GTA has consistently been this way.

>>2

That may be true, but if we align with the sense of ethics of those who complain, it will turn out like this…

Even Eva is told that it’s not good to kill children, and she just ends up crushing their legs instead…

Well, those who really want to harm children will probably use mods themselves.

In MGS5, I couldn’t shoot the kids, but I wanted to shoot that annoying little brat…

>>4

That’s pretty lenient since you can shoot only when it’s game over.

There are people who go out of their way to disable immortality to do it.

In some game, it was supposed to be that only adults could be run over by cars, but due to a bug, children could also be run over.

If I think about what happened to the fo3 and Skyrim potatoes…

Well, from the manufacturer’s perspective, if they were to implement it and then something like that incident at Ikeda Elementary School happened and they said it had an impact…

In Saipan, when you drive, child pedestrians disappear, and you can’t aim guns or attack.

>>13

Perhaps because guns are so close at hand, everyday conversations require a lot of caution, which I think creates stress.

If you live in a way that might lead to killing over a little irritation…

It’s a natural progression to want to switch to the side that does the killing a lot in games.

Silent Hill F seems like it might seriously involve underage death, but I wonder if that’s okay…

There are some who just revel in tormenting the weak, enjoying themselves as they hurt them.

It’s fine if they just come out, but those kinds of guys definitely like to show off.

There is only risk.

I don’t want to kill children in games, but I want to kill those who complain and unnecessarily take away freedom.

Isn’t it okay to have it even if we sometimes shoot randomly without it?

In that regard, Mario Kart is amazing.

It’s okay to attack with the upper shell while putting a baby in the cart.

In Japanese games, child characters are definitely protected, after all…

I can’t take care of the troubles with the mods, huh?

In America, they conduct serious evacuation drills for terrorist attacks in elementary schools, huh?

Well then, let’s have a child character appear in the MOD so we can kill them…

>>28

Honestly, it would be much easier to implement than a game where you can’t kill children…

Since it’s judged by appearance, it’s fine for even a 3-year-old to look like an adult, right?

The opposite is not allowed.

Well, the fact that there are mods that allow you to kill children doesn’t necessarily mean that the impression of TES and FO has worsened.

>>30

I haven’t talked about impressions, though.

It’s clearly a child’s corpse that I saw in RDR2…

Let’s create a system where those who kill receive a punishment that fits the historical context.

In cyberpunk, you can’t point a gun at children, so it’s detailed.

I’m going to crash into you with my car!!

*Although they may appear small, all the characters are adults.*

Even if there are disclaimers, it will be judged as a no-go just because it’s a childish character.

>>38

It’s discrimination against dwarfism.

>>38

Well, isn’t it obvious?

>>38

In other words… is something like Hajiruzu not allowed…?

“Don’t worry, we’ll consult for you by starting a fire where there’s none!” That’s what’s trending.

If the law allows it, I feel like killing that guy right now—this is what living in a gun society is like.

Was there a child you could shoot in MGS5?

>>41

Child soldiers can only be shot with tranquilizer guns.

KCD has unprotected characters that later reappear, and new quests start, which makes me excited thinking, “If I had killed them back then, would this event not have happened…?”

There are disadvantages to being used for bad-taste games, but there are no advantages.

I’ve seen a MID video where a kid from RDR2 is blasting guns and massacring mobs as a companion.

I don’t want to kill anyone, but it feels unnatural to be protected by such meta circumstances.

Not existing at all is also unnatural.

Whether that contributes to the fun… is where it stands.

I don’t have any complaints about children with immortality attributes, but it annoys me that a brat who tried to trap and kill me has the immortality attribute.

Although children do not appear, it has become a world where one can fall in love with Lord Capon.

By the way, there were no children or extreme elderly people.

I played a lot, but I didn’t notice at all.

The Oblivion had no children, but Skyrim does.

FO is originally the series that made it impossible to kill children in games, but it is present in both 3 and 4.

The ability to kill children is included in the game’s freedom, but it doesn’t mean that all players will be obsessed with killing children.

But some people will definitely do it.

And there’s a high possibility that those guys will stand out for the wrong reasons!

>>57

If you can do it, you’ll just do it for now, right?

It might drop an amazing item.

Maxwell RTA was up to no good, taking advantage of the children being invincible.

>>58

If you handcuff a child and run over them with a car, the car will elevate along with it.

Sometimes there’s a game where you think a child is walking in the city, but it turns out to be a little old man.

Let’s prohibit attacks on child characters in the distribution regulations.

Feel free to play solo.

I was really sad that it deteriorated so much from FO3 to FO4…

Are you serious that even bones are no good?

If it’s 2D, the hurdles are significantly lowered.

Development costs will also decrease.

I wonder when this taboo started and how strong its enforcement is.

I feel like in indie games there are depictions of children dying.

>>65

There are plenty of cases in stories where children die.

However, the fact that players can actively kill children is a separate issue.

>>65

There are probably many games where children die.

I think there are quite a few games where you can attack mobs and kill children.

It’s not necessarily bad for adults, but I guess there’s a strong feeling that it’s definitely not okay for kids.

In Metal Gear 5, children can become enemies both in the game and in the story.

It was really boring to have to put up with not being able to kill while constantly dragging others down.

I can’t understand why the old man is treated as an adult and can be killed.

“I’m just as weak as a child over here.”

