kip_silverwolf wrote: »"What are you looking at? I'm not afraid of you, ya know, even if you are my elder!"
"One of the new servants? Remember that I like my meat rare."
No thank you - I'm quite happy not hearing (or seeing) any bratty kids
Was probably due to the game wanting a Teens rating (pegi 15 or whatever you call it in the States) when it was made and Violence towards children would have stopped it (think Justice system and yes it was planned way back then also).
The slap in the face came about 2 weeks before launch when the 'powers that be' slapped an Adult tag onto the game anyway.
NadiusMaximus wrote: »Just imagine being in a town and having a snot nosed Bratt following you around saying the now old saying "Did you hear that someone saved King Casimere, I'd like to buy him some candy."
Unknown_poster wrote: »This topic pops up every couple weeks...and the answer is always the same. If you had interactable children npcs that could be killed there would be a flamestorm (not my first word choice, but meh, they have a filter). So, easiest solution, no children npc in game.
My guess: they just didnt want to commit the resources to make all those additional models for all races only for "immersion" (and no, simply scaling an adult model to a smaller size would not be enough, that just looks weird)...
Lord_Kreegan wrote: »Why are there no children NPCs in the game?
Options:
- They're all in their grandparents' basements playing ESO.
- They were all eaten by a grue.
- In Nirn, they are known as Daedra. We see the little ones running around all the time...
- They're all good little boys and girls, going to school every day and getting tucked into bed every night, so why would you expect to see them out on the streets?
- They're all bad little boys and girls, safely locked away where they can't do any harm, so why would you expect to see them out on the streets?
- You see those bubbles in the lakes, rivers, streams, and ocean? Who do you think is making those bubbles? If you try real hard when you're fishing, you might catch one...
- They are the gankers in Cyrodil that you never see.
- You know those meetbags fired by catapults? Where do you think we get the ammunition?
- <fill in your suspicion>
ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »Skyrim was the first ES game to have children. They probably didn't put children in because they serve no purpose. They can't fight, your not allowed to kill them, the just annoy you. Plus putting children into a war torn ravaged and bloody land would definitely catch more negative attention from the media who think games are going to make us mass murder people instead of playing the game and realizing it just makes us want more Cheetos and Mt Dew.
nalimoleb14_ESO wrote: »Taken from the best comment ever on the forums:ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »Skyrim was the first ES game to have children. They probably didn't put children in because they serve no purpose. They can't fight, your not allowed to kill them, the just annoy you. Plus putting children into a war torn ravaged and bloody land would definitely catch more negative attention from the media who think games are going to make us mass murder people instead of playing the game and realizing it just makes us want more Cheetos and Mt Dew.
Seriously though, I do agree. Even though the children's dialogue in Skyrim was annoying as hell (annoying enough to almost consider downloading the killable kids mod), but it does make the game more realistic.
The reason is simple: They didn't care. I would like to see random NPC children scattered around the world. Perhaps only inside cities, or maybe all over. I have not heard one reasonable opinion about why it is a bad idea other than the time it takes to put them in. Here we discuss how children don't exist as if that were something incredibly groundbreaking but it's actually an area which is far behind in development. With all the work they put into the world, there should not only be children, there should also be babies, and animal young. I simply believe if you are going to put millions of dollars into developing a realistic fantasy, you should try to make is as believable as possible.
ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »nalimoleb14_ESO wrote: »Taken from the best comment ever on the forums:ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »Skyrim was the first ES game to have children. They probably didn't put children in because they serve no purpose. They can't fight, your not allowed to kill them, the just annoy you. Plus putting children into a war torn ravaged and bloody land would definitely catch more negative attention from the media who think games are going to make us mass murder people instead of playing the game and realizing it just makes us want more Cheetos and Mt Dew.
Seriously though, I do agree. Even though the children's dialogue in Skyrim was annoying as hell (annoying enough to almost consider downloading the killable kids mod), but it does make the game more realistic.
Someone corrected me and said Dagerfall had kids also. I never played Daggerfall so i dont know if its true. But I think M'aiq answered all of our questions back in oblivion.
M'aiq believes kids are our future but does not want them ruining our fun.
MornaBaine wrote: »Unknown_poster wrote: »This topic pops up every couple weeks...and the answer is always the same. If you had interactable children npcs that could be killed there would be a flamestorm (not my first word choice, but meh, they have a filter). So, easiest solution, no children npc in game.
MANY other MMOs have children NPCs, including the M rated Age of Conan. They are simply unkillable. No "flamestorm" has occurred there. And THAT game has bared b00bies! LOL So I think ZOS could risk it. It's just too weird without them.
[Moderator Note: Edited quote to match moderated version]
MornaBaine wrote: »The reason is simple: They didn't care. I would like to see random NPC children scattered around the world. Perhaps only inside cities, or maybe all over. I have not heard one reasonable opinion about why it is a bad idea other than the time it takes to put them in. Here we discuss how children don't exist as if that were something incredibly groundbreaking but it's actually an area which is far behind in development. With all the work they put into the world, there should not only be children, there should also be babies, and animal young. I simply believe if you are going to put millions of dollars into developing a realistic fantasy, you should try to make is as believable as possible.
Right? They felt "realism" was important enough to create and place probably upwards of 50 animal types (cows, pigs, chickens, cats, dogs, frogs, various birds, snakes, rabbits, foxes, deer, etc) but not one kid? C'mon ZOS, really?