Jimquisition: Sexual Failing

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
 

ThinkerT:
He does make a valid point that the games could do a MUCH better job of not dismissing the whole situation as some kind of "achievement" by forgetting it entirely after the sex happens. A more solid continuation of the "relationship" as part of the story (or even as side notes during the remainder) would give them more legitimacy. But I'm not sure otherwise how he's proposing the problem be addressed other than "don't do it".

Eh, I'm not really sure that's relevant. While sex may change the nature of the relationship in some ways, it doesn't necessarily change anything overtly in the day to day activities. The reason why it's generally the end goal is for the same reason why it's the final step in most relationships. There's not really more intimacy to follow except growing as a family and just continuing to know eachother. We also don't run around screaming that we had sex like it was some earth shattering moment. It's just sex. Unless a child was made then how does that make a person any different from who they were however many minutes prior? Is Jim advocating the sanctification of sex? Actually putting it on a pedastle on purpose as something to be revered and life altering? Because it isn't. Sorry to spoil it for any virgin eyes reading it, but as fun as it is you don't magically become a real man or woman because of it. It's just a intimate and pleasurable experience.

Now, the conceiving a child portion of it? Yeah, that has long reaching consequences. But not the sex itself.

keserak:

treeroy:
. . . it is very much is about one person wanting a relationship and the other wanting friendship.

The relationship includes sex, so, by your own account, you're wrong. You don't get to slam a person for not wanting to be involved with you, and you sure as hell don't get to slam a gender because you're not able to convince them to sleep with you with inducements. The problem with the friendzone is that it automatically begins with self-indulgent entitlements.

There are people that would just be happy to have a friend. To have friends, then criticize them because they won't sleep with you, is the ultimate in jerkish entitlement.

I think we have different understandings of what the friendzone is. Where I come from, it's when a guy likes a girl but she wants to just be friends rather than be in a relationship. Of course relationships involve sex, but the idea of the friendzone is nothing to do with sex. It's not about wanting to shag your friend, it's about having feelings for them and that not being reciprocated. And it is nothing to do with entitlement.
But, clearly your definition is different.

TheUnbeholden:
The issue at hand is the guarantee of sex. Ie there shouldn't be one. If it is guaranteed like it is at the moment, therefore the mechanics exist only to be used to get to the end goal and are treated as such by gamers.

I don't see how this inference, "Sex is guaranteed, therefore it's the only goal", follows. And the premise, "sex is guaranteed", is not true in the games we're talking about. An example of a game that *does* have a "sex guarantee" would be the Sims franchise, where you can have any adult Sim seduce any other adult Sim - in less than an in-game day, if the seducer's Charisma is good enough! And I could argue that this capability isn't actually a bad thing in the game, except perhaps for the implausible speed. But that's beside the point, because in the Mass Effect franchise, most party members actually *cannot* be romanced. Their orientations, preferences, prior commitments, and (because it's a SF game) basic biologies all lead them to steer the developing relationship in more Platonic directions. Now, these orientations, preferences, prior commitments, and biologies are all artificial, because, like I said earlier, all the characters really are just robots responding to fairly simple inputs. But, with good dialogue and voice acting, they contribute greatly to the illusion that the characters are people with complex inner lives.

And if the badness here is that it's just an illusion, it would appear that this principle renders *all* romantic plots, not just in games but in fictional media in general, off-limits. Which seems a bit harsh.

Honestly, while there aren't any mature or "decent" sex scenes in video games at this moment in time (that I'm aware of), I still find the romance in Heavy Rain to be the most awkward thing I have ever seen.

Regarding Bioware and the Dragon Age scenes, I would gladly trade out those scenes for a better and more gradual romance system. In Origins you could speak to the characters whenever you pleased (whether or not they had anything new to say was another matter) and it definitely gave the romance a slightly more natural feeling. In DA2 the points where you can converse with the characters is very fixed so you talk to them maybe 3-5 times, complete a personal mission and then get nookie. Although I've said time and time again that I prefer DA2 to Origins, the way the interaction with companions was seemingly downgraded will always be one of my gripes about that sequel.

Lightknight:

ThinkerT:
He does make a valid point that the games could do a MUCH better job of not dismissing the whole situation as some kind of "achievement" by forgetting it entirely after the sex happens. A more solid continuation of the "relationship" as part of the story (or even as side notes during the remainder) would give them more legitimacy. But I'm not sure otherwise how he's proposing the problem be addressed other than "don't do it".

