Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, but I'd rather it be implemented directly into the game, so it doesn't break it. Assuming they are still using papyrus, which is about as resilient as a cracker.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And it would be nice if beth got over it's "Oh no, you can't kill kids, that would be wrong!"

It's something of an industry standard I think. It would result in the game getting the highest rating possible. Plus, the ability to kill kids would no doubt result in the church getting involved along with a Million Mothers, who will chant "DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING"

I dunno. I've never been able to see why the inability to kill something (children especially) makes a game worse. Maybe because I'd never do it in a game like this - to concious about stuff like that

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I dunno. I've never been able to see why the inability to kill something (children especially) makes a game worse. Maybe because I'd never do it in a game like this - to concious about stuff like that

Two words - Little Lamplight.

Also see - Jarl Baalgruff's or whateverhisnameis children.

It all boils down to the age old "The children! Won't someone please think of the children!" or some gak, but as soon as that kid turns to a legal age, feth it, you're free to kill the everliving gak out of it.

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I dunno. I've never been able to see why the inability to kill something (children especially) makes a game worse. Maybe because I'd never do it in a game like this - to concious about stuff like that

Role-play mostly. Sometimes I want to be a dark lord who slaughters villages with no survivors. And sometimes I want to do a quick-save and repeatedly kill a character I despise over and over again. Or what If I've just murdered a character and a child saw it, no way to stop it from being reported.

 BrookM wrote:
It all boils down to the age old "The children! Won't someone please think of the children!" or some gak, but as soon as that kid turns to a legal age, feth it, you're free to kill the everliving gak out of it.

Funnily enough, that was also part of the little lamplight segment - you have all these annoying immortal kids, but the one who isn't immortal is the kid who just became 16.

I'm sure if any Fallout or Elder Scrolls game had some sort of aging mechanic then the "Heroes" will be attending quite a few birthday parties.

The Lone Wanderer may even be waiting outside Little Lamplight on a few select occasions.

Heh, I can see it now -

"Hey, McCready, remember how you talked about pissing on my grave 4 years ago? Let's have a friendly little chat about that. Oh this? That's just a tool I found in the Pitt, don't worry about it. Oh, why I am I wearing a raincoat? Thought there might be a sudden downpour today"

*Shrug*

There are countries where being able to kill the kids would get the game banned.

So, better to avoid it, and let somebody make a mod, nyet?

The Auld Grump

The second game made a fourth wall breaking joke about it as well.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You could always not take Intense Training. That's a perfectly valid option.

A better way, if you really want definition, is the option to skip taking a perk, perhaps in exchange for a chunk of exp towards the next level instead. That way you're not even forced to take a throwaway perk you don't want.

Or let you save perks for later like Skyrim does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hopefully they let you kill everybody in this game though. I don't want a repeat of skyrim.

And it would be nice if beth got over it's "Oh no, you can't kill kids, that would be wrong!"



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, perception 9 looks like shooting through walls, interesting...

Letting players kill kids is a bad idea. Bethesda would get hammered by the censors in certain countries (Germany, Australia etc). And media demagogues (Jack Thompson, Anita Sarkeesian etc) would pounce on the game and kick up a gak storm (Fallout 4 promotes child abuse!). It just isn't worth the hassle and negative press.

This is something that's more suited to Modding.

Jack Thompson is no longer the problem, it's Tumblr and its ilk you need to look out for.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I dunno. I've never been able to see why the inability to kill something (children especially) makes a game worse. Maybe because I'd never do it in a game like this - to concious about stuff like that

Role-play mostly. Sometimes I want to be a dark lord who slaughters villages with no survivors. And sometimes I want to do a quick-save and repeatedly kill a character I despise over and over again. Or what If I've just murdered a character and a child saw it, no way to stop it from being reported.

But if you slaughter entire villages with no survivors, who will spread tales of your massacres and therefore fear? Don't you want to drive your enemies before you and hear the lamentation of their children?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I dunno. I've never been able to see why the inability to kill something (children especially) makes a game worse. Maybe because I'd never do it in a game like this - to concious about stuff like that

Two words - Little Lamplight.

If anything made you want to kill children in the FO series, it's Little Lamplight

 Sigvatr wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I dunno. I've never been able to see why the inability to kill something (children especially) makes a game worse. Maybe because I'd never do it in a game like this - to concious about stuff like that

Two words - Little Lamplight.

If anything made you want to kill children in the FO series, it's Little Lamplight

What, seriously? They were nice, and cute. It is put in a different light if you have the Child at Heart perk. Also Waser Wiffle.

