The Time I Was a Social Outcast

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The Time I Was a Social Outcast

Seduce Me made Ed Smith feel horrible about himself, and that's why he loves it.

Read Full Article

When I first heard about this game I wrote it off as a dating sim, but after that article I kind of want to play it. Especially since I am an average looking 26 year old guy who hasn't had so much as a date in over 9 years...

Referring to a woman, rather real or digital, as a member of a group called "the ladies" only enhances your argument that you can't get along with "the ladies". I've never been particularly good with women myself, but that's largely been due to a difference in what I look for in life and what people are looking for when they go to the kinds of bars where they might hook up with someone. Still, I can have some sympathy. I've had unanswered crushes and I believe that the reality is most people aren't leading nearly as interesting a sex life as one might be lead to believe. This game (granted, I haven't played it) doesn't seem to speak to the reality of sex but rather to some imagined reality of sex.

Anyhow, the biggest problems I ever had in dating was that I sometimes wasn't honest with myself about who I was. When I tried to be someone else, I found myself in embarrassing situations or, worse, in places that I very much regret later on. Given what you've written, the fantasy of this game seems particularly dangerous in some cases because it seems to have affected you in a way that reaffirms your illusions about yourself and the world in general. It's much simpler in life to find what makes you happy and go with that.

I tried to play the game but the massive scenes of text put me off. A shame because I am pretty good with women IRL, I might be good at this game.

So, what you are saying is that you suck at card-games, and the consequences of said sucking remembered you of a real-life experience?
Uh, okey. Well, I feel bad for you, but..Flirting isn't a card-game? I'm really unsure what exactly you are trying to communicate here.

Now you've made me curious. I need to get Seduce Me and see how I score - or rather, how much.

" It's a kind of sociopathic impulse where, after enough time, you set up a mental apartheid between yourself, a poorly, celibate loser, and them, the bonking masses that you're not a part of."

Shit, thats me... with the exception that I got even more mental problems!

Realitycrash:
So, what you are saying is that you suck at card-games, and the consequences of said sucking remembered you of a real-life experience?
Uh, okey. Well, I feel bad for you, but..Flirting isn't a card-game? I'm really unsure what exactly you are trying to communicate here.

Maybe that you never know what kind of emotional experience you get from a game?
"Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." Forest Gump
...or a box of ammo :p

while I don't have any interest in "seduce me" I can kinda relate, I mean, Spec Ops made me feel horrible and I loved every minute of it

Yep, I can pretty much relate to this whole article. Only difference is that I have really never cared about being a loser. It makes it so much easier when you can just let go.

I much prefer games that make me actually feel something. The Walking Dead was the last game that really affected me. I was emotionally exhausted after every episode but damn I kept coming back for more!

Somehow, although I can completely empathize with you having been in a similar situation, I was smiling through the whole read. I guess knowing that other people can be just as miserable helps. 10x dude :)

I can relate to OP to a degree, though my social skills are dramatically worse than his. At least you went to school dances with members of the opposite sex and the fact that you know you're a bad flirter/dancer/kisser means you've at least tried all of those before. Though I'm not complaining, I never really cared or even wanted to be in a relationship and eventually just got over all the social stigma..

I don't think a game like this would bother me though, it would just feel like another story set in a fantasy world with no connection to the real me, especially considering the fact that it's based around a card game, I mean seriously? If real life dating was as simple as a game of texas hold''em I might have actually given it a try.

you went to discos, you followed your university friends (you had some), you were far from being a social outcast. you have no right to complain.
Meanwhile, this article reminded me of my own experiences with women. it shed a tear.

Ed Smith:
...effortlessly gliding from one vagina to another.

Is that really an appropriate way to describe having one night stands? Because here I was under the impression that reducing a woman to her body parts was called objectification. I found that line extremely disgusting.

manic_depressive13:

Ed Smith:
...effortlessly gliding from one vagina to another.

Is that really an appropriate way to describe having one night stands? Because here I was under the impression that reducing a woman to her body parts was called objectification. I found that line extremely disgusting.

All people are are body parts. Besides, that line fits in with the tone of the review, and the first person perspective. That's all you'd hear, the forever alone college student, snippets of stories about how someone 'banged a chick last night' so the resonable assumption is that this chick has a vagina, and that's where the assumptions end.

Anyhow, as for the review, really clever way of taking that game. One of the most interesting reviews I've read for a game actually, even though it was realistically less to do with the game and more to do with how it made you as a social outcast.

I must admit, I'm a bit surprised the devs of that didn't make the game so easy that it's basically just interactive porn.

OlasDAlmighty:
especially considering the fact that it's based around a card game, I mean seriously? If real life dating was as simple as a game of texas hold''em I might have actually given it a try.

Based on what the review about it says, it sounds like the card games are merely a metaphor for how to talk to women, with the cards you play representing what you'd respond with. I'm guessing that scores would represent how pleased the woman is with what you're 'saying' to her.

