Political correctness to the extreme...

Remove all ads!

If there is a right and a wrong way of thinking, it's not free thinking, is it? I agree with the above statement. Unfortunately, since most of the people buying these games are Americans, and because of the problems America has been having in recent years, they thought it necessary to implement these rules. I'll bet that somebody will come out with a mod that changes that a month after the game is released anyway.

Am I supposed to take that as a personal insult? Yes, the whole purpose of the gaming industry is to make money. BIS has decided that they will make more money by making the game politically correct. Live with it.

 

Yes, I understand that killing children isn't and (hopefully) never will be "the norm", "accepted" or "the right thing to do", but... Will killing other people (adults, young people, old people), will (also, hopefully) never be either. but it is still allowing, even encouraging, you to do so. For me a life's a life, so it makes no sense...

 

ejsmith, David Koresh didn't kill kids. The U.S. government under the leadership of Janet Reno killed them and then lied to say they didn't know the tear gas they sprayed into the compound was inflammable.

Koresh was a crackpot cult leader, but the FBI was the truly evil one in that case.

 

I find it frustrating to cast a fireball or skull trap and then have some dumb rugrat walk right into ground zero, lowering my rep, messing up my alignment, and causing a town to turn on me. So from my point of view, not being able to kill kids (accidentally or otherwise) is an improvement. And as for harlots- well, honestly, who cares? You can't own slaves or smoke dope in most RPGs either and no one has ever to my knowledge complained that this is kowtowing to political correctness. Harlots are not an essential part of a well-rounded universe. Trust me on this one, guys.

"And, even though these people with MBA's have no clue what a RPG is, much less ever played one, they are the ones that control the flow of said Ca$h."

Just for the record- some of us with MBAs know what an RPG is! Business knowledge and gaming knowledge are not incompatible.

 

Scralp:

(*giggle*)

Everyone that has an MBA and frequents SP:

Sorry. I was referring to your colleagues in that last post.

 

Argh, why can't you ppl let this topic die? What do you want next, a molester feat so you can lure the kiddie into that dark alley before you kill him, or maybe a rape skill to use on all those lonely frighten women? This has nothing to do with political correctness and it does not force any morals on you. In fact the designers have gone out of their way to make viable evil options, so much so that many are saying evil is the best way to play. And I personally would rather see all villagers be unkillable so I could throw around area of effect spells when fighting monsters in town (appearently a bigger part of this game at least in the begining) w/o worrying that lil timmy or uncle bob will get a scratch or burn and try to punch my armored butt to death instead of worshiping me for killing the orc who was about to kill him.

Earl Grey: what possible productive positive new idea could result from players being able to kill the kiddies in iwd2? Again they haven't said you have to be a goodie two-shoes paladin, you can be a mean selfish jerk cleric of bane and go around bossing and blackmailing everyone you meet. That's allowing free thinking. Letting you kill everyone in town and then reload a save and continue on, which is what you'd pretty much have to do, is pointless (though de-populating a city can be fun for a few minutes). And of course the 'current ethos' will be the one used to determine right and wrong and enforced in the game. What should they do make up some arbitrary ethos that may or may not ever exist?

Shralp: you couldn't be more wrong. Koresh's cultists set the fires (after MURDERING atf agents who went to the compound on a routine LEGAL check). Reno was a lousey AG but in this one case she has been unfairly critisized.

 

@Palpatine
First, let me again stress that my objection is general.

If you in earlier games have been able to kill the general populace - old as well as young - and now you are not it means two things:
1. Less realism.
For instance I believe it is good that you have to take into consideration "innocent" people when you fight. Are your character prepared to "sacrifice" those "Innocents" to get the job done or not. If he/she isn't, then you must be very careful with your Fireballs.

2. Censorship.
It was implemented and now it isn't so this is hardly a case of there being more work to do, rather the opposite.

So here is the reply to your question

Players role play in a world where they can cause death to "innocents". Learn to take responsibility for your actions. The way it has been implemented - people either try to kill you or they shun you - is better than nothing.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'm not saying using the current ethos is all wrong - although using something resembling a medievel ethos would IMHO be more appropriate - I'm saying don't censor actions in games just because those actions would be criminal in Utah or wherever. Don't restrict actions, instead make the world the character lives in impose sanctions!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I beg to disagree. If that's all that can be offered because of deadlines, programming limits etc. it would be fine. But it isn't.

What does the following mean to you:
This you must not do and so we do not allow you to role play a character doing it!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Finally - and know that I am just stating a fact here and not expressing whether I think war is right or wrong - I must at least make an attempt to remove the blindfolds many, not only here but everywhere, are walking around with.
Is killing innocents allowed today?
Yes, indirectly it still is. It is called war. The more "civilized" governments tries to avoid killing "innocents" but going to war means you are accepting the killing of "innocents".

 

Exactly my point of the last paragraph in my previous post Sprite.

I have to agree with Earl Grey. Having to worry about innocent people when you're fighting is part of what makes the game fun.

