I think it the answer was plain to see in the GI article, children will be present in the game. That's about it, don't what they'll look like and so forth.

[edit] nevermind. my bad.

I hope they are like the kids who lived in Megaton and Rivet city - they had their own personalities, they added something to the game world, and they were subtle.

[Edit] Comrov, read the thread posts. Don't bring it up.

I think it's a very bad idea, probably the worst decision that Beth has done so far with Skyrim. I don't know why they need to be in the game. Who's going to enjoy a midget running across the screen, I know I'm not and they don't add anything to the story. In my opinion they're wasting time trying to add children in, to an M rated game I might add. Beth should be more focused on other features instead of taking it sideways with having kids in the game.

That was the only flaw that Fallout 3 had and that's having children in their game. They don't add anything to the story, you might think they do but they don't. Also don't give me the Bryan Wilks line that quest was terrible the only good part was the Lesko part of that quest the rest of it was bad. They could have easily replaced Wilks with an advlt who was a part of Lesko's work but decided to leave because he saw what Lesko was doing was wrong. It's a bad decision on Beth's part, Skyrim is still going to be an amazing game but this feature doesn't help it at all and is a waste of time.

Well, that's your opinion, I suppose. I think they add something to the gameworld, as a world populated only by advlts is a bit jarring and unrealistic. I liked in the Fallout games that (Lamplighters excluded), they added to the feeling of helplessness. The was the girl whose families were killed by raiders (and may have been adopted by one with a guilty conscience), the kid whose mother neglects him for booze, and a certain quest in NV where having kids involved was key to driving home the despicable nature of two of the characters.

Have seen the word 'immersion' bandied about a lot on this forum, so I figure I can use it now and again. How the hell can a world with no children in it even be considered as something to get 'immersed' in? I do not understand the argument that invulnerable children is more 'immersion breaking' than no children at all.
So they are annoying? Well so are guards, and beggars, and arrogant elves, and the occasional Argonian with an attitude, should they also not be in the game?

Not in this game, plz.

It's not an opinion I think it's fact. The children are not going to make Skyrim better. I wish the Devs wouldn't waste their time on something that's pointless and focus more time on getting the game right, both Gameplay wise and trying not to have too many bugs and glitches because Beths track record with Bugs and glitches is not good.

No, it's definitely an opinion.

Argonians aren't annoying, they are effing EVIL! They destroyed Morrowind for **** sake! On topic - Tamriel is a vast immersive world where all races reproduce. Which equals children. Simple as that. And what was so annoying about them in FO3 anyways, it's not like they got in your way or anything?

If I remember right didn't Vivec destroy Morrowind.

i hope there are. maybe we can teach them stuff, play with them or pay them to do small errands for us

And how is it a fact? I play TES games to immerse myself in the world. Kids will help. Gameplay wise maybe we don't need them that badly, but lore-wise we effing do.

Nothing was annoying about them in FO3, I'm saying I want children in Skyrim.

How is shooting lighting out of your fingertips making the game more real. We don't need more immersion what we need is better gameplay and less bugs and glitches.

Why do you think that putting children ingame will mean there are more bugs? They've mentioned kids in GI, so how would removing them make the game less buggy? The other games didn't have kids in after all, and there were still bugs and glitches.

Hopefully they will be in and common place. Its always bugged me about the last two games, that there was no children, or even signs of them except in the literature. Its like this whole, in the culture. If you added children to Morrowind, I would have expected to see them going to Temple, getting their lessons from the priests. Same thing in Skyrim, if they are in I expect it will be more interesting culturally, to see how the Nords raise their children.

Oblivion was rushed if they would've waited until Nov 2006 the game wouldn't have had as many bugs and glitches if any. Also Oblivion was fine not having children in it. I don't see the need to add something to Skyrim that's not necessary and something that might cause a controversey.

Frankly in a way The Nerevarine did by destroying the Heart of Lorkhan. In the end of the day The Read Mountain errupted and Vvanderfell is no more, BUT that doesn' go for the rest of Morrowind. Which was invaded by Nords from the North (again) and... Argonians...

It won't cause a controversy. Just like having kids in Fallout 3 and NV didn't cause a controversy. They clearly haven't rushed this game, and they are obviously confident to have set a release date on announcement. I thought kids would have made OB a more convincing, "alive" feeling gameworld. Obviously OB wasn't terrible just because they weren't in, but having them in would have been a happy bonus imo.

Since when is being believable and being realistic the same thing? get your vocab straight.

So by that account children being invicible is a good thing, that by having children be invicible we make the game be more real not less, I'm not understanding that part.

Who said they'll be invincible? We just know there will be kids in the game, is all. IS ALL. I hate speculating, so let's leave it at that. And even if so, yes, for me it does the immersion good. I don't like killing NPCs for the sake of it anyways, just expressing MY opinion here though.

Take a step away from talking about them being "invicible" or not. A moderator has already warned about it as above.