The reason why you cannot kill kids in Fallout 3

Fallout 3 has received an M rating and would therefore may contain almost anything, the game is meant for adults and not for minors. After a lengthy discussion, the Fallout 3 developers decided that you can not kill children. Click on read more to find out why.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Deviant4656d ago

Actually they've said :"We do not want to cross lines like killing kids (we never actually got as far as just putting kids kill-able in any builds or The Game)"

They've never discussed anything.


Is there even a game you can kill kids at? Always been wondering why there isnt any kids in GTA or Saints Row.

shazam4654d ago

why kill kids in fallout 3 when you can kill them in real life?

yamamoto1144654d ago

Ever think that it might have been something they discussed before beginning any actual work on the game? *roll eyes*

LightningPS3PS34654d ago (Edited 4654d ago )

I hate censorship. Nothing crosses the line, because anything that exists in real life is part of reality. There is never a need to censor, never.

Kids die in real life, they die of cancer, they are born ill. Kids die all the time. They die if an American fighter jet bombs their house in Iraq.

Okay! kids die! Because life is real and kids are a part of life. And life doesn't take it easy on kids. Cancer and other illnesses don't say "Hey it's a poor kid"

If if it happends in life, it should happen in a video game. People don't have the right to hide anything. Censorship is never the answer, nobody has that right. Someone who censors is trying to be above life. And they aren't and just because you hide something, doesn't change what real life is.

I'm sick of how society just wants to protect kids like hypocritic b*tches. Kids are a part of life and they do die. Nothing they do, will make this not be true.

JsonHenry4654d ago

You can kill kids in the first two Fallout Games..

Beast_Master4654d ago

There is a big difference between censorship and decency. Look at Bioshock you can kill children and no one cares because it is in the context of evil, it is different. The developers didn't make kids killable not because they wanted to or felt pressured not to. They did it because of their own moral standing. This isn't even an issue of outside forces making developers not make the game they want to make. Take your soap-box else-where.

shawnsl654654d ago (Edited 4654d ago )

kid's wouldn't die by gunshot in the face if freaks and sickos like you didn't exist. HS shooting ring a bell anyone? Where'd they get the idea, oh that's right GTA. There're some sick sick people out there that would actually incorporate a game into real life. So not everyone is a SANE player. That's why devs don't put this type of sh1t in game.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4654d ago
Kingsora4656d ago

They have to discuss it before making a decision :P

shqype4656d ago

I can understand why they would do that, but in MY game I would definitely allow the killing of children. I don't believe in censorship, and feel in such an experience a person should be allowed to do (in the game) anything that would be possible to do in real life: killing children included.

DavidMacDougall4655d ago

The end of Bioshock where you need to protect the child i keep loading it everytime she died even tho it dont matter if she did ,there is something not right being able to kill kids in videogames there are to many weirdos in the world

Amnesiac4654d ago

LOL @ the Bioshock reference...

Didn't you listen to Atlas?

"Would you kindly lower that weapon...

...You think that's a child down there?"

shawnsl654654d ago

hope the authorities put you on their "potential child murdering" list using IP tracker to track your ass down sicko

Yi-Long4655d ago

... when you pretend to have a free-roaming, sand-box kinda game, or when it just fits the setting and your abilities to do so.

When I play a game set in a large city, I expect to see people of all ages and all walks of life. So young and old, black and white, pretty and ugly, etc etc. And if I can kill the healthy white man, and I can run over the adult black woman, why wouldnt I be able to smash some kid's head in with a baseballbat!?

Does that mean I would ever do such a thing in real life? Does that mean I enjoy violence, or violence against kids? Does it make me a bad person? No, no, and probably no. I just dont want MY gameplay-experience limited because of someone else's 'morals and values'.
When I play a game, I wanna be able to do what I want against who I want. So when I can shoot certain kinds of people, and the game is set in a certain setting that would also provide for children, pets, old people, disabled people, etc... I want those also in the game, and I just want the game to provide me the freedom to do what I want to them.

It's a gameplay thing, it's a realisme thing, it's an anti-censorship thing.

Actually, I think it would make some people think more about what we do in a game. Why is it that we dont feel 'bad' about killing a regular guy in a videogame, but suddenly it's 'taboo' to kill a kid!?

Either way, it's a touchy subject and I can understand developers shying away from including it... mostly because of all the bad press it will obviously be thrown upon the game, with populistic politicians and newsanchors crying outrage etc... but I do feel we need to make those extra steps when we want to further the videogame industry into proper maturity.

Think about movies with violence against kids, or innocent women etc.

Deviant4655d ago

have to disagree.
Killing kids goes to far and isnt needed at all to enjoy a game ( and if u think it is needed ..well)

ravinash4655d ago (Edited 4655d ago )

I think its fine to be able to kill kids if there are repercussions for it. Like if you did, no one will want to have anything to do with you. And people will come after you.

wallace10004655d ago

I think i am with Deviant on this one, being able to kill kids wouldn't add anything to the game. Unless you are a very strange individual that would enjoy that.

Darrius Cole4655d ago

Depict the killing of children. The movie may tell you that it happened, but they never actually show it. They youngest person that you will see get killed in an American movie, TV show, or comic is an adolescent that has clearly begun their child-bearing years.

The Devs cut child-killing because it would generate a storm of bad press against an indefensible position. Their is nothing that devs could say to justify the need for depicting the killing of children. Their games would be "voluntarily" pulled from every shelf in almost every store in the country.


