Infected children in DayZ. Poll.

[UmBe 125]

I think it would do more harm than good

Think about the MW2 mission where you had to shoot civs .. that was a scandal

and now imagine you are able to shoot children in the SA .. that translates into shitstorm

=> I don't think Dayz could take bad press like that and therefor should not include infected children, for they add nothing to the game, but can cause a lot of trouble

(also the game will probably not be sold in Germany, if they were to include this).

Edited February 3, 2013 by UmBe

[Gordon Axeman 191]

This is the thing that should be added. I remember that moment from TWD game where two men were killing an infected child. This game is to make you feel that you survive. It is to be deep and immersive. This would be a good addition to the atmosphere. If you don't want the game to be excessively cruel, make these creatures appear somewhere nearby and follow you closely, while being stealthy and not attacking. Seeing a child at the bottom of your screen, impulsively turning and shooting the place where it have just been... and hearing a thin laughter behing you... At night you will shit your pants. This is what this game is made for... For being afraid for your life.

[joe_mcentire 2073]

This is the thing that should be added. I remember that moment from TWD game where two men were killing an infected child. This game is to make you feel that you survive. It is to be deep and immersive. This would be a good addition to the atmosphere. If you don't want the game to be excessively cruel, make these creatures appear somewhere nearby and follow you closely, while being stealthy and not attacking. Seeing a child at the bottom of your screen, impulsively turning and shooting the place where it have just been... and hearing a thin laughter behing you... At night you will shit your pants. This is what this game is made for... For being afraid for your life.

problem to this is: the game you are comparing dayz right now is somewhat linear, with several choices given, but you cannot e.g. go haywire and blow this miserable creature up with a bunch of grenades. The game limits you to go completely bananas as it tries to deliver a story and certain emotions. Dayz is sandbox and therefore not comparable. You can do almost whatever you want!

And that is the point where introducing children into games is a delicate approach. That is the reason why certain games, although children are involved, pass the media's sword of Damocles mildly and others get crushed by it.

Edited February 3, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[Gordon Axeman 191]

problem to this is: the game you are comparing dayz right now is somewhat linear, with several choices given, but you cannot e.g. go haywire and blow this miserable creature up with a bunch of grenades. The game limits you to go completely bananas as it tries to deliver a story and certain emotions. Dayz is sandbox and therefore not comparable. You can do almost whatever you want!

And that is the point where introducing children into games is a delicate approach. That is the reason why certain games, although children are involved, pass the media's sword of Damocles mildly and others get crushed by it.

Yes. You are completely right about sandbox, but, after all, we cannot haywire and blow them up in DayZ. The only possible maximum is shooting them in the face, still I fear this is still too much. This is a great feature and only the goddamn media pose a great obstacle.

Still the mild approach is my second suggestion, about the children not attacking you and therefore you unable to shoot them. But won't be this just a ton of useless coding?

[joe_mcentire 2073]

Tbh i don't like ideas to implement things just for the sake of it and thus cripple the authenticity and immersion at the same time.

i once mentioned, why not just add them as deceased "sceneries"/ "props" / "requisites"...it's all a question about the back-story. It seems, that the outbreak was quite some time ago, and the infected seem to perish over time. So as someone already mentioned, it would be just "authentic/real" if children at this point simply wouldn't exist anymore whereas their remains would. This would be the mildest possible implementaion into this game.

Edited February 4, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[Private Evans 1303]

Anyone here who has played "The Walking Dead" ? You can kill two kids in this game and for the 2. kid you even have the choice how to do it...using a gun or ...well... silent and saving your ammo... a highly rated game that even got awards for being the best RPG in 2012....

DayZ is about the apocalypse about feeling scared, feeling guilty, feeling depressed, being sick, hungry, thirsty...always on the run..about doing things you always thought you never would do..about making decisions..and about trying to remain humane....DayZ is not about funny squad shootouts or stupid kill on sight on a sunny afternoon.... infected kids defenetely belong to this scenario.....

as always this should not be overdone...there should not be infected kids all over the place and like joe_mcentire said it would be also scary and immersive to just find some toys on a playground for example....

