221 réponses à ce sujet

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Lady light doorbell wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...

Kids are innocent, would you kill your own? The fact that someone suggested this is horrifying

No, but my character isn't me. My character is who I make him. Maybe I decide to make him a sociopath. The fact that you are so ignorant is horrifying .

The fact that you want to kill kids is worse,

But I don't want to kill kids. I Just said that.

Eski.Moe wrote...

If children die as means of a plot point, as in a whole city gets nuked or something similar. Or young Mage Apprentices get murdered by an evil Mage or whatever (ala Star Wars) and letting us see something of the aftermath (with the actual act happening off-screen of course). 
In those types of cases, I suppose it could be alright or if the actions of your character inadvertently end up causing these types of consequences. But actively killing a child? No. Not in Dragon Age, not in any game. You notice with movies like Saw and Hostel, that there are only adults. Right? 

It's apparent that my view of the pinnacle of gaming vastly differs from yours.

So you're going to tell me seeing someone have gut a guy to get a key to some comtraption that's strapped to his head is less disgusting as killing a child?

Really?

[_-Greywolf-_]

Sabariel wrote...

No, because then the game would be banned in some countries.

....Why do you want to watch a pixel child die anyway?

Well I gotta admit that it was kind of funny when you kill Louis Pan in Deus Ex.

[Frank the Running Bugzepel]

GodWood wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...

GodWood wrote..
Adults can be innoccent too yet they are allowed to be shown being killed.
Whats the difference?

One cannot make a well thought of choice while the other knows the full consequence of there actions.

This is irrelevent. (and not entirely true)
I can kill an innoccent adult yet not a child, why?

Because a child cannot make a well thoughtful of choice. Are you suggesting that every child in DA knows what really is going on? Connor was only trying to help his dad, yet he didn't know the full extent of his choice. Should we kill him for his mistake?

[Lord Gremlin]

Eski.Moe wrote...

You're kidding yourself if you think that's ever going to be in a Bioware (or almost any game for that matter) game. There's realism and there's taking it too far. This is the latter.

I can think of some such games games. However I have to agree that Bioware will never make such a game and that such games are never released in USA or Australia.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Sabariel wrote...



1. It can be believable and emotional without showing the kid's innards expelling themselves from his ears. Connor's death was believable and touching without an on-screen death. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it automatically should be done.

But just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 200 years ago owning a slave was fine, 100 years ago women weren't allowed to vote, and 50 years ago an interracial marriage would of been taboo. Even in modern times we have them, ridiculous taboos that do nothing beneficial to society. Look at Gay Marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell, both are ridiculous concepts perpetuated by the Christian Right. 

Taboos aren't always a good thing.

[upsettingshorts]

Lady light doorbell wrote...
Because a child cannot make a well thoughtful of choice. Are you suggesting that every child in DA knows what really is going on? Connor was only trying to help his dad, yet he didn't know the full extent of his choice. Should we kill him for his mistake?

Kill him as punishment?  No.

Kill him to remove the Abomination's influence over Redcliff?  Maybe.

Do I need to personally see him die in order to feel the weight of that decision?  No. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:31 .

[GodWood]

Lady light doorbell wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...

GodWood wrote..
Adults can be innoccent too yet they are allowed to be shown being killed.
Whats the difference?

One cannot make a well thought of choice while the other knows the full consequence of there actions.

This is irrelevent. (and not entirely true)
I can kill an innoccent adult yet not a child, why?

Because a child cannot make a well thoughtful of choice. Are you suggesting that every child in DA knows what really is going on? Connor was only trying to help his dad, yet he didn't know the full extent of his choice. Should we kill him for his mistake?

No, he gets killed because he's possessed not as a means of punishment.

[Eski.Moe]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Eski.Moe wrote...

If children die as means of a plot point, as in a whole city gets nuked or something similar. Or young Mage Apprentices get murdered by an evil Mage or whatever (ala Star Wars) and letting us see something of the aftermath (with the actual act happening off-screen of course). 
In those types of cases, I suppose it could be alright or if the actions of your character inadvertently end up causing these types of consequences. But actively killing a child? No. Not in Dragon Age, not in any game. You notice with movies like Saw and Hostel, that there are only adults. Right? 

It's apparent that my view of the pinnacle of gaming vastly differs from yours.

So you're going to tell me seeing someone have gut a guy to get a key to some comtraption that's strapped to his head is less disgusting as killing a child?

Really?

Did I say that? I find both equally as repulsive but I was just stating that you did not see children in such situations in the movie. Besides, Saw is a completely different animal than DA and marketed towards a different group.