 The Wise Dane wrote:
What, seriously? They were nice, and cute. It is put in a different light if you have the Child at Heart perk. Also Waser Wiffle.

That loud kid thinking that he can order me around and ask me a favor before entering? Bad idea son. Bad idea. Good news: he finally met mommy and daddy again!

 The Wise Dane wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I dunno. I've never been able to see why the inability to kill something (children especially) makes a game worse. Maybe because I'd never do it in a game like this - to concious about stuff like that

Two words - Little Lamplight.

If anything made you want to kill children in the FO series, it's Little Lamplight

What, seriously? They were nice, and cute. It is put in a different light if you have the Child at Heart perk. Also Waser Wiffle.

Nice and cute you say?




Yeah, this kid's an angel.

The only thing that annoyed me about Little Lamplight was how the flying feth is such a place supposed to exist and maintain itself for 200 years? Adults are kicked out, so where do the new kids come from..?

And MacCready is put there to test the patience of the player.

 BrookM wrote:
The only thing that annoyed me about Little Lamplight was how the flying feth is such a place supposed to exist and maintain itself for 200 years? Adults are kicked out, so where do the new kids come from..?

And MacCready is put there to test the patience of the player.

Its even next to the source of the Super Mutants! How are they not centaur food?
Like, if it was revealed that the kids made a deal with the super mutants to hand them over new subjects when they became of age, sure, that would kind of make sense.
It would kind of explain where the new kids come from; the Mutants force them to breed, send the kid over to the camp and mutate the parents.
Of course, that would rely on the Super Mutants not being completely stupid like the ones in the old Fallout games.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Letting players kill kids is a bad idea. Bethesda would get hammered by the censors in certain countries (Germany, Australia etc). And media demagogues (Jack Thompson, Anita Sarkeesian etc) would pounce on the game and kick up a gak storm (Fallout 4 promotes child abuse!). It just isn't worth the hassle and negative press.

This is something that's more suited to Modding.

Is letting kids be killed in games something that Sarkeesian would be concerned about? Isn't her stuff more revolved around gender issues?

I'm sure it could be spun into something that can be used as such. "Shooting little boys is a-okay, but little girls.."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding the DLC: when you buy the season pass you'll be getting all the DLC, all of it.

Also, the first DLC is planned for January 2016.

 BrookM wrote:
The only thing that annoyed me about Little Lamplight was how the flying feth is such a place supposed to exist and maintain itself for 200 years? Adults are kicked out, so where do the new kids come from..?

And MacCready is put there to test the patience of the player.

So... when most of FO3 was written, the bombs dropping had been a recent event. Months, maybe a couple years at most. This is why everything is still so dark, the dustclouds and such kicked up by the bombs haven't settled yet, the sky is still shrouded.

Then, at some point, it was decided to put the game in the same time-line as FO1 and 2. So, instead of years, it became centuries, but they didn't go back and paper over a lot of the missing gaps in the story. How LL exists is a mystery that has plagued me since the very first time I ever played FO3, but there is not, to my knowledge, a satisfactory answer to be found.

It explains why there's so much still intact and why I keep finding all those end of the world logs everywhere.. F3 would've been better if it had been moved closer to 2077.

 BrookM wrote:
It explains why there's so much still intact and why I keep finding all those end of the world logs everywhere.. F3 would've been better if it had been moved closer to 2077.

Much of the more grim tones of that game would certainly make more sense. Plus, it would give some insight in how an early Enclave could have been beaten back, retreating back to the west and leaving the east without control... And why the Brotherhood are nice, and less dicks to anything they meet (since any living thing is a welcome sight).

On the topic of Little Lamplight, the only thing I can think of (and, granted, this is really, really stupid, but is also the only thing that even sort of works) is that any children that are born to the "adults" living in Bigtown are then returned to Little Lamplight.... until they grow up to be 16 and are then sent to Bigtown.

This, of course, doesn't make a whole lotta sense, because why would the adults returning to LL not tell the kids that Bigtown is not some kind of paradise? Why has such as system lasted for 200-some years from a school field trip present the day the bombs dropped?

Sorry, but Fallout 3 plot isn't something you should be thinking about too hard... Kind of just a string of gimmicks tied together into one big mess which constitutes a game.

More of the same for F4 then?

Skyrim, whilst still having monster of the week style locations, had a bit more depth to them. As far as Bethesda's handling of the title I cringed a lot when I went back to play Fallout 3 a year ago, but having said that Skyrim was a lot better, so hopefully they'll managed Fallout better this time around. ...Not to say that Bethesda games are really the standard for good writing at all in the world of video games in general though (hell they don't even have their monopoly on open world RPGs to stand on in that regard any more either).