178 réponses à ce sujet

[Orbweaver]

DA2 does take place over the span of 10 years. So if the child starts as a companion from the beginning at the age of 12-14, they'd be between 22 and 24 at the end (assuming they make it that far).



Just how would Hawke act towards foresaid child? Would s/he foist the "care" off onto another of the companion party, or would s/he take personal responsibility despite it not being his own offspring? Would the child be considered more important on account of the age difference and lack of battle experience... or would Hawke take immediate, less than legitimate maneuvers to "speed up" the developmental process?



Oh, so many ways to play. If only they'd say "yes".

[Some Geth]

Saibh wrote...

I've never encountered a child party member that was likable if they weren't simply flat.



Die, you little maggot.

Late reply but I think he was one of the better party members and boy that says a lot about FF XIII<_<.

Modifié par Some Geth, 13 septembre 2010 - 05:52 .

[Seifz]

Some Geth wrote...

Saibh wrote...

I've never encountered a child party member that was likable if they weren't simply flat.



Die, you little maggot.

Late reply but I think he was one of the better party members and boy that says a lot about FF XIII<_<.

He was one of the better party members!  He had emotions and faults and he was actually interesting!  Unfortunately, he was also really annoying.  Bah.

FFXIII, though.  Top 3 FF games for me (8 and 10 are the other two).

[Some Geth]

Seifz wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

Saibh wrote...

I've never encountered a child party member that was likable if they weren't simply flat.



Die, you little maggot.

Late reply but I think he was one of the better party members and boy that says a lot about FF XIII<_<.

He was one of the better party members!  He had emotions and faults and he was actually interesting!  Unfortunately, he was also really annoying.  Bah.

FFXIII, though.  Top 3 FF games for me (8 and 10 are the other two).

FFXIII was sh!t dude and so was VIII X is ok .

[AlexXIV]

David Gaider wrote...

If there was a child in the party they wouldn't be able to engage in combat. Restrictions in some markets would prevent that-- Germany, for instance, forbids any violence being done to children on-screen.

Which is a good thing, right? (I'm from Germany)

[Cypher0020]

ok..... I think it'd be cute to see a kid progress during the game



10 year old mage at the start... then 15.....then 20 years old etc....



that would be story progression

[Zreon]

I think I could do without a child party member. I'd much rather have a child NPC that you can see grow up over the course of the game. Maybe even your own child if you decide so.



Also: It's not like everything with a child and violence in it is banned in Germany. We're not THAT strict here. It all depends on the way the violence is depicted, the overall scenario and probably the officials doing the testing. Case by case basis.

And even if the game is seen as too violent, it usually only means that you are not allowed to advertise and openly showcase it, but that you are only allowed to sell it to a customer over age of 18 upon request by him/her.

That is of course terrible for the sales and so companies usually try to assure that doesn't happen. Like taking the children out entirely (Fallout) or making them invulnerable (BG).

Still the whole process of determining if a title is suitable for the German market or not is kind of weird sometimes and often critisized by gamers and the industry here.

Because oddly enough games like Dante's Inferno can make it here without cuts, despite the slaying of unborn baby enemies and other tasteless things, while other less graphic games have to suffer some cuts.



In JRPGs, even if you have your token loli partymember who enters fights with you, it's usually all rather tame. I mean you get attacked with blades, guns or claws, but there is no blood or gore usually. People get hit and just shout "Oww!" and shake a bit and if the HP reach zero they collapse only to stand up again after the fight. No blood, no gore.

And Mission from KOTOR is A) not human and not looking like a 14 year old.

[Homebound]

Lukas Kristjanson wrote...

Funny story, in BG1 there was a child alone in one of the wilderness areas. He'd lost his doggy, you see. classically tragic, a showcase of early storytelling genius. He wanted you to find his little pup, so he gave you a chew toy. It was a bloody skull, I believe. The dog was a beefed-up dire wolf that would follow you if you had the toy in inventory, and rip your throat out if you didn’t. Returning to the boy, he thanked you and then changed into a red-shaded ettin before stepping through a portal to the forsaken hellscape he called home. And we laughed and laughed.
 
Then we figured, hey, if you attack him, give him the powers and soundset of a demon, but don’t change his form. That’ll be a lesson for the bastards who take a shot at a "boy" and his dog. I lost my doggie once, so screw those jerks! And we laughed and laughed at our murderous offspring.
 