In real life, I think it's all confidence, though. The couple of times I've pulled in clubs I wasn't actually trying. Just got chatting to them and somehow things ended up back at theirs (Although I was far too drunk in both circumstances to remember what I actually said).

Really enjoyable read but it made me think of a tangent. Does the escapist still do the themed "magazines" that it used to? Haven't seen one in awhile.

manic_depressive13:

Ed Smith:
...effortlessly gliding from one vagina to another.

Is that really an appropriate way to describe having one night stands? Because here I was under the impression that reducing a woman to her body parts was called objectification. I found that line extremely disgusting.

I have to agree with this. In fact, the whole article has something of a problematic tone, and I could never tell whether there was a sexist tone on purpose as to prove a point or just being out and out sexist. Regardless of that, the 'vagina' line really is awful and it's where the article completely lost me. The entire tone of the article is one that seems to regulate women to things to fuck and describing a woman in the most base, disgusting terms only made it worse.

Hahahahahaha...sorry dude, props for writing this because I'm sure it took some serious balls, but this is the most I've laughed at something non-ZP on this site...ever.

manic_depressive13:

Ed Smith:
...effortlessly gliding from one vagina to another.

Is that really an appropriate way to describe having one night stands? Because here I was under the impression that reducing a woman to her body parts was called objectification. I found that line extremely disgusting.

In fairness I think this part is supposed to convey how it seemed to a bunch of young assholes at the time, not the writer's current perspective. Still probably shouldn't have made it into the final draft.

"People are strange, when you're a stranger. Faces look ugly when you're alone. Women seem wicked when you're unwanted. Streets are uneven when you're down."

I just don't see the necessity to feel that way. According to the popularized definition I'm pretty much in loser territory according to you clean socialites (especially so I've been told).

Now I know there are issues that prevent people from blocking this kind of stuff out, so this can't apply to everyone, but the way I see it is; I was put on this planet, and between now and the second my heart stops I will either enjoy myself or I won't. This is coming from a very disgusting human being, at least from what I think.

Tried it just for kicks.

So, one game is basically a match game (either suit or number) and obtain a score that is similar to your opponent's.
Not very hard.

The next card game is basically single player Euchre. Since my wife and I have never lost a Euchre match as partners, this again, is pretty simple. Sure a hand is lost here and there due to shitty cards, but for the most part, lead high off-suit, play low when beat and trump at the right moments. Win the correct amount of hands as stated (usually from 3 to 5).

Th next game is a simplified Canasta. You only need either three of the same number (7 of wine, 7 of couple, 7 of airplane) or a suited straight of three (3,4,5 of airplane). Obtain a score that is similar to your opponent to win. Simple enough.

The last game I tried was the hardest (Flirting).
Basically, a 5 and 10 is a minus to your score. 6,7,8,9 all add to your score. Jack seems to do nothing. And I think King and Queen are a solid boosts to your score. You must always place cards in ascending value (but it doesn't have to follow in perfect sequence.) At King, the next card must be a 5 (player loses a lot of points) or if no 5 is available, pass (less points are lost - weird). On a pass, the next player may play anything. You must try to keep your score about the same as the opponent (which is very hard).

Didn't find the game too hard. It's not particularly engaging though. I mean, it's pretty much a card game with some ero picks. Didn't really find too much to call a "Dating Sim" or anything.

Arakasi:

manic_depressive13:

Ed Smith:
...effortlessly gliding from one vagina to another.

Is that really an appropriate way to describe having one night stands? Because here I was under the impression that reducing a woman to her body parts was called objectification. I found that line extremely disgusting.

All people are are body parts. Besides, that line fits in with the tone of the review, and the first person perspective. That's all you'd hear, the forever alone college student, snippets of stories about how someone 'banged a chick last night' so the resonable assumption is that this chick has a vagina, and that's where the assumptions end.

Anyhow, as for the review, really clever way of taking that game. One of the most interesting reviews I've read for a game actually, even though it was realistically less to do with the game and more to do with how it made you as a social outcast.

It's not actually a review. :) But I'm glad you enjoyed it, just the same.

It might just be me, but it feels like the game cheats a lot. I've had entire games where every card the other person played beat mine, hands-down. Even trump cards. It's really frustrating because skill doesn't enter into it; you just can't win when every card you have sucks and every card they have wins.

This reminds me of the time I tried Love Plus on Nintendo DS

>_>

and I lost the game.

I LOST THE GAME WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?!

FargoDog:

manic_depressive13:

Ed Smith:
...effortlessly gliding from one vagina to another.

Is that really an appropriate way to describe having one night stands? Because here I was under the impression that reducing a woman to her body parts was called objectification. I found that line extremely disgusting.

I have to agree with this. In fact, the whole article has something of a problematic tone, and I could never tell whether there was a sexist tone on purpose as to prove a point or just being out and out sexist. Regardless of that, the 'vagina' line really is awful and it's where the article completely lost me. The entire tone of the article is one that seems to regulate women to things to fuck and describing a woman in the most base, disgusting terms only made it worse.

