I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't silly, just that it is.
Yeah, that's not how it works with regulation authorities.
Or reach the age when you're, on average, able to make that distinction. This is why age ratings exist. A six year old can't abstract between the depiction of a human or a fluffy animal and a collection of pixels.
No matter what the topic of a discussion is, "it's just pixels, man" is the lamest catch all one can come up with.
Be sure to let the classification boards know that, since they're the ones who this matters to. But again. They don't care about the fact it's pixels. They care about the representation and it's meaning in the real world. That's why 8 year olds shouldn't watch extreme horror movies, because it will have impact.
The same could be said for films, but I'm not letting my under 10 kids see the Exorcist.
I remember once playing Deus Ex years ago I sneaked up on somebody and incapacitated him with a tazer.
Then I threw his unconscious body off a building onto a crate of dynamite.
Not sure where this would sit within the PEGI discussion, remembering it made me chuckle though. I should probably book another session with the therapist.
Then I threw his unconscious body off a building onto a crate of dynamite.
Not sure where this would sit within the PEGI discussion, remembering it made me chuckle though. I should probably book another session with the therapist.
Someone should tell the writers of John Wick that dodgy guys are perfectly fine with you murdering them, they don't send the entire organisation against you and declare it open season or nothing. I sometimes wonder what kind of fairyland the Frontier devs live in.
A crime that was only witnessed by the deceased should not result in a bounty at all, that's the part of the game I want changed to avoid stupid bounties that make no sense.
Once this is done, there's no reason not to have a non lethal option. I would even accept using the non lethal option as a bounty earning offense as long as it fulfils the 'nobody died' requirement for certain missions.
I would further that on foot bounties is something that really needs a rework. I'm in a soundproof hermetically sealed hab, alone with one NPC and I shoot them in the back of the head, with no witnesses, how on earth do I have a bounty? It's the single most immersion-breaking part of the game for me. So, let the non lethal option also incur a bounty, AND fix the bounty system so that unwitnessed kills don't result in bounties.
In the ships, I get it, the ships themselves report the bounties, but some of these civvies aren't even wearing airpods to justify magical reporting of who killed them to some central server. I'm ranting now, sorry
Obviously theres galaxy wide heart monitor implants in every human that is tied to a FTL information system. SMHA crime that was only witnessed by the deceased should not result in a bounty at all, that's the part of the game I want changed to avoid stupid bounties that make no sense.
Once this is done, there's no reason not to have a non lethal option. I would even accept using the non lethal option as a bounty earning offense as long as it fulfils the 'nobody died' requirement for certain missions.
I would further that on foot bounties is something that really needs a rework. I'm a soundproof hermetically sealed hab, alone with one NPC and I shoot them in the back of the head, with no witnesses, how on earth do I have a bounty? It's the single most immersion-breaking part of the game for me. So, let the non lethal option also incur a bounty, AND fix the bounty system so that unwitnessed kills don't result in bounties.
In the ships, I get it, the ships themselves report the bounties, but some of these civvies aren't even wearing airpods to justify magical reporting of who killed them to some central server. I'm ranting now, sorry
My only issue with the non-lethal takedown in practice is it can't just be something that automatically circumvents bounties. A non lethal takedown of an NPC where you're in full view of 3 others not getting a bounty versus a 200m headshot to a lone target with a silenced executioner with no witnesses getting a bounty would be ridiculous.A crime that was only witnessed by the deceased should not result in a bounty at all, that's the part of the game I want changed to avoid stupid bounties that make no sense.
Once this is done, there's no reason not to have a non lethal option. I would even accept using the non lethal option as a bounty earning offense as long as it fulfils the 'nobody died' requirement for certain missions.
I would further that on foot bounties is something that really needs a rework. I'm in a soundproof hermetically sealed hab, alone with one NPC and I shoot them in the back of the head, with no witnesses, how on earth do I have a bounty? It's the single most immersion-breaking part of the game for me. So, let the non lethal option also incur a bounty, AND fix the bounty system so that unwitnessed kills don't result in bounties.
In the ships, I get it, the ships themselves report the bounties, but some of these civvies aren't even wearing airpods to justify magical reporting of who killed them to some central server. I'm ranting now, sorry
If we're then saying it should have to be a proper stealth kill. Fixing that will fix zap kills anyway.
The OP specifically stated that the killing is their issue with the current system.
No one is having issues separating fantasy from reality, but some people do want to be immersed in their fantasy entertainment for the duration of their play session. Not that I think the non-lethal systems people tend to want are particularly immersive...but I try (and usually fail) not to judge people who think smacking someone upside the head hard enough to knock them out is never going to kill anyone.