Then, because of legal and rating considerations in some markets, all children in some builds of the game were set to be invincible. And thereafter, if you attacked yon poor child, He became... something other... a rampaging engine of destruction cloaked in innocent curls, unkillable, who would smell your guilt and seek you like a guided missile of hellfire and hate every time you returned to that area, your only hope was to exit from one side, then return through the opposite for a mad dash to your destination before He would arrive, screaming in his eldritch tongue, scorching the earth with His every step. My Bhaalspawn dumped a lump, I tell you what.
 
And we laughed and laughed because we were all very tired, and phoned our mothers because we should really have called more often. Now if you’ll excuse me, there’s a knock at the door... at this hour? Goodness who could it...

The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. And their was a knock on the door.

[Marionetten]

krasnoarmeets wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

How about a possessed child?

We've already had that in DAO. Remember Connor?

Connor wasn't a party member. I was thinking something along the lines of Wild Flower.

[KalDurenik]

Well everyone know that killing grownups > Killing childrens, sex...

Quiet strange in my opinion its not like i have ever killed a child in any game (that even allowed it) but its funny anyway.

[Tooneyman]

Marionetten wrote...

krasnoarmeets wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

How about a possessed child?

We've already had that in DAO. Remember Connor?

Connor wasn't a party member. I was thinking something along the lines of Wild Flower.

YEs only wild flower gets taken over by an abomination who isn't evil but good. Kind of like a wynne. Only the abmination is more vocal.

[Nerdage]

Rake21 wrote...

Kid: But I think we should help the kitty.

Hawke:  I told you it's not a kitty.

Kid: But it's fluffy and cute

Hawke:  And it's evil!  It's a Pride Demon in disguise and it wants to kill us!

Kid:  ...Why don't you like kitties?

Hawke:  ...I hate you... and we're killing the damn thing.

I take back my last comment, I'm sold on a child companion now.

Just_mike wrote...

The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. And their was a knock on the door.

It was a woman.

Modifié par nerdage, 13 septembre 2010 - 03:24 .

[upsettingshorts]

We've already got Tali in Mass Effect.

/ducks

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 septembre 2010 - 03:21 .

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

We've already got Tali in Mass Effect.

/ducks

Not to mention Alistair ...

[Phaelducan]

Curious.... what's the legal definition of on-screen violence towards kids?



Connor is possessed by a demon...and there are several options to kill Connor. I've never iced the kid (I always enter the fade), but I am aware that you *can* just go upstairs and kill him.



I assume the act isn't depicted, but if the text is on-screen to "Kill Connor" in any way, shape or form then it is clear you are "performing violence on a child."



I'm not trying to argue, I'm actually curious as to the specifics of the law. "No violence towards kids" is too vague to be quantifiable by law.



Examples of said violence include nuking Megaton in FO3 (you don't see the bodies fly apart, but it is CLEAR that there are kids in the town, and you nuke said town). I believe they come back as ghouls, thus not "dead" per se, but definitely a victim of violence.



Also, in Fable 1 and 2 both there is a scene where the hero (as a child him or herself) beats up another child as part of the plot. No, you don't kill the other kid, but you definitely willfully commit violence towards them (does that mean it's ok as long as the character you are playing is not a legal adult?).



Or look at various JRPG games that include under-18 main party members who can be hurt or die if the party wipes (Hope is like, 14 or something but there are many other examples of this).



What is/are the actual law/laws governing depicted acts of violence towards children?

[Xewaka]

AlexXIV wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If there was a child in the party they wouldn't be able to engage in combat. Restrictions in some markets would prevent that-- Germany, for instance, forbids any violence being done to children on-screen.

Which is a good thing, right? (I'm from Germany)

If it gets in the way of storytelling, then no, it isn't. There's no need to get all "darker and edgier" and having gruesome things happening just 'cause; but if it adds more depth and really puts forward the theme and tone of the narrative, and the intended audience can handle it, there is no real reason to force cuts.
"Mature" (for lack of a better tem) content is supposed to be handled by adults and intended to adults. I mean, if the box as a nice BIG "18+" mark printed on the front and another nice and BIGGER "18+" mark on the back, it should be an indicative that letting your ten-years-kid near the game might not be a good idea.
Maybe it's because I'm just "the cool young uncle" to the young'uns in my family, but I actually take the time to double-check what they're playing and make sure it's appropiate for them. And I've gonne all demagoge now, so I'll stop this path.

