen - Look at the animals in Rimworld. Watch them struggle to escape as they're wounded. Hear their brief scream as they're slaughtered.... See? They could have not bothered with any of that. But, what would the result have been? A less engaging and much less evocative gameplay mechanic... That would be "bad game development."

Empathy for a game character is not a result of a weakness or vulnerability - It's an intended response by a good developer who is trying to evoke empathy from their audience.

[Hones]

No, it is actually hillarious. Pretty much the same arguments are happening right now, along the lines of "focusing on the horror tropes is a bad idea for a DLC".
Watch it go through the roof and have the entitled complainers have a meltdown in the forums.

[Steven]

This thread was quite old before the recent post, so we're locking it to prevent confusion.