Eh, I'm not really sure that's relevant. While sex may change the nature of the relationship in some ways, it doesn't necessarily change anything overtly in the day to day activities. The reason why it's generally the end goal is for the same reason why it's the final step in most relationships. There's not really more intimacy to follow except growing as a family and just continuing to know eachother. We also don't run around screaming that we had sex like it was some earth shattering moment. It's just sex. Unless a child was made then how does that make a person any different from who they were however many minutes prior? Is Jim advocating the sanctification of sex? Actually putting it on a pedastle on purpose as something to be revered and life altering? Because it isn't. Sorry to spoil it for any virgin eyes reading it, but as fun as it is you don't magically become a real man or woman because of it. It's just a intimate and pleasurable experience.

Now, the conceiving a child portion of it? Yeah, that has long reaching consequences. But not the sex itself.

I think it's completely relevant. If it's just "sex", then what you say is true, but that then is the crux of Jim's complaints - it's just sex as an achievement in the game, not any sort of mature intimacy. However, if the sex is the culmination of the developing relationship, I think anyone who's begun a committed relationship can attest that many things change at that point.

Lightknight:

ThinkerT:
He does make a valid point that the games could do a MUCH better job of not dismissing the whole situation as some kind of "achievement" by forgetting it entirely after the sex happens. A more solid continuation of the "relationship" as part of the story (or even as side notes during the remainder) would give them more legitimacy. But I'm not sure otherwise how he's proposing the problem be addressed other than "don't do it".

Eh, I'm not really sure that's relevant. While sex may change the nature of the relationship in some ways, it doesn't necessarily change anything overtly in the day to day activities. The reason why it's generally the end goal is for the same reason why it's the final step in most relationships. There's not really more intimacy to follow except growing as a family and just continuing to know eachother. We also don't run around screaming that we had sex like it was some earth shattering moment. It's just sex. Unless a child was made then how does that make a person any different from who they were however many minutes prior? Is Jim advocating the sanctification of sex? Actually putting it on a pedastle on purpose as something to be revered and life altering? Because it isn't. Sorry to spoil it for any virgin eyes reading it, but as fun as it is you don't magically become a real man or woman because of it. It's just a intimate and pleasurable experience.

Now, the conceiving a child portion of it? Yeah, that has long reaching consequences. But not the sex itself.

Someone's not gotten a new job and had to send the awkward facebook message of "Hey, remember the time when I occasionally expelled bodily fluid on your face? Yeah I didn't expect to meet you again either. How do you wanna play it?"

Sex is the most complicated thing in our society and culture. Tradition and etiquette and all sorts of other shit are based off it. It is enshrined and embraced and condemned and other words all at the same time. It is, essentially modern man and society coupling with the need to procreate, and the desires and instincts such evolutionary drive creates within self conscious beings.

To see it handled in the same way as a lockpicking minigame...

Fistful of Ebola:

No, it's not. What people believe is the entirety of the conversation. We're having a discussion here about the things people believe. If we ignore what people believe, we have to stop the conversation.

Exactly. It's conversation which should not happen. Games are not to blame for what some people believe. Unless the game itself is actually trying to perpetuate that belief it's irrelevant. Things can always be twisted to absurd extents and always will be by certain people. If we were to actually follow the "some people think this so doing this which might in some very indirect way suggest what they think is true therefor doing this is wrong"-mentality we would need to basically live in a Scientific Paper-like world where everything is laid out in a clear and detailed manner as to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

Human society operates under an implied state of reciprocative altruism. Investment is necessary for any human interaction and we tend to frown on cheaters, hence the prevalence of the Scumbag Steve and Goodguy Greg memes. The being said, romantic feelings and sex generally aren't considered goods, they're off the market. We also look down at people who try to put those back on the market, such as a superior withholding a raise to a subordinate for sexual favors. That's the behavior being criticized, person A feels person B owes them sex and/or a date because of services rendered.

Living in a country where Prostitution is legal I beg to differ with regards to sex. Sex can be a service. Transportation is a service too. But it "servicized" doesn't mean it can't be done for more altruistic reasons. I sometimes drive friends to places and i never ask for a taxi fee either.

But anyway. That's quite off base here. And I don't see any difference between investing in a relationship and the person you're in a relationship with. You can't invest in said relationship without having said person involved in said investment. They're both exactly the same.