I saw a ton of extreme horror movies around this age, most were a mix of the comical and absurd, even to child me.
Hell, reading history...no pictures, just the dry text in old encyclopedias, horrified me far more at age ten than any gore or jump scare ever has. Civilization, or what passes for it, not to mention what we do, or pay others to do, to maintain our places in it...that's the real stuff of nightmares.
It was an example of the top of my head. Equally, films such as Trainspotting or Clockwork Orange wouldn't be something I'd want them to see either.
That's up to me as a parent of course, but I can't spend my time watching every film they come across. Same goes for video games, so it's nice to have some pointer in the form of an age rating.
This discussion turned out to be a very interesting read. This debate on ethics, official ratings of immoral actions and how individuals see those actions should be held in schools, with children. Before they get a chance to either get a PTSD or become indifferent. I edited the OP to warn people about this.
I had to search up what Hors de combat means. For everyone else, this is what Wikipedia says:
It is a French (meaning 'out of combat') term used in the laws of war to refer to persons who are incapable of performing their combat duties during war, thus generally not treated as active combatants but rather protected persons.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
@Jmanis You're very much right that it's subjective. I'm about to share my interpretation in hopes of clearing up confusion.
Instead of being combat capable, I'd draw a strict line between an aware and an unaware person. An aware person faced with imminent death starts panicking. In my personal opinion, any death that includes fear is a bad way to go (regardless of pain).
In that regard, a stealth kill with a blow to the head and killing an unconscious person is the same. They die without any fear or panic.
On the other hand, a stealth kill where the victim suddenly feels sharp pain and sees a blade "growing" from their chest is the same as shooting someone or cutting their head off. There are a few VERY scary and painful moments before death and I consider that a bad way to go.
If the kill is not made from stealth, be they hors de combat or not, it's a bad way to go and carries the same weight in my view. For example, a tied up hostage knowing it's their turn is the same as an unarmored, unshielded scientist armed with a weak weapon, trying to kill a player in Dominator suit wielding a kinetic primary. In both situations, the victim knows they'll soon be dead.
If I had to be on either end of "the transaction", I'd choose the incapacitation first to be more morally correct. This is why I made the topic.
I'd still prefer to leave the NPCs alive, be they conscious or not. If they're trapped or tied up or frozen in fear or rendered no threat in whatever other way, it'd feel better than just having to kill them.
I had to search up what Hors de combat means. For everyone else, this is what Wikipedia says:
It is a French (meaning 'out of combat') term used in the laws of war to refer to persons who are incapable of performing their combat duties during war, thus generally not treated as active combatants but rather protected persons.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
@Jmanis You're very much right that it's subjective. I'm about to share my interpretation in hopes of clearing up confusion.
Instead of being combat capable, I'd draw a strict line between an aware and an unaware person. An aware person faced with imminent death starts panicking. In my personal opinion, any death that includes fear is a bad way to go (regardless of pain).
In that regard, a stealth kill with a blow to the head and killing an unconscious person is the same. They die without any fear or panic.
On the other hand, a stealth kill where the victim suddenly feels sharp pain and sees a blade "growing" from their chest is the same as shooting someone or cutting their head off. There are a few VERY scary and painful moments before death and I consider that a bad way to go.
If the kill is not made from stealth, be they hors de combat or not, it's a bad way to go and carries the same weight in my view. For example, a tied up hostage knowing it's their turn is the same as an unarmored, unshielded scientist armed with a weak weapon, trying to kill a player in Dominator suit wielding a kinetic primary. In both situations, the victim knows they'll soon be dead.
If I had to be on either end of "the transaction", I'd choose the incapacitation first to be more morally correct. This is why I made the topic.
I'd still prefer to leave the NPCs alive, be they conscious or not. If they're trapped or tied up or frozen in fear or rendered no threat in whatever other way, it'd feel better than just having to kill them.
Last edited by a moderator:
If it ends up being similar to Metal Gear Solid 5, where the stunned enemies can wake up after a while or wake each other, that would be a great thing and would also add a further tactical component.
This is what I saw in No One Lives Forever 2. There were some missions where you weren't allowed to kill anyone, yet the objective was actively guarded.
Still a PEGI 16 game and you could kill the NPCs you incapacitated if you wanted to.
No "Tom & Jerry" then.
Truthfully? A good deal of those types of cartoons are pretty horrendous and absolutely not appropriate for pre-teen kids, despite the rating my old VHS tapes have.
Though I suspect none of them would fall into "extreme" horror category I had in mind.
Ah that was a brilliant game.