Approvals 12/3 ▼
Syko (6) - 5656d ago Cancel
jazzking2001 (3) - 5656d ago Cancel
Kalail (1) - 5656d ago Cancel
Number 9 (1) - 5656d ago Cancel
The Mikester (1) - 5657d ago Cancel
780°

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 >>
74.125.93.104
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

✔ Fixed
Bad spelling
developersdecided
Deviant5657d ago WhoDisagree(0)Agree(0)
Deviant5657d 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.

KRUSSIDULL5656d ago

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

shazam5656d ago

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

yamamoto1145656d ago

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

LightningPS3PS35656d ago (Edited 5656d 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.

JsonHenry5655d ago

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

Beast_Master5655d 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.

shawnsl655655d ago (Edited 5655d 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 5655d ago
Kingsora5657d ago

They have to discuss it before making a decision :P

shqype5657d 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.

DavidMacDougall5657d 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

Amnesiac5656d 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?"

shawnsl655655d ago

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

Yi-Long5657d 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.

Deviant5656d 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)

ravinash5656d ago (Edited 5656d 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.

wallace10005656d 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 Cole5656d 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.

P.S.

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.

propheta5656d ago (Edited 5656d 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-Long5656d ago (Edited 5656d 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 5656d ago
Captain Tuttle5656d ago (Edited 5656d 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.

Show all comments (80)
80°

Now is the Best Time to Get This Incredible RPG Bundle on Steam

If you are looking for an awesome RPG, look no further. Steam is offering a significant discount on its Fallout Franchise Bundle.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community8h ago
SimpleSlave7h ago

"You can get all Fallout games in a bundle at a significant 20% discount on Steam. Individually, all these games add up to $244.91. With the discount, you can get them all for $195.91. That is $49 less than the original price. Quite a significant discount for such a popular franchise."

😊 😂 🤣 😐 - But why?

Just wait for a sale and get most if not all of it for a fraction of that price.

20% off...lol

Tacoboto7h ago

The games were just on a real sale over the last week or two for the show promotion. Fallout 4 was $10, 3 was $5, NV was cheap as heck too.

So what the heck is this

Inverno6h ago

The original games have been given out for free by Amazon for GOG and Epic, 76 is free now on Amazon if you have prime, Epic has also given out new Vegas for free and 4 has gone down to pretty cheap prices. 194 bucks is a total ripoff when you can get these games individually for less. Don't forget cd keys might sell em for a dollar less at times too. Come on man, us cheapskates won't touch anything near or above 100 lolz

isarai6h ago

Bro that's a ridiculous ripoff are you kidding me? 🤣

150°

Fallout 3's Reveal Led To Death Threats And Bethesda's First Security Guard

The artist behind Fallout 4’s Deathclaw reveals just how bad things got back when Bethesda took over the series

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community1d 12h ago
anast1d 10h ago

People are stupid I get it. No one should feel unsafe,

But I think they need to talk about why they cut so many corners during the development process and why none of their games ever look current. And why they think all of this is okay while they charge full price.

LucasRuinedChildhood1d 10h ago

As much as Bethesda deserve criticism, that's not really relevant to the reveal of Fallout 3 in 2007.

VenomUK1d 7h ago

The default angle Kotaku always go for is to highlight the worst in gaming.

I would’ve focused on the creative.

anast13h ago

The game went downhill at Fallout 3's release. This is when they started to cut corners.

gold_drake1d 6h ago

there is no "but". the hell lol
you dont send death threats, period.

anast13h ago

Usually, you have good comments but this isn't one of them. It just rides the mob. We can do both condemn the actions and not let them use it for other things.

I can say I received a death threat and everyone needs to shut up. People are not honest and will use horrible things to their advantage.

Armaggedon1d 1h ago

Not all games “look” current.

anast13h ago

Their games always look like the gen before it.

Armaggedon3h ago

Yeah, but thats not the result of laziness, incompetence, or a bad engine. Thats what happens with their type of open world games. Its hard for people to find a point of comparison because no one makes games like Bethesda does.

gold_drake6h ago

mh ok thanks, i still think ur wrong in this mate.

anast5h ago

No problem. I'm not here to convince you. I'm only stating an actuality. What your words do if we look at them like events.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3h ago
210°

What Made Fallout 3 One Hell of a Game?

Bethesda's post-apocalyptic RPG remains an unabashed classic, more than a decade and a half on from its launch.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community3d ago
ZeekQuattro4d ago

For me its the fact that I could put hundreds of hours into it and still find areas I missed in my earlier runs. It was also my first FO and despite what I had to put up with at times such as overall crashs and killing my orginal PS3 with the YLOD it's still my favorite entry to this day.

-Foxtrot4d ago

Tons of reasons

But my silly little one…hunting for unique weapons and armour

Something Fallout 4 just didn’t really have as much because they replaced most of it with randomly generated customised weapons. Even Elder Scrolla doesn't do it as well.

Yui_Suzumiya2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

I remember during my first playthrough of Fallout 4 back in 2015 I somehow got an automatic combat rifle that shot explosive rounds by defeating a legendary creature. Unfortunately that was the only playthrough I ever got that weapon. It's a shame because it was absolutely epic!

Vits3d ago

Sense of exploration. That was why older Bethesda games were so good. They might have had glitches, broken mechanics, meh visuals, etc., but they were some of the best around when it came down to the sense of exploration. You could go wherever you wanted and you would find something cool; it might have been a faction, a weapon, an enemy and much more. And that is what they are lacking now. Skyrim still had a lot of that, but Fallout 4 dropped it by focusing on an interconnected world and more randomly generated rewards. Fallout 76 just kept that trend and added multiplayer, and Starfield went even further in killing it by creating a whole universe with parts completely isolated from each other.

EazyC3d ago

I think the retrospective of Fallout: New Vegas' existence has somewhat diminished the view of Fallout 3 in the eyes of many, but it getting out of the vault in Fallout 3 was, for me, the most remarkable experience I've had in a videogame.

I was 12 when it came out, and I remember I just saw the score it got in Gamemaster magazine (remember those!? 😅), and I just went to the shop and bought it with my pocket money.

Not knowing anything about the game, I thought the whole thing was going to be about growing up in a vault, especially given that I'd spent about 2 hours in it....I literally could.not.believe it when you got out and it was just this wasteland on every direction. Amazing.

Tody_ZA3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Probably because these Bethesda games were hand crafted so that exploration meant something. Unlike Starfield where this sense of exploration is replaced with the illusion of scope and procedurally generated worlds. A player can always appreciate when they wonder into an unforgettable new encounter by accident or stumble across a new questline that becomes their favourite. Just like a player can always tell when they're ploughing through filler on auto pilot, that they'll forget the moment some resource numbers go up and nothing worth remembering occurred.

I mean, in Fallout 3 you could nuke an entire town as a SIDE QUEST. In The Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Skyrim, the Dark Brotherhood questlines were my favourite in any RPGs and you could completely avoid them if you didn't care for them. In The Witcher 3 side quests take you on ridiculously dark and mysterious storylines that are some of the best I've played in RPG history. There's a reason why people still talk about KOTOR to this day. Difference between a developer creating something or just padding a game world with stuff.

Fist4achin3d ago

There were some side quests that could yld have been developed into an entirely separate game. Some great writing there.

Show all comments (13)