No Kids?

MegaWaffle

@βLAKE said:
How come there are no children present in the Entity's world? No kid survivors or kid killers? Wouldn't kids be an easier target since they are easily prone to losing hope and do the bidding of the entity?

The developers took the inspiration for the Entity from a song (sorry I don't have the link) and in that song the Entity not only feeds on hope but is drawn by negative emotions. Aside from the whole (can't kill kids in video games) I think the Entity might be weaker against people (like kids) who for the most part are innocent.

Watery

βLAKE said:

How come there are no children present in the Entity's world? No kid survivors or kid killers? Wouldn't kids be an easier target since they are easily prone to losing hope and do the bidding of the entity?

That’d be one hell of a quick way to get an AO rating. They want to appeal to younger audiences in order to get more revenue, hence, they follow ESRB guidelines. This includes Avatar mutilation- to which children for the moooost part have to avoid it. Plus... kids would be like- really OP, considering the killers are supposed to be big, and the survivors are supposed to be average height. So unless you want a kid with gigantism running around, I don’t think this idea would work in the first place.

FoggyDownpour

From a lore stand point, I don't think that the entity would avoid using a child as a killer over all. Seeing the types of powers and changes the entity makes to a killer would make is easy for me to see how that could happen and how the strong emotions a child harbors could be used to encourage killing. It would also cause strong emotions in survivors to see a child (or what used to be a child) coming after them like that.

As for survivors, I don't think it's possible for children to be there (or at least rather unlikely). The entity doesn't modify survivors in the same way/intensity that it does for killers, generally leaving them in their original state. 

Children are still developing rapidly and are going to be changing a lot over short periods of time. They are generally less stable emotionally and the entity might sense the changes in them while looking at their potential to be viable emotion live stock. They need to be emotional, but consistent, and a child is going to be less consistent and predictable than an adult. As far as I'm aware, a survivor doesn't age while in the entity's realm, so a person's current state of stability (child, adult, or elder) would likely be somewhat frozen depending on when that person was taken. 

Another good reason to choose adults over children is their view on the world. An adult is going to be more realistic in how they see things and have a much broader knowledge base than a kid. Children would be less likely to understand things like generators, breaking hooks, and how to heal wounds, which skews the numbers of survivors surviving trials. There are no tutorials in the entity's realm and most survivors have to figure out how to get out on their own, using skills they already know and general problem solving in order to survive.

Another point to consider is the physical limitations children have. Not only do they lack the muscle and strength to do many of the tasks at hand, but they also lack the height. It's hard to imagine a kid unhooking someone when adults have to stretch to get them off the hook, which doesn't even mention the strength needed to lift an adult up and off. Kids are not as fast over long distances as adults are, making it difficult to win a chase. Throwing down pallets and vaulting through windows would bring their own challenges, same with carrying or running with a metal toolbox.

The last point I can think of is that children are more likely to hide in terror than face the monsters waiting to lunge at them from the shadows. Half of the killers are 8 feet tall, which is double the size of a small child.

AnthonyC2014

There's the problem. The entity does not WANT you to lose hope. He wants you to keep your hope so he can feed off of it and get stronger. If you lose hope, it's a waste of his time and your life. The entity doesn't care about your life, but he wants someone who can survive very well and keep their hope intact. Why do you think he chose people like Kate? Who is an optimist who never loses hope, she was an easy target out in the woods and she could NOT lose hope too fast. He wants to feed off of your hope and get stronger.

AnthonyC2014

@βLAKE said:

@Gay Myers (Luzi) said:
The main reason might be the reason why Fallout removed the ability to kill kids: Controversy and potential bans in certain countries.

Try to justify yourself as a company that lets kid be playable as survivors and explain they get hooked on hooks and can be mori'd, which vary from cannibalism to slashing and chainsawing.

You have to consider, in the long run the devs are the entity.

Plus there might be kids, but always keep in mind that the entity has several realms and we're just playing one of them, so there is a possibility in another realm there are kids, but it's less likely for us to ever see that unless it's done as a killer.

again like I said many times before. I can see the justification, but i'm talking lore wise not gameplay wise.