[Leonia]

I don't mind letting Isolde kill her son for her stupid mistake but.. that's really not helping my argument that we shouldn't be demanding to see children killed in a video game.

It disturbs me a little that people are trying to have this debate when it is ILLEGAL to show such things in most countries. Ya'll can debate with the morality of the law all you like. I'm going to indulge in some popcorn while watching you guys go in circles, don't mind me.

Modifié par leonia42, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:34 .

[Sabariel]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Sabariel wrote...



1. It can be believable and emotional without showing the kid's innards expelling themselves from his ears. Connor's death was believable and touching without an on-screen death. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it automatically should be done.

But just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 200 years ago owning a slave was fine, 100 years ago women weren't allowed to vote, and 50 years ago an interracial marriage would of been taboo. Even in modern times we have them, ridiculous taboos that do nothing beneficial to society. Look at Gay Marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell, both are ridiculous concepts perpetuated by the Christian Right. 

Taboos aren't always a good thing.

Dude, you just completely broke my brain. I can't believe you put child killing and human rights issues on the same plateau. I am... speechless.

Modifié par Sabariel, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:41 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

You didn't specify, and while I assumed, I didn't care. It being my opinion is irrelevant and was merely to state that I'm welcoming to it.

I didn't specify because there was nothing to specify. You hadn't brought its alleged inevitability on the table yet. It being your opinion is quite relevant because there are a lot of people who play games to take a break from reality and for similar reasons and don't care much for 100% realism in games and even less so when the realism in question includes child murder.

[Eski.Moe]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Sabariel wrote...



1. It can be believable and emotional without showing the kid's innards expelling themselves from his ears. Connor's death was believable and touching without an on-screen death. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it automatically should be done.

But just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 200 years ago owning a slave was fine, 100 years ago women weren't allowed to vote, and 50 years ago an interracial marriage would of been taboo. Even in modern times we have them, ridiculous taboos that do nothing beneficial to society. Look at Gay Marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell, both are ridiculous concepts perpetuated by the Christian Right. 

Taboos aren't always a good thing.

Are you serious?
How is killing children anything akin to what you listed there?
The abolition of the above was done for the benefit of human rights and giving everyone a fair go (the ideal of it at least) whereas views towards killing children should pretty much stay the same as far as I'm concerned.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Eski.Moe wrote...

You're kidding yourself if you think that's ever going to be in a Bioware (or almost any game for that matter) game. There's realism and there's taking it too far. This is the latter.

I can think of some such games games. However I have to agree that Bioware will never make such a game and that such games are never released in USA or Australia.

Convenient that those two countries are controlled by an overpowerful Christian Right. How long until America starts blocking sites that are deemed "Unfit for viewing" and forces providers to follow a domain blacklist.

Oh wait, it's already hear.

http://www.thedailyt...ist-01662.html/
And people criticize China's censorship?

[upsettingshorts]

Eski.Moe wrote...
whereas views towards killing children should pretty much stay the same as far as I'm concerned.

Really? I think changing those views would be quite A Modest Proposal.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:36 .

[Frank the Running Bugzepel]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Eski.Moe wrote...

You're kidding yourself if you think that's ever going to be in a Bioware (or almost any game for that matter) game. There's realism and there's taking it too far. This is the latter.

I can think of some such games games. However I have to agree that Bioware will never make such a game and that such games are never released in USA or Australia.

Convenient that those two countries are controlled by an overpowerful Christian Right. How long until America starts blocking sites that are deemed "Unfit for viewing" and forces providers to follow a domain blacklist.

Oh wait, it's already hear.

http://www.thedailyt...ist-01662.html/
And people criticize China's censorship?

It's not about Christian Right, it's about ethics. Do we really need to see a kid die right in front of us? What value does it bring?

[Eski.Moe]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Eski.Moe wrote...
whereas views towards killing children should pretty much stay the same as far as I'm concerned.

Really? I think changing those views would be quite A Modest Proposal.

Haha, so Swift had the right of it then?

[Icinix]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

But just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 200 years ago owning a slave was fine, 100 years ago women weren't allowed to vote, and 50 years ago an interracial marriage would of been taboo. Even in modern times we have them, ridiculous taboos that do nothing beneficial to society. Look at Gay Marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell, both are ridiculous concepts perpetuated by the Christian Right. 

Taboos aren't always a good thing.

I wouldn't group slavery, interracial marriage, and womans rights in the same category as being able to virtually murder a child.

So believe what you choose, but thats kind of a massive jump to make, and one that I wouldn't say is entirely appropriate or respectful to the people who fought against real oppression.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Eski.Moe wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Eski.Moe wrote...