For old-fashioned people, like me, who know that all healthy men, whether they realize it or not, are hard-wired to protect women and children it matter who you kill in a game. There is no shock or sense of taboo in killing an adult man. There is more emotional involvement when the game depicts the killing of an adult women. If the woman is innocent you get a greater sense of being a bully and a more evil character; if the woman is evil you get a greater sense of being a strict administrator of justice. The emotional involvement in the killing of children is so extreme as to be unjustifiable and unbearable.

propheta4655d ago (Edited 4655d ago )

I'm sorry, but this is a question of social acceptance. The life of a Human Being has the same value, whether we talk of a young boy, an old lady, a 5 month baby or a 66 year old man. There are protective instincts, but remember that in our society, children suffer greatly from physical and sexual abuse. It's a double-edge sword: we love children instinctively, but they are also easy targets for domestic violence and sexual perversion

I think that it is a great hypocrisy, making the death of adults something acceptable in a videogame to the point that most of these sandbox games focus on killing representations of people that wander through the virtual spaces. In GTA, I am able to kill a teenager, an adult or even an old lady crossing the road with her shopping bags. How is this any more acceptable than, say, running over a 12 year old child?

I, for one, disagree with the abusive use of death in a videogame to a point where death is devoid of any impact or consequence. Most of the so-called “sandbox” titles turn death into something of a requirement so that you can exist in that space. In FPS you interact with the surrounding world making use of a gun, because killing is the objective. Death becomes meaningless. So if you tell me that killing a child on a videogame has some impact, well, maybe that’s because it has never been used before in a commercial game. But please remember that killing an adult was something awful and intolerable before it became standard in most videogames – especially north-American videogames, for some reason.

I won’t be surprised if, in the future, a videogame will be including this sort of contents: and surely it will be followed by many others to a point where killing children also becomes standard in videogames.

So that’s why I laugh at these statements: like these videogame creators had any moral or ethics?! They only avoid this sort of content because it would be prejudicial, bad publicity would fall on them, harsh criticisms, and the game sales would suffer. But, on the other hand, if it meant more dollars, I bet you that they’d include child deaths in the game: they’d make them as violent as they could to sell a few more copies.

If you want a sandbox game that was made by people with values, go play Shenmue: a treaty on how to make free exploration games, with a world and a society around the player with which you can interact, instead of just “approach and kill”.

Yi-Long4654d ago (Edited 4654d ago )

... first of all, I'm not saying the ability to kill kids and elderly people and disabled people etc in a game, would be FUN, or SHOULD be fun. I CAN be fun, for some I guess, but that's not the argument why I think it should be in the game.

Let's have a game like GTA4: realistic setting, mature story, adult rating. It's set in a huge city, and gives you the freedom to do what you want. Right? In a huge city you would also come across kids, elderly peeps, disabled people, etc. Right!?
If we're gonna pretend we have a realistic mature game in a realistic setting that allows total (moral) freedom, shouldnt you at least be able to be a complete bastard as well!?

I think so.

But I can understand why people have moral objections about it, however hypocritical they are.

So let's give another example. Let's say we have a new Vietnam shooter, set in the asian jungle. At that time, and this is historical factual, there were also kids fighting on behalf of the vietcong (ofcourse). We read this in the books, we see this in the movies. Why shouldnt we see this in a videogame!?

See, borderline decision, right!? Still a kid, but a kid with a gun in his hands to kill you (you, the evil american intruder that came into HIS life uninvited and killed half his family).

I'm not saying there are lots of movies and books include the graphic depiction of violence/murder against kids. But there are more than a few, and we have come to accept and respect that, as it's part of mature storytelling in a mature medium, aimed at a mature audience.

Games also will need to make those steps into further maturity.

And please dont mistake violence in videogames with real-life violence. I am CRAZY about ALL animals. I LITERALLY wouldnt hurt a fly, I carry spiders outside instead of smashing them, I pet every cat I come across, and I feed the ducks behind the house almost every day. That being said, I LOVE CHICK'NKICK'N in Fable! It's just a completely different thing. The emotions behind it all are WAY different.
I can enjoy shooting a guy right in the face when it's in a videogame, but in real life, it's a whole lot less fun as it seems! So I dont do that. I dont even have any wish or aspirations to ever do so.

So many gamers HERE are hypocritical. When it comes to virtual violence in videogames, pretty much every gamer agrees it doesnt make gamers more violent or turn them bad or whatever. However, when we're talking about virtual violence against KIDS in a videogames, half the gamers suddenly say it's OTT and it's evil and bad etc.

Another argument made is that it doesnt 'enhance the fun'. Maybe not, but does it have to? And IF that's the case, why do we still get outraged when companies censor their games to exclude blood, or make fatalities appear offscreen, or change the color of blood!?

When you would have told me 10 years ago I would one day enjoy strolling around a medieval village kicking sweet animals around with a smile on my face, and enjoying it, I probably would have had my doubts. Now, I know I can enjoy that little additional freedom in a game, and STILL love animals with all my heart. Weird how that works, ey!?

Back to the start: We want games to 'mature'!? Then offer us REALISTIC settings and freedoms when it comes to moral decisions like this.

edit: final point I would like to make.
How these kind of things are adressed in games, is obviously in the hands of the developers. And just as with movies, you'll have cheap exploitation of it, and you will have masterpieces which will really include these moral decisions into a big difficult story which will have an emotional impact in the player. That will thus differ from game to game.
Look at movies: You have cheap slasher movies with kids horribly cut open and exploding, and you have revengeflicks where you see a kid getting murdered so you can relate to the victim's friend/dad/mother/whatever search for revenge, and you have movies like where kids pose a threat and you have no other option but to take them out, etc etc. So it's all about the context in which this is all set.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4654d ago
Captain Tuttle4655d ago (Edited 4655d ago )

You could kill kids in the first 2 games but there were pretty severe consequences...the bounty hunters that came after you became so tough towards the end that you couldn't survive. Gaming was much less mainstream back then though...I can see why the took kid killing out of this version.

Groin shots on the other hand should have been left in.