arena25 wrote: »

Hello, Nox.

Consider the following.

Sir Arena25 and I have heard plenty of stories of how games can be purchased by kids online. All they need is a credit card (with basic understanding of it), a computer, and an easily distracted parent (which is easily done if you're Arena25, who leads a bike ride expedition for his neighborhood every morning).

The only way a parent would find out? Ok, make it two ways:

#1: Their credit card bill.
#2: The kid who purchased it has a sister or brother who is a snitch, but this generally doesn't happen, as he/she makes all sisters or brothers who might snitch keep the purchase under wraps.

And before anyone (and Arena25 asked me to emphasize the "anyone") comes at me or Arena25 ready to debunk this, think for a second...What would you do after you found out they made the purchase? Because in the end, you still owe money to ZeniMax.

Thank you for your understanding.

Signed,

Shedelin
Scribe to Arena25

P.S. Arena25 asks that before you respond to this post, to please read up on the issue he is highlighting, the "Internet and Kids: A Dangerous Combo?" debate, which you can find on any major debating website. This one suggests you try Gale's Opposing Viewpoints in Context, which is used by many schools as a database for educational purposes.

shanersimms_ESO wrote: »

It may add value to you, if you get off on that sort of thing, but my vote would be No because it adds no value (implied: "to me"). Seeing distasteful images does not enhance the gameplay experience for me, but rather diminishes it's value.

We could also add in beggars dying of starvation, writhing in pain, screaming out for help in the streets. They could add in animations of citizens getting sexually assaulted in dark alleyways. They could add any *insert distasteful element here*. To me it's all in the same category and it doesn't make the game any better.

My point is that your poll is biased because there is no simple "No" answer. You write in "No, I'm weak" as the only non-affirmative choice. Yet as previously stated, this is non-sequitur and not wanting these elements has nothing to do with constitution for a lot of people. For us, it's just distasteful.

Surinen wrote: »

. but let's not talk about the real life beyond introduction of blood and gore into this game. what you do to pixels has nothing to do with real life. many people find many different types of vent thrills.

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

OP, I can only repeat my earlier post: seek professional help. Please.

The amount of pleasure you derive from describing violent acts is not normal, and I'm genuinely concerned for your mental health. There is no shame in going to therapy, and it's far better than us seeing you in the headlines because you decided to see what blood looks like in real life.

daneyulebub17_ESO wrote: »

Nox_Aeterna wrote: »

Im ... confused.

How would this in anyway point to zens fault?

Again , it is the parents fault , yes , parents also make mistakes and kids are a handful , but that does not mean zen or any other company has to take responsability over it.


PS: Sorry , i could not find the text you mentioned on a quick google search.

Actually, in my opinion, some manner of responsibility exists in every member of society for its children. Not saying everything has to be "child appropriate", or in this particular case fault would be attributable to Zeni, but this hand-washing dismissal that "its the parents responsibility" (as if that absolves society of the need for reasonable measures to protect kids) is too eager to just throw the children to the wolves when the adults in their life fail them. Something that happens so often today I suspect it's almost the norm.

Surinen wrote: »

shanersimms_ESO wrote: »

Why not? Why not go all out and get all the nitty gritty parts of the human condition in there? Do you perhaps not want this level of graphic violence in the game?

What you fail to realize is where you draw the line on what's distasteful and what isn't good for the game simply varies from where I draw that line. The red herring here about having game systems where we care about npc's doesn't have anything to do with the initial point that the poll was biased. There very much can be a dislike for adding such elements because they are simply: "distasteful", and for no further reason (i.e. How I feel about excessive blood and gore.)

after all bosmer are known for such lowly actions

Zorrashi wrote: »

At most, I would only want a 'minimal' amount of blood in the game (preferably available in a cash shop). Cuts, bruises and blood that be seen on the skin and maybe blood smears on the blade. But decapitation, hand chopping, skipping-jump rope-in-entrails...I vote no.

If I want gore and blood, I will go to my moded skyrim if I so wish, where I can easily sever a person in half, gouge out their eyes, and decapitate their head and put it on a pike and later eat their flesh because I have the ring of Namira.

For a MMO, i'm not sure I want to see that. If anything, such additions of hard-core gore would be detrimental to the game. Even if it was optional, the significant portion of the general public would look at the addition as something along the lines of "barbaric" or worse. Now just imagine the heated debates over the potential "negative influences on the youth" and the imminent media rampage....

At any rate, your idea is fine. (Well, maybe you went a bit overboard with the OP) It really is. But your presentation of it was below par. Even having a little bit of detectable respect and decency in a post would result in a more fruitful discussion, and less flame. Maybe even more support.

However...I have nagging feeling that you actually secretly like getting under people's skin (and probably khajiits fur too).

isengrimb16_ESO wrote: »

It's not so much the killing, as the mutilation. Remember, looting of corpses is also unacceptable in modern Western-style warfare (though of course it happens out of necessity. If you're a soldier out in the middle of nowhere with worn-out boots and no hope of replacing them soon, you're probably going to take the dead enemy's perfectly good/newer boots to save yourself the blisters - and blistered feet make for a hindered army, and perhaps a lost battle/war. "The kingdom was lost for want of a horse-shoe", and all that rot.

Western minds are geared for more bloodless killing, that's why splatterpunk slasher movies work. They would NOT work in some medieval/primitive society inured to human bloodshed. All we need to know is that the target is dead, we don't need to see his guts splattered all over - and we consider it a mark of advanced civilisation to NOT want to see such things .... anyone ever see WW1 combat photos? They're nothing like you might see today, even though the black and white motif kind of smooths things a bit.

Countries that still have the death penalty tend to prefer to kill their criminals with bloodless, relatively pain-free, injection nowadays - at least Western countries do. Counter this with Saudi Arabia's legendary Chop-Chop Square, where convicted criminals get limbs and even heads removed in the old-fashioned way.

Hell, even livestock in Western countries get decent, quick death by bolting of the cerebral cortex, and did away with nasty, unreliable throat-slitting ages ago.

You might consider it weak, and this sensibility may yet be our downfall against civilizations that don't have the qualms we do - but we are really all the morally better for our squeamishness. I would not like to see that bit of our culture changed for anything.

Yet, for the record, I do think it's disgraceful that Clifford Olsen was allowed to die of old age, and all I'd give the likes of Bernardo, Pickton, and that weird "shh" guy from Edmonton is a length of rope.

Zyffyr wrote: »

No, as I am neither a psychopath or a 12 year old, I don't feel the need for it.

MornaBaine wrote: »

The fatalities were one of the things that absolutely ROCKED about Age of Conan. I'd love to see this again.