Really? This line about vaginas simply struck me as how young idiot men view their one night stands and gloat about them to their friends. Yes it is disgusting view, but it in no way to me came off as HIS view. Just a straight out observation of how the men he went to college with behaved, and calling it out for the shallow and thoughtless behavior that it was.

I think the line did the exact opposite of how you took it, which was at face value, without actually reading at all between the lines.

A little thought about a piece can go a long way, but maybe i read too much into it?

The "effortlessly gliding from one vagina to the next line" is problematic, but to be honest I thought it was miraculous to get to the end of an article with this subject matter without the blame being turned around on women for refusing to have sex when the author wanted it. Not that feeling bad about your attractiveness or social skills is a good alternative, but accepting that sex is not something you're entitled to and that people aren't obligated to sleep with you just because you consider yourself a good catch is very mature.

Dating is really as simple as a card game, if not more. Don't fear rejection, don't put women on a pedestal, they are just people.

I do love the way "problematic" is employed by the supercilious sanctimony brigade, so euphemistically aggressive; as they march on, turning everything utterance into an "-ism" in an attempt to utterly sanitise all discourse.

The tone is deliberately adopted to make a point, not sure how one could be so wrapped up in a desperate attempt to underline one's own hyper "liberal" credentials that could be missed?

FargoDog:

manic_depressive13:

Ed Smith:
...effortlessly gliding from one vagina to another.

Is that really an appropriate way to describe having one night stands? Because here I was under the impression that reducing a woman to her body parts was called objectification. I found that line extremely disgusting.

I have to agree with this. In fact, the whole article has something of a problematic tone, and I could never tell whether there was a sexist tone on purpose as to prove a point or just being out and out sexist. Regardless of that, the 'vagina' line really is awful and it's where the article completely lost me. The entire tone of the article is one that seems to regulate women to things to fuck and describing a woman in the most base, disgusting terms only made it worse.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt like this. I mean, I appreciate that it didn't really go into Nice Guy territory, but the way he talked about women still made me uncomfortable.

Res Plus:
I do love the way "problematic" is employed by the supercilious sanctimony brigade, so euphemistically aggressive; as they march on, turning everything utterance into an "-ism" in an attempt to utterly sanitise all discourse.

You find the word "problematic" to be overly aggressive?

Must not mock ... against Code of Conduct ... must not mock...

Res Plus:
I do love the way "problematic" is employed by the supercilious sanctimony brigade, so euphemistically aggressive; as they march on, turning everything utterance into an "-ism" in an attempt to utterly sanitise all discourse.

The tone is deliberately adopted to make a point, not sure how one could be so wrapped up in a desperate attempt to underline one's own hyper "liberal" credentials that could be missed?

You think problematic is a bad word to use? The line is a problem, for a variety of reasons, and is therefore problematic. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

I could go with 'borderline offensive and should never have slipped through editing, regardless of intent' but I'm afraid that might upset you. Isn't that wonderfully ironic?

Hi. I'm the person who wrote this article. In regards to the vagina line, all I can say is that it's meant to be a slightly more colourful way of saying 'one-night stand.' It's a vulgar bit of poetry that reflects my grumpiness, anger towards men and women at the time and generally slouched, defeated attitude to sex. If I was going to intellectualise it any more than that, I'd say that around the period in my life I'm writing about in this article, I'd become so pent up and womanless that, much to my regret nowadays, I struggled to look at women as anything more than anatomical sex objects. It's very much the reason that I was single for such a long time, since I found myself in a dark place where I was unable to form proper relationships with women.

All that said, I'm not going to neuter the way I write. I imagine the majority of readers can get what's meant by language like this and I'm never going to talk down to them.

And also, it was meant more to colour in the mind-set of the men I was referring to, rather than myself.

Proverbial Jon:
Yep, I can pretty much relate to this whole article. Only difference is that I have really never cared about being a loser. It makes it so much easier when you can just let go.

I much prefer games that make me actually feel something. The Walking Dead was the last game that really affected me. I was emotionally exhausted after every episode but damn I kept coming back for more!

I totally agree with you on both parts, man. Accepting things means esier living with peace of mind, and TWD's game is really underrated. It's a real gem of emotion...the TV show can't even compare.

boots:

Res Plus:
I do love the way "problematic" is employed by the supercilious sanctimony brigade, so euphemistically aggressive; as they march on, turning everything utterance into an "-ism" in an attempt to utterly sanitise all discourse.

You find the word "problematic" to be overly aggressive?

Must not mock ... against Code of Conduct ... must not mock...

You have to look at the adverb too, "euphemistically" is the operative word here. It rather changes the meaning of what I am saying from "it's aggressive" to "it's passively aggressive". Nuance is everything. Think you not?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here