It means those humanitarian groups have had their way with our beloved industry. It means that the game has been tainted.

In these games I've never killed innocents, but if we no longer need to worry about killing them, it will take away some of the challenge. Now we can actually use some of the AoE spells.

 

Well, never fear, Earl Grey: Killing kids and talking to prostitutes was as bad or worse in the 'medieval ethos' too. Its your free speech and "I should be able to do anything I want' attitude that would be squashed in a real medieval environment.

Anyway, the invulnerable kid thing is most likely a legal issue. This is an internationally marketed game AFAIK and there are countries in Europe (for example) where it would be (or likely soon will be) illegal to portray child killing. I am beta testing a WW2 game that has absolutely no swastikas anywhere in it because it is illegal in Germany to use that symbol.

The prostitute issue is a different one. I don't know what motivates that one. Maybe it affects their ESRB rating? More likely they realized none of the Ten Towns were large enough to support streetwalkers or brothels. In small, isolated communities like that there are probably a few women who sell it on the side, but none who do so as a full time occupation. Not unless it is some sort of 'boom town' situation, where the town is swarming with transient men.

Lastly, roleplaying games ARE NOT about doing whatever you want. You can't set up shop or become a farmer. You can't run for mayor or say "screw this, its too cold, I'm off to Maztica". So stop acting like this is a bizarre infringement on your gaming options.

 

@Vormaerin

Maybe, maybe not. My point is really not whether something would be against the ethics of a specific time period, but rather that an action ought not to be excluded from a game just because it is illegal/unethical in real life. You handle illegal/unethical actions by having the in-game autorities and society impose sanctions.

Why is stealing allowed? Will that not "encourage weak individuals" to go out stealing?
Why would killing some characters be allowed but not others? Does this mean that it's ok for you to go out and kill some people but not others?

Possibly true and it might also be an effort to lower some age group certificate or it could be that pressure has been received from some group.
Whatever the reason I think it is important to fight against censorship. Speak up if you think something is wrong!
For example the german laws you mention should IMO be revoked. Laws, no matter how stupid, will not change unless those who oppose them speak out.

I see your point but I humbly disagree with you.
If I ran a role playing campaign and the party expressed a wish to become farmers I would allow it.
There are a few ways to go about this:
- Make farmlife so interesting the players enjoy it (difficult).
- Make it so boring they take up adventuring again (easy).
- Have them retire to their farms after a little while and start new characters.

Again this is not my point. I'm not suggesting that we be given the option to become farmers in a CRPG.

The major point I wish to make is:
Don't cut down on realism when you don't have to.

 

Ok, I keep hearing flak about NwN's dungeon master stuff. I guess there's a lot of DM's who just chuck 10 dragons in there, and like to watch the players get wiped out.

Not a lot of fun, IMHO.

But, that's the deal. If you go make rules saying there can't be any more than 2 dragons in one area at any time, it takes away from the people who *want* 10 dragons. America did this with prohibition back in the 1920's, and then ended up reversing it so all the boot-leggers weren't shipping methanol instead of ethanol.

So, what's this all mean?

Don't play with that DM anymore. Boycott is the keyword here. As is with child killing and sex-with-halfnaked-hookers-in-the-middle-of-a-snowfield isn't a viable option. Don't shut it out; just make it so people are much more inclined not to. And to support Grey, you could have a patch that gives a manual toggle in the .ini file.

Child Wacking=0
Naked Chicks=0

I'm not sure what the point will be, but someone already called it. There's libel to be a kid-whacking mod out at some point. Unlike other people, I remember when some NPC blocked a doorway in Fallout1.

Anyway, the games that suck the most, by far, are the ones where you have to follow the developers story exactly as they see it. This is why so many people call Icewind Dale "linear", and hated it. Hello, BG2 is every bit as linear. This is vector addition, and they all add up to a displacement that's 5km east.

Now, if you have a game (can't think of one here; Deus Ex is linear too; so's Star Control2) where you either choose north or south, and nothing after that decision gate (including the movies) is the same, then the game is non-linear.

If you're heading to London, but you stop by Moscow first, that's one path. If you're heading to London, and you swing by Abi-Dhabi first, that's another path. Now, if your final destination is New York, and you circle Luna first, that's a *different* path...

 

Well,

I rather think they *do* have to "cut down on realism" in this case, assuming they want to sell the game in those other markets. Now, perhaps you want to move to Germany (and elsewhere) and tell them they are full of crap with their laws. Feel free. But the 'any speech, no matter how harmful, is allowed speech' is pretty unique to the US. All or nearly all of the other countries in the world have more restrictive views of free speech. Hate speech and various forms of 'incitement' are restricted in many, many countries. And guess what? THEY LIKE IT LIKE THAT!

Regardless, this (no child killing in video games) isn't actually a censorship issue. No one is preventing the free expression of ideas with this restriction. You just aren't allowed to make a game depicting it. Video games are not generally considered 'speech' under the law.

 

Coincidentally, free speech "no matter how harmful" is also not the law in the U.S.