Yes, trifles like character development and plot would get in the way of all the fucking. You should probably speak for yourself, I don't really find characterization boring and enjoy talks about feelings. Actually, I would rather like the idea of a romance subplot in a game moving by slowly where the two find fleeting moments to discuss their feelings. I like organic pauses in the action, breathing room is good and romance subplots can serve double-duty to provide levity in an otherwise tense game.

There is character development and character development. I find this kind particularly pointless because it adds very little value. To give an example explaining why Naomi and Otacon had sex in MGS4 beyond the implied desire among both parties would have added little to no value to the story. Most sexual interactions are secondary to the story and time spent explaining that is time which cannot be used to explain more important plot points. Now off course this is all a matter of opinion. But what i'm trying to point out is that there is a very good reason why game devs don't do that: because some/many players don't like it. (and they probably believe we're in the majority among their consumers)

Your presence in this thread is confusing, it sounds like you don't even want romance subplots in gaming and from your phrasing here it sounds like you aren't even overly fond of plot. I'm guessing this is less about defending artistic practices and more about making social statements on your part.

I'm fond of plot. But plot =/= plot. I don't watch romantic movies for a reason. I find romance in many cases extremely uninteresting because it isn't special. It's something extremely common in our every day real world. On the other hand stories like in Metal Gear Solid are nonexistent in the Real World hence why they're so interesting in my opinion. And why am I here? Because games are being accused of silly things yet again. And because I disagree with the idea more romantic development is necessary in games when there is sex involved.

The characters themselves? No, but that wasn't the point. But if you don't see why some people could be annoyed at video games treating relationships as slot machines that you only need to keep paying into then I'd suggest you haven't thought your position through.

In a game everything involving actions done by the player is technically a slot machine. I shoot, he dies. I go there, plot moves on, etc. Action => Scripted reaction. Unless the relationship is 100% story told it will be "slot machiny" because it's a game. It's inevitable. And if it's purely story told I doubt it is considered like a slot machine. No evidence of that has been provided. The only evidence provided is that apparently some people like creativity to fill in the blanks and thus end up assuming "all the character did was X therefor that's the only reason why character Y has sex with him/her". Totally omitting the fact that maybe, just maybe, Character Y could have many other motivations the devs didn't present because they thought it wouldn't be worth the investment/time.

Well, performing insincere tasks with the expectation of sex is problematic, but I concede that he actually did say that. To follow-up, so what? The tasks to complete the romance subplots in Dragon Age range from menial chores like dutifully agreeing with them and buying them gifts. Building up points or knocking off items on a checklist until you finally get the sex scene screams insincerity, more-so since the sex scene is the complete end of the relationship. And I don't really buy your "well the game doesn't say it's insincere, so it's not" argument.

It doesn't in my eyes. In my eyes it screams nothing. It screams what you want it to.

I give Morrigan gifts, take her side in fights, or otherwise agree with her worldview.
I repeat this process until an arbitrary number is reached.
Morrigan repays me with sex.

You don't see how this system reflects some very bad attitudes towards sex in real life?

No. Because this is a game. And in games when gameplay is involved scripts are too. It's inevitable. It's up to the player to look beyond what is scripted. You could complain there is a lack of story and you'd want more in that regards. Fine. But trying to look at things which aren't there, no. I'm sorry but I hate this whole "let's guilt trip developers by making moral claims regarding their content so they make things more to my personal taste" attitude, mainly when said claims require personal interpretations which are often far fetched or stem from a very pessimistic/cynical attitude.

Being nice doesn't require effort, studying hard requires effort. You're still talking about skill sets and expectations that don't have any parallels between them.

I beg to differ. Driving friends around isn't something I can do by snapping my fingers. Neither is treating them to a round of beers (which requires money which requires working), etc. The only kind of "being nice" that doesn't require efforts is the one limited to words.

That's not my understanding. The way I've defined it, and heard it defined, "Friendzone" does not denote a gracious acceptance of friendship and nothing more, it refers to the desire to be more but being relegated to an undesired friendship. You're defining it in a way I've never seen used before, and in a way that doesn't make much sense given the context.

Well yes that's what I meant. But the lack of desire to be friends is because said person wants to be more.

It's clearly not a matter of people coming in different sizes; agonizing over a person you were never romantically involved with deciding they just want to be friends sounds more like they have severe emotional issues. That's not the sort of response a reasonable person would consider healthy. For the record, I'm not in the pro-"people who are emotionally damaged getting into relationships" camp.