If children die as means of a plot point, as in a whole city gets nuked or something similar. Or young Mage Apprentices get murdered by an evil Mage or whatever (ala Star Wars) and letting us see something of the aftermath (with the actual act happening off-screen of course). 
In those types of cases, I suppose it could be alright or if the actions of your character inadvertently end up causing these types of consequences. But actively killing a child? No. Not in Dragon Age, not in any game. You notice with movies like Saw and Hostel, that there are only adults. Right? 

It's apparent that my view of the pinnacle of gaming vastly differs from yours.

So you're going to tell me seeing someone have gut a guy to get a key to some comtraption that's strapped to his head is less disgusting as killing a child?

Really?

Did I say that? I find both equally as repulsive but I was just stating that you did not see children in such situations in the movie. Besides, Saw is a completely different animal than DA and marketed towards a different group.

Bull****. DAO was rated M, M stand for "Mature 17+". M is the equivalent of R in movies. They're both marketed at young adults, if children are playing the game the blame falls on the parents, not the industry. Maybe parents should be more invested in their child before they blame the video game, or any other industry.

And for the record, required age limits doesn't solve the problem. Just because a games rated M it should not be ruled out for anyone below 17. Parents should stop and think "Is this game appropriate for MY child?" and go from there, not blindly follow a box.

[Herr Uhl]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

But just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 

...what?

[GodWood]

Lady light doorbell wrote...
It's not about Christian Right, it's about ethics. Do we really need to see a kid die right in front of us? What value does it bring?

Again, do we really need to see an adult die in front of us? What value does it bring?

I'm not understanding this innocent adults can be killed whereas children cannot mentality.

[upsettingshorts]

GodWood wrote...
I'm not understanding this innocent adults can be killed whereas children cannot mentality.

That's because it's an arbitrary distinction based on society's agreed upon cutoff for adulthood.

But it's also not strictly relevant to why Dragon Age doesn't allow the player to do it, or why they should.  So... why focus on it?

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Lady light doorbell wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Eski.Moe wrote...

You're kidding yourself if you think that's ever going to be in a Bioware (or almost any game for that matter) game. There's realism and there's taking it too far. This is the latter.

I can think of some such games games. However I have to agree that Bioware will never make such a game and that such games are never released in USA or Australia.

Convenient that those two countries are controlled by an overpowerful Christian Right. How long until America starts blocking sites that are deemed "Unfit for viewing" and forces providers to follow a domain blacklist.

Oh wait, it's already hear.

http://www.thedailyt...ist-01662.html/
And people criticize China's censorship?

It's not about Christian Right, it's about ethics. Do we really need to see a kid die right in front of us? What value does it bring?

Do we really need to NOT see it? As for seeing it, all I can say is not seeing a death will never be as impactful as seeing the death.

Icinix wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

But just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 200 years ago owning a slave was fine, 100 years ago women weren't allowed to vote, and 50 years ago an interracial marriage would of been taboo. Even in modern times we have them, ridiculous taboos that do nothing beneficial to society. Look at Gay Marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell, both are ridiculous concepts perpetuated by the Christian Right. 

Taboos aren't always a good thing.

I wouldn't group slavery, interracial marriage, and womans rights in the same category as being able to virtually murder a child.

So believe what you choose, but thats kind of a massive jump to make, and one that I wouldn't say is entirely appropriate or respectful to the people who fought against real oppression.

The point stands though. Just because it's extreme doesn't invalidate it, the correlation is relevant.

Modifié par TonyTheBossDanza123, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:42 .

[Herr Uhl]

GodWood wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...
It's not about Christian Right, it's about ethics. Do we really need to see a kid die right in front of us? What value does it bring?

Again, do we really need to see an adult die in front of us? What value does it bring?

I'm not understanding this innocent adults can be killed whereas children cannot mentality.

Same reason that pedophilia is outlawed in most places probably.

[Sabariel]

Herr Uhl wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

But just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 

...what?

That was pretty much my reaction as well...

Modifié par Sabariel, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:43 .

[GodWood]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

GodWood wrote...
I'm not understanding this innocent adults can be killed whereas children cannot mentality.

That's because it's an arbitrary distinction based on society's agreed upon cutoff for adulthood.

But it's also not strictly relevant to why Dragon Age doesn't allow the player to do it, or why they should.  So... why focus on it?

Connor can be killed, yet people don't want it to be shown.
I do not understand why this [killing Connor] is different. [to killing an adult NPC]

Modifié par GodWood, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:46 .