.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Private Evans

[exiler 8]

Many games have tried to do this as well as the ability to kill children. However, it is taken negatively because a child is classed as vulnerable and would be seen highly disturbing to kill a child. But this is a hardcore simulator and to me there should be children in the game.

[foamy_d_squirrel 10]

Against children npc

Against cannibalism

I personally would not mind, but considering the drawbacks that would impact the game, its really not worth the fuss.

Unless of course, it is all about marketing to get some articles and raise attention for free and then proclaim there is never going to be any child in dayz.

Uhm yeah that would be great.

[terminal_boy 860]

Against it. Purely for the amount of negative press and possible bans with featuring violence against children in game.

[[Gen]Adzic 241]

This would never be acceptable, the killing of children.. be them zombies, would be highly controversial. I highly doubt this idea would/will be implemented.

However, for any sort of realism aspect of course it's a great idea, I mean in a real world scenario there would obviously be zombie/infected children. Have them on a splash screen for the game? I suppose you could yes.. but to have them in the actual gameworld.. I say no.

[PigKiller 26]

Sure, why not? Women too.

Replace the infected who run like monkeys with fast running kiddies. But of course they're not infected.

The infection killed all the young ones and women folk and turned them directly into zombies.

Wow...what a goofy disease.

So now that the weaker sex and babies are already dead, we're not killing any one.

Just taking them out of their misery.

Or just say they're midget...OOPS! I mean "little people" infected. Is that PC enough?

And by the way what makes a infected zombie a child? Age? Height?

Is killing a little girl zombie less moral or less PC then killing a teenage male zombie?

Jeez. It's just a game. Stop worring about what some self promoting windbag politician or TV news knuckle-nob thinks is " over the line" in a game where you lie, steal, maim and murder over food and water.

[joe_mcentire 2073]

Jeez. It's just a game. Stop worring about what some self promoting windbag politician or TV news knuckle-nob thinks is " over the line" in a game where you lie, steal, maim and murder over food and water.

selfish enough not to care about a huge community which would be completely cut off, because the game would get indexed in their countries? you cannot implement children npcs that simple.

[Private Evans 1303]

In which countries The Walking Dead, Dead Space 2 and Silent Hill 1 were indexed ??

[PigKiller 26]

selfish enough not to care about a huge community which would be completely cut off, because the game would get indexed in their countries? you cannot implement children npcs that simple.

Not selfish, it's just not in my power to control the gov. censorship of other countries.

If your concern is acceptance by the press or gov. censors maybe you should ask them what kind of gaming community they want you to belong to and you can join it. Is "WoW" allowed?

I do know that when someone tells me not to read, watch, listen to or play something with out a damn good reason I read, listen or play it.

Many a game ( and movie, song, book, painting, ect ) had sales and popularity increase after so called "negative press". Can you say "Mortal Kombat"?

Remember, it's a game. You are not shooting anything. Your pressing buttons. No real living or zombie anything of any age, sex, race or religion is killed while playing.

Get a grip.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

I don't think it would add anything that noteworthy into the game. The amount of possible controversy outweighs the possible benefits.

Also I belief Rocket mentioned that it would take a lot of work to add children, because they would need a whole new skeleton.

Rocket also said that would probably add horses before children.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Vindicator

[PracticalTactical 164]

Considering some countries censor games like Left 4 Dead I can only imagine what they would do to a game like DayZ that has child zombies. Personally I am OK with it and think that it would only be realistic that in a zombie apocalypse every type of human would become a zombie and not just adults. But considering how the media sensationalizes things completely out of proportion I am not sure it is a good idea. I can already see stupid, stupid, stupid people like Nancy Grace and whatnot droning on for hours and days about "child killing survival simulator" and how it relates to things like the Sandy Hook shootings for example.

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

i once mentioned, why not just add them as deceased "sceneries"/ "props" / "requisites"...it's all a question about the back-story. It seems, that the outbreak was quite some time ago, and the infected seem to perish over time. So as someone already mentioned, it would be just "authentic/real" if children at this point simply wouldn't exist anymore whereas their remains. This would be the mildest possible implementaion into this game.

I can fully accept this idea.

From a purely physiological perspective, infected children would be smaller, therefore weaker than the "adult" infected.