That IS lore, you're just being stubborn at this point. We're pointing out all the flaws but you're calling them gameplay mechanics. There's probably kids somewhere in the Entity's Realms, we're only in one of the potential thousands of realms. He's feeding off of our hope. He does not WANT us to lose hope, he does not WANT the killer to feel that this is easy. He wants to absorb the killer's rage and the survivor's desperation. Children would be useless to him, hope is not a thought in their mind when Michael Myers shows up, or Freddy Krueger, what if they heard he was a pedophile?
Children would be too hard to add, would make no sense lore-wise, and they would destroy the game's popularity, making it feel less realistic in the sense that there are many people in the Entity's realm.
In fact, the Entity might be able to pull multiple of the same person into a single trial... Imagine, everyone in the trial is playing as a kid, and they would have to stay away from Little Girls. That is the Huntress' only exception when it comes to killing. They would NOT make sense to be in the game, also, what would their perks be, they can't just bootleg Leader and call it hopebringer or something like that. Not much a child CAN do. Children don't often know how to heal severe injuries like an ax to the back? They would not make sense to be in the Entity's Realm. If the devs added children in the game, it would get worldwide bans, make no sense lore-wise, be hard to add gameplay-wise, etc.
Please, don't try to force the devs into adding a child into the game and slow down the game's development. If they did, you'd see the same toxic killer over and over again and you'd always have to play against that player, or you would see the same toxic survivor who DCs when they get hooked, therefore leaving it to the rest of your team to get 5 generators done.

βLAKE

@AnthonyC2014 said:

@βLAKE said:

@Gay Myers (Luzi) said:
The main reason might be the reason why Fallout removed the ability to kill kids: Controversy and potential bans in certain countries.

Try to justify yourself as a company that lets kid be playable as survivors and explain they get hooked on hooks and can be mori'd, which vary from cannibalism to slashing and chainsawing.

You have to consider, in the long run the devs are the entity.

Plus there might be kids, but always keep in mind that the entity has several realms and we're just playing one of them, so there is a possibility in another realm there are kids, but it's less likely for us to ever see that unless it's done as a killer.

again like I said many times before. I can see the justification, but i'm talking lore wise not gameplay wise.

That IS lore, you're just being stubborn at this point. We're pointing out all the flaws but you're calling them gameplay mechanics. There's probably kids somewhere in the Entity's Realms, we're only in one of the potential thousands of realms. He's feeding off of our hope. He does not WANT us to lose hope, he does not WANT the killer to feel that this is easy. He wants to absorb the killer's rage and the survivor's desperation. Children would be useless to him, hope is not a thought in their mind when Michael Myers shows up, or Freddy Krueger, what if they heard he was a pedophile?
Children would be too hard to add, would make no sense lore-wise, and they would destroy the game's popularity, making it feel less realistic in the sense that there are many people in the Entity's realm.
In fact, the Entity might be able to pull multiple of the same person into a single trial... Imagine, everyone in the trial is playing as a kid, and they would have to stay away from Little Girls. That is the Huntress' only exception when it comes to killing. They would NOT make sense to be in the game, also, what would their perks be, they can't just bootleg Leader and call it hopebringer or something like that. Not much a child CAN do. Children don't often know how to heal severe injuries like an ax to the back? They would not make sense to be in the Entity's Realm. If the devs added children in the game, it would get worldwide bans, make no sense lore-wise, be hard to add gameplay-wise, etc.
Please, don't try to force the devs into adding a child into the game and slow down the game's development. If they did, you'd see the same toxic killer over and over again and you'd always have to play against that player, or you would see the same toxic survivor who DCs when they get hooked, therefore leaving it to the rest of your team to get 5 generators done.

jesus christ. this is such an old topic that has been talked to death. I don't even have to read half of your paragraph because I can already tell you went off topic and didn't read the earlier posts. just move on dude.

Crow

My god, this post was full of white knights like who cares if you hook a kid or mori him/her in a videogame, you're not hurting anybody at any time.

Besides, for the lorewise thing, to the entity kids are basically free meal as they don't know how the world works so they just keep having hope that something will save them.

Onionthing

Typically (traditionally) survivors have been teenagers to senior citizens. Only one movie with a clown really comes to mind where junior highers or below fill that role, oh and that netflix show. Typically because, unless they are a total gary stu/ mary sue kids don't have the developed survival instinct, and they are squishy. What child do you know has the strength or technical know how to repair a generator, sabotage a hook, perform first aid, yadda-yadda? Some people would probably get their ha-ha-s from hooking a kid, but in the predator and prey standpoint i see it boring as all shizz.