>>69

Because I’m an adult.

I think it’s extreme to eliminate the very existence of children, even if you can’t kill them.

Being immortal is enough.

There is a real-life example of Bethesda succeeding with that specification.

The issue is not the depiction of children dying, but whether players can freely kill or if there is a possibility for that to happen.

There are quite a few major blockbuster Western games that feature depictions of death.

>>71

Players cannot kill children at all.

There is a scene in Assassin’s Creed where children are stabbed to death or kidnapped children are weighed down with stones and sunk in a river, and it’s just like “Wow!”

>>82

If there are players who happily attack children while empathizing with Baek, they are true psychopaths…

>>89

“Know the pain of having something important taken from you! It’s often seen in revenge stories…”

>>82

In Assassin’s Creed, there are no child barriers like Shadiya or Boipei, so I was playing the new installment while constantly feeling anxious about Junjiro…

>>100

Junjiro doesn’t die…

I was playing while thinking, “There’s no way this guy is going to survive.”

Anyway, it’s not like you can kill characters that are involved in the story progression, so is it really something to worry about?

>>73

During the heyday of Morrowind, Bethesda didn’t hesitate to let you kill characters involved in the story, right?

In the Spider-Man game, there was a line saying there are hundreds of thousands of children in NY… but there really isn’t a single child NPC.

What players can do in the game is basically part of the play.

The death in the story is a separate matter.

If you want to kill so badly, there’s a game called reality, you know? It’s incredibly realistic.

In a multiplayer game, child characters participate, but if you shoot them, you suffer a penalty, so you have to protect them, even though the children will obviously attack as well.

If it’s a setting that has meaning like that, I can somewhat understand it, but if it’s just a setting where you can kill, then it becomes unnecessary.

Is this a matter of ethics rather than clear laws?

>>80

I think it’s just that I voluntarily avoid them because there are annoying people.

>>83

There are some obsessively perverted people in this thread alone…

>>83

Even bothersome people can be defeated in real life, you know? Is that all there is to your potential?

Whether or not to include children is ultimately a matter of self-regulation.

Aries also says that children did not exist in the Middle Ages…

It seems that people are so focused on whether they can kill children that they overlook other disabilities.

In Western games, hobbits and dwarves can sometimes seem childish.

I guess that area is still off-limits or something.

It’s stressful not to be able to do what seems possible, even though you can see it and it exists but you can’t touch it, so it might be best if it wasn’t there from the beginning.

In other words, if we mass-produce child soldiers…?

I was complained at for making it possible to destroy the shrine.

Well, should we include scenes where children die brutally like in Indian movies or scenes where they suffer terrible abuse…?

I don’t really want to kill random NPCs in the first place…

>>93

If possible, a gamer should just go ahead and do it for now.

>>96

If I don’t want to do it, I won’t…

>>107

It’s not that I find value in killing; I’m just doing it as part of searching for the hidden flags in the game.

When you see a waterfall, it’s the same reasoning as checking if there are any hidden caves.

>>93

After finishing everything, I want to turn the town into ruins. Have you ever wanted to see what would happen?

I don’t want to kill children either…

I want to kill all the adults.

We must not confuse freedom with lawlessness…

Don’t try to make me take responsibility for just being alive.

Could it be that murder is actually something wrong…?

It’s to avoid human rights issues, right?

It may actually be because it’s a hassle to create new modeling and movements for children under the guise of that premise.

>>103

The modeling of children, or rather the facade, can sometimes lead to incidents within the realm of illegal alterations online, resembling cases related to child pornography.

There is also the notion that it’s not acceptable for women to be abducted, so only male abduction victims are considered.

Conversely, it would be great if someone could just create a game like that.

>>105

There seem to be indie works that ignore the child barrier.

Killing mobs in games usually has no benefits anyway.

The disadvantages are bigger to the point where the event’s progress has stopped.

It’s just that there’s a degree of freedom that allows it to be done differently.

>>108

It’s easier to take than to steal…

Also, it can be used as food…

What’s up with the person who has been encouraging real murder just now?

What is wrong with creating depictions of killing children?

If we’re saying that there will be imitators, then having depictions of killing adults could also lead to imitators, which would be problematic, right?

There are many works that take advantage of the fact that punks can’t be killed, simply producing annoying brat characters.

In Kingdom Come, the first one,

The guy walking down the street was shot with a bow for now.

I won’t do it because I’ll get caught if I do it in the city.

Let’s make everything robotic like in the old censorship-themed Germany.

The necessary deaths for the story and the state where the player can freely kill are completely different.

It’s not that I want to kill, but I wonder what kind of reaction it would provoke if I did.

“Our game can let children kill too! Such a selling point is guaranteed to cause a major uproar.”

As a manufacturer, it seems wise not to implement things to endure complaints from troublesome individuals.

Indeed, senselessly killing children feels like it’s one step ahead of R18.

The protection in the system just becomes a target for hackers who want to break through.

Are you seriously thinking that you might get items or achievements by killing children?

>>123

You won’t know until you try, right…?

It’s fine to do whatever in a game.

It’s understandable to feel that it’s a gameplay convenience that you can’t just kill the child mobs.

That doesn’t mean the game becomes boring…

I want to test what happens in-game if I kill this guy during the quest.

I heard that baby zombies and pregnant zombies were scrapped in Bio 2 due to ethical issues.