In competition for food, they would be at a major disadvantage and would soon die off.

Besides that, in (for example) the Bethesda Fallout titles (3/NewVegas), on the odd occasion when you stumble upon a huddled, burnt mess clearly depicting deceased children or entire families, it serves to create a sombre mood and really set the scene.

If done tastefully, it can be used to stir up emotion and/or give a brutal, hard-hitting look at what the world has become.

If done cheaply, it can get you chased from the village, with pitchforks and burning torches.

Care must be taken.

It's up to the devs to decide, and it's not a decision to be taken lightly.

Technical requirements clearly aren't the most important factor.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I am for authenticism to an extent... and I think it's not authentic to not have female or even child zeds, both should be added but simply to enforce some ethical thinking about your actions and how it will influence you and the way others react to you killing zeds at all should have a negative impact on your humanity at least when you kill them for no reason (read: kill idle zeds) that penalty should definetly be much harsher for children and maybe harsher for killing the opposite sex.

Justification for zed killing penalties? Easy: What if some doctor were to find a cure for their infection/disease being able to fully reverse the effects of it and you killed like 1000 potential human beings with like 300 of them being kids wouldn't you in a real-life scenario think twice about doing so? I most certainly would and would not kill any zeds at all other than for self-defense reasons and even that wouldn't be easy because they didn't choose to engage me they just have to because their sickness makes them be commanded by their instincts. On the other hand this game is open and sure a lot of people wouldn't give a f*ck. Still mass murder should have a psychological effect on you/your character/for other to see/ psychopaths often suffer from mental illness maybe so should people with very low humanity? E.g. seeing zeds/other bandits that aren't there (a.k.a. paranoid hallucinations) causing you to shoot and giveaway your position putting yourself at risk for no apparent reason.

Even if I like the idea it might have pushed it a little bit too far still you guys get the idea.

1: How is it not authentic to have infected women and children? They exist in the real world... and viruses don't get squeemish. A virus will fuck up your baby with no remorse because READ: it's a fucking virus.

2: Ethical questions? To killing zombies? I would just as quickly put down a child-zombie as I would a rabid dog. They both want to kill me, and they're probably both experiencing some pretty awful pain. It's mercy killing for crying out loud.

3: WHY DOES EVERYONE WANT THIS GAME TO HAVE "HALLUCINATIONS"? SOUNDS FUCKING ANNOYING. So stop suggesting it.

Edited July 8, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[dulix11 731]

I wouldn't mind if it was implemented, nor would I care if it wasn't.

The only problem I have is the possibility of DayZ getting lots of controversial unwanted attention, and the devs being put in some pretty hot water.

[chichakman 2]

tl;dr: if you don't treat child/women/baby/other zombies as a unique aspect of the game, nobody will care.

The problem right now is that we are all emphasizing the idea that DayZ might include zombie children in it. If the idea of having children in it is not emphasized, then nobody will really care. Dead Space had mutated babies in its first iteration and wasn't banned (to my knowledge) in any countries. Left 4 Dead 2 involved pregnant mothers being morphed into acid spewing spitters. Did these games receive back lash over any of that, no (please correct me if I am wrong, though). They did not treat those NPCs as some unique aspect of the game. If you include in SA advertisements of DayZ that it "includes zombie children, babies, and pregnant mothers" of course people are going to go up in arms about it because you are emphasizing that aspect of the game, like shooting children is different than shooting a regular zombie. By putting emphasis on killing children, even zombie children, you make it wrong in others eyes because it seems as though this becomes a goal for the player. If other types of zombies, including child zombies, are to be included in the game they all need to be treated the same as other zeds; they all need to be treated as just another aspect of the game mechanics, not a focal point of the game.

By making a thread like this, those of you that really wanted this to be a part of DayZ have already started digging this ideas grave.

Personally I don't care one way or the other. I am all for having more variety in zombies. Anything that makes the game play more varied and interesting is a plus for me. If this aspect of the game really endangers it as a viable product in other countries, then I want no part in it. I would rather "survivors" from as many countries be able to play the game than have some stupid extra NPC in the game that causes enormous amounts of controversy about it.

Edited July 8, 2013 by chichakman