NOW A CHILD KILLER, on the other hand... The only thing mechanically about would be this ... imagine how small killers like Freddy, Hag and,Legion can throw people off .... now go smaller... I would about the crud out of that, I'm just saying.. I would take that broken mess and wreck people with it. Hide behind windows, jukes get nullifed, oh yeah.. that would be awesome.. probably the reason why it wouldn't happen. Now get ssmmmaaaalllleeerrrrr .. lets go Chucky sized and the trolling possibilities are endless!

Now Lore wise, i would assume that Innocence is a perfect counter to Corruption, Light versus dark. The entity would probably LOVE to eat some little kids, but its a bit harder since its kinda out of the reach of the big bad. Im coming from lovecraftian logic here, so who knows. Maybe we will be able to coat our pebbles in the tears of innocent children to one shot the entity in the near future.

OMagic_ManO

Little Michael tries to stab Laurie during the trial.

Laurie just jumps over him.

LCGaster

The devs decided to put only adult survivors in this game, except Quentin and maybe Claudette everyone else is at least 21

OMagic_ManO

It would be seen as morally wrong and it's not a very good decision in terms of marketing, and age restrictions could occur.

Orion

@ShrekIsHot said:
It would be seen as morally wrong and it's not a very good decision in terms of marketing, and age restrictions could occur.

Age restrictions (and the associated sale prohibitions) are the real reason.

Shad03

The Devs are aware of R34. That's why.

XD

But seriously the lore reason has been stated before, and I have no idea why this thread was revived.

Saint_Ukraine

@xxaggieboyxx said:

@Twitchin said:
View model and animations would be harder because obviously, smaller the player model the harder it is to see in grass, on the map in general.

Not sure it's something the developers would like to really do, considering it would require a lot of balances.

I'm also not sure how the story would be written for that either.

What do I know though.

@Dizzylizard said:
difficult to pull off without causing an uproar about connotations with a case like the poor Jamey bulger murder in Britain, in ether case it would be risky to introduce a child in some way without ensuing a lawsuit from someone regardless of which side of the game the are on.

Also this ^

here the lore, little timmy went a little too far away in recess and was never seen again

lol

Saint_Ukraine

YO. Would it not be awesome if we had Samara from the Ring as a killer?

TrashLegionMain

Still got hopes for a Little Nightmares DLC. Six for DBD, eh, eh? As Killer or Survivor, it could work either way...?

...What if I say pretty please?

nunadventures

i Don’t think there’s a lore reason besides entity is nice to an extent and doesn’t want to take kids. Or kids are easily snuff out of hope once they realize their situation is permanent and can’t escape unlike adults where they will keep fighting

TheGameZpro3

There might be kids in the realm, just not playable. We know Benedict Backer is in the realm, is he a playable survivor? No.

Also, the kids aren't playable because r/kidsarefuckingstupid (would't know how to do ANYTHING), and the devs would get public backlash for showing a kid matchetted, and hooked.

Oh yeah, and kids would be OP if they could just do everything a regular survivor would. Because kids, are (unsurprising) short. If y'all think Claudette has an unfair advantage, because her color, what about someone who's very short? someone hard to see? Hmmm, if the kid survivor was black, wearing black, prestige all the way... Then that's like, a, uhh... P5 CLAUDETTE.

Plu

There's enough kids whining around here, i don't need more of them !

Saint_Ukraine

Nope. No kids.

XavierBoah17

Alot of people are talking about game play and stuff but the question is more along the lines of "can the killers or survivors have kids?"

FayeZahara

odd rule for games that you can hurt adults and teens but kids are off the table. Since they are our future while teens are just obnoxious or look like there 30 years old.

TangledCables

I don't think the Entity takes children into the realm because they can't really do anything very well. They wouldn't do generators because they don't know how, wouldn't do well in chases because they're small and slow, and all that jazz. They'd run out of hope pretty quickly, so children are probably insufficient sources of emotion.

xCarrie

The youngest killer we have is Susie only being 16 or 15 I believe? Some would see that as a “kid” so that’s our youngest killer lore wise.

Maybe a paranormal kid or a spiritual kid could get a pass? There’s plenty of chapters so we’ll have to see.