I see no point in adding childs to the narrative. What could they add? The tone of the setting has been set up nicely by Origins and I see no need of adding a child to the party. It's bound to be a liability and add nothing of value to the party progress.

[PsyrenY]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Ya Zhen approves +50.
By the way, is Jade Empire banned in Germany?

Why would it be? The little girl transforms every time you select her IIRC.
EDIT: Wild Flower, right, that was her name.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 13 septembre 2010 - 05:31 .

[Sal_add]

Xewaka wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If there was a child in the party they wouldn't be able to engage in combat. Restrictions in some markets would prevent that-- Germany, for instance, forbids any violence being done to children on-screen.

Which is a good thing, right? (I'm from Germany)

If it gets in the way of storytelling, then no, it isn't. There's no need to get all "darker and edgier" and having gruesome things happening just 'cause; but if it adds more depth and really puts forward the theme and tone of the narrative, and the intended audience can handle it, there is no real reason to force cuts.
"Mature" (for lack of a better tem) content is supposed to be handled by adults and intended to adults. I mean, if the box as a nice BIG "18+" mark printed on the front and another nice and BIGGER "18+" mark on the back, it should be an indicative that letting your ten-years-kid near the game might not be a good idea.
Maybe it's because I'm just "the cool young uncle" to the young'uns in my family, but I actually take the time to double-check what they're playing and make sure it's appropiate for them. And I've gonne all demagoge now, so I'll stop this path.

I see no point in adding childs to the narrative. What could they add? The tone of the setting has been set up nicely by Origins and I see no need of adding a child to the party. It's bound to be a liability and add nothing of value to the party progress.

I think adding a sense of innocence to the party would be nice addition. Although You dont really need a kid for that...

[saruman31]

Why would i want some lame npc who`s only purpose is to make it harder for me?

[Xewaka]

saruman31 wrote...

Why would i want some lame npc who`s only purpose is to make it harder for me?

Some people like a challenge.

[PsyrenY]

Xewaka wrote...

saruman31 wrote...

Why would i want some lame npc who`s only purpose is to make it harder for me?

Some people like a challenge.

Those people should unplug their mouse/turn their controller upside-down then.

[Sal_add]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

saruman31 wrote...

Why would i want some lame npc who`s only purpose is to make it harder for me?

Some people like a challenge.

Those people should unplug their mouse/turn their controller upside-down then.

Thats no fun

[Tooneyman]

Sal_add wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If there was a child in the party they wouldn't be able to engage in combat. Restrictions in some markets would prevent that-- Germany, for instance, forbids any violence being done to children on-screen.

Which is a good thing, right? (I'm from Germany)

If it gets in the way of storytelling, then no, it isn't. There's no need to get all "darker and edgier" and having gruesome things happening just 'cause; but if it adds more depth and really puts forward the theme and tone of the narrative, and the intended audience can handle it, there is no real reason to force cuts.
"Mature" (for lack of a better tem) content is supposed to be handled by adults and intended to adults. I mean, if the box as a nice BIG "18+" mark printed on the front and another nice and BIGGER "18+" mark on the back, it should be an indicative that letting your ten-years-kid near the game might not be a good idea.
Maybe it's because I'm just "the cool young uncle" to the young'uns in my family, but I actually take the time to double-check what they're playing and make sure it's appropiate for them. And I've gonne all demagoge now, so I'll stop this path.

I see no point in adding childs to the narrative. What could they add? The tone of the setting has been set up nicely by Origins and I see no need of adding a child to the party. It's bound to be a liability and add nothing of value to the party progress.

I think adding a sense of innocence to the party would be nice addition. Although You dont really need a kid for that...

Yeah we get a female elf version of allistair who says shes a virgin. hehe.

[Xewaka]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

saruman31 wrote...

Why would i want some lame npc who`s only purpose is to make it harder for me?

Some people like a challenge.

Those people should unplug their mouse/turn their controller upside-down then.

I dunno. Usually, the only thing needed to up the challenge level in a Bioware game is the removal of magic users form your party. This company cannot help making overpowered mages.