Well my reply was mainly about the first paragraph of the quoted part. But I don't think antagonizing is always unhealthy. If anything it can be a very useful tool to help getting over someone. And for your own mental health it also surely beats blaming yourself. Not to say it is ok to run around calling someone who rejected you a douchebag asshole/bitch and other kinds of overreactions.

Ok then, just to see if you actually will. Give me some porn Jim.

generals3:
Exactly. It's conversation which should not happen. Games are not to blame for what some people believe.

I'd say you're trying to redirect but I don't think you even understand my point. Regardless, it's still wrong. Even if we accept games aren't to blame for what some people believe they can feed into and reinforce what people believe. Do you think and alternate version of Wolfenstein where you play as a Nazi is so widely played by neo-Nazis because it makes them neo-Nazis or because it reinforces their neo-Nazism?

generals3:
Unless the game itself is actually trying to perpetuate that belief it's irrelevant.

I don't know where this notion comes from, we don't shrug-off casual racism or involuntary manslaughter because they didn't intend to offend black people or kill a person. Similarly, we don't shrug-off video games whose mechanics and subplots have unfortunate implications because that wasn't the intent of the developer.

generals3:
Things can always be twisted to absurd extents and always will be by certain people. If we were to actually follow the "some people think this so doing this which might in some very indirect way suggest what they think is true therefor doing this is wrong"-mentality we would need to basically live in a Scientific Paper-like world where everything is laid out in a clear and detailed manner as to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

Nonsense, society has always dictated what is acceptable behavior and what isn't, yet we don't walk around in a "Scientific Paper-like world where" et cetera, et cetera. Do you really find it that difficult to avoid offending people or do you feel as if you should be able to offend someone without being criticized for it?

generals3:
Living in a country where Prostitution is legal I beg to differ with regards to sex. Sex can be a service.

Stop trying to redirect the conversation, we are very obviously not talking about sex work and I very obviously am not unaware of it.

generals3:
But anyway. That's quite off base here. And I don't see any difference between investing in a relationship and the person you're in a relationship with. You can't invest in said relationship without having said person involved in said investment. They're both exactly the same.

There's another person in your relationship and you both need to be happy and satisfied for the relationship to work. The difference is subtle but important.

generals3:
Most sexual interactions are secondary to the story and time spent explaining that is time which cannot be used to explain more important plot points. Now off course this is all a matter of opinion. But what i'm trying to point out is that there is a very good reason why game devs don't do that: because some/many players don't like it. (and they probably believe we're in the majority among their consumers)

All character development occurs secondary to the plot, and most stories have multiple story and character arcs running concurrently to the main plot. Look at any work of fiction and cut out everything not pertaining to the main plot, you're usually going to end up with alot of very awful and boring works of fiction. And, please, enough with the economics and player demand excuses. I'm not accepting excuses, it's awful regardless of what the reason is for it.

generals3:
And why am I here? Because games are being accused of silly things yet again. And because I disagree with the idea more romantic development is necessary in games when there is sex involved.

So essentially what I said? You're not here to discuss art and the treatment of sex therein, you're here to make social statements because you feel your preferred form of escapism is under attack. Well good news, no one is accusing games of anything and no is claiming video games with sex involved need more romantic development. So your presence in this thread is still confusing.

generals3:
In a game everything involving actions done by the player is technically a slot machine. I shoot, he dies. I go there, plot moves on, etc. Action => Scripted reaction. Unless the relationship is 100% story told it will be "slot machiny" because it's a game. It's inevitable.

I don't think you know what a slot machine is. A slot machine is not an action followed by a scripted reaction, it's a device you pay into until you (theoretically) get a big payout. This is also not what I'm complaining about, see my exchange with theluckyjosh on the previous page.

generals3:
And if it's purely story told I doubt it is considered like a slot machine. No evidence of that has been provided. The only evidence provided is that apparently some people like creativity to fill in the blanks and thus end up assuming "all the character did was X therefor that's the only reason why character Y has sex with him/her".

"Hey, George R.R. Martin here! You guys want an end to A Song of Ice and Fire? Well, you're not getting one! If you're too fucking stupid to figure out what happens then it's your own damn fault!" It's a romance subplot, not a murder mystery.

generals3:
Totally omitting the fact that maybe, just maybe, Character Y could have many other motivations the devs didn't present because they thought it wouldn't be worth the investment/time.

Or maybe the writing staff were exterminated by a Dalek and Casey Hudson unhinged his jaw and swallowed Ray Muzