Gender: Male Location: In Luna's mane, chasing STAAARS!
Everyone in a videogame isn't real but killing even a fictional kid will affect you in a lot of ways. How is this difficult for you to comprehend? Btw, I never killed any kids in any game. I'm just saying what my natural reaction would be if that ever happened.
WTH?!
You're talking about wanting to kill kids and you're telling me what I'm saying is crap?
No, actually, it won't...when compared to how killing other types are considered.
Sure, it would be individual and SOME people would be very shaken up by it...but so would some women who have been recently raped while prostituting. Meaning, your argument is not more valid for why we should do "no children" than we should for any other demographic.
I think I quite grasp you position. The problem is not what I am unable to comprehend, by why you are not able to comprehend that your position is arbitrary and accidentally hypocritical.
Who do you know that, though, if you've never done it?
If you have a problem separating reality from fantasy, then killing children in a video game would be the least of your worries.
I'm talking about IN GAME, GTA.
When you're speeding along and accidentally (or intentionally) run people over, you really can't tell who you're running over too well. If you take the time to slowly run over people, then you're just enjoying yourself. But I never went out of my way to do bad stuff in any Sandbox games.
Actually, no, if you think that's my position, then you don't know what why my position is, at all.
You said this to me:
But that actually applies to you: you don't even know what my position is. I even explained it to you three times now (once implicitly, twice, directly).
My position is this: adding children to mature sandbox games and allowing them to be killed just like any other NPC game. Why? because the line drawn for "no-children" is arbitrary and hypocritical. "But...they are innocent!" That's a shit argument: the adults you have fun killing in sandbox games are innocent, too...if you choose to place arbitrary and WRONG qualities on your fictional, in-game NPCs, of course (because they cannot be innocent...they are not even alive).
Yes, questioning arbitrary societal norms as they pertain to video games is definitely shitty conversation. Especially if it pertains to a low-brow franchise that has been controversial over the years.
A little disturbed at first (just like I would be if I heard an animal scream when run over by a car), but ultimately no, I'd get used to it and go on having fun since it's a freaking game; one in which you can kill people in a myriad of ways, least of all by running them over.
Still, people are obviously rattled by this, so the smartest thing to do would be to exclude children. Wouldn't really deter the gameplay, just a slight loss in your sense of immersion, which would quickly pass.
__________________
"To all visitors from Transylvania looking for the head of Voivode Dracula: Yes, we have it. Yes, he's dead. No, you cannot see it. No, he will not return and invade you again. It has been over thirty years, please stop pestering us."
Other than esthetic looks or maybe adding a silencer, I don't see how it could be an enticing feature.
homemade bombs sounds cool though
and I like that idea of using people as shield
I wish there were stealth kills as well, slitting someone's throat for an instant kill it's a much better way to go about killing isolated people. I hated you couldn't do that in GTAIV, everything had to be a shootout. ditto handguns without silencer.
but don't do "stealth" missions, those barely ever work, just add it as a gameplay feature to use whenever you desire/are able to
__________________
"When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die." -BANE
That's why I hated/loved Vice City. It was so cumbersome.
San Andreas got better but still annoying. That's why GTA4 was pretty good for me because it didn't feel like bad controlling it. I expect GTA5 to be better. Hopefully.
It's strange though that I never finished a GTA game without using cheats. I just get too annoyed by the missions. Some of them are ****ing hard as shit.
2. How dare I voice what I like and don't like about video games in the video gaming section.
I as well. I only turn on infinite ammo, though. I get tired of the ammo needs. (People say I'm stupid and just don't play right if I have to use infinite ammmo. Well...screw them and their ammoey ways).
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Nov 8th, 2011 at 04:20 AM
I remember there was a mission where you had to beat a guy in a race to get his favour in Vice City.
Could never ****ing beat him, no matter how hard I tried. Put on a cheat where everybody floats or something. He started to drive really fast and just floated away.
Every game gets better with it's difficulty because of the checkpoints after each part of the mission (drive a car to a place, then start shooting it out, then chase a guy and then die at the last minute and have replay the entire mission plus drive to the mission point was ****ing annoying).
Yes, there needs to be TONS of checkpoints. to the point of it being "micro-check points".
I think that's the way it should be in any game where missions will last more than 5 minutes. It's just annoying to have to do all of that crap over again. InFamous 1 and 2 did decently about having lots of check points...so it's not unheard of in a game.
Every time the action changes, have a checkpoint. For instance, if you drive to a building, checkpoint, then when you shoot it out, checkpoint, when the guy who you need to kill starts running away, checkpoint, when you kill him, checkpoint, when you get chases by the cops, checkpoint. When you complete the mission, auto-save.
As well, games should have multiple save fiiles instead of one in my opinion. Have an autosave and a user save.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 7th, 2011 09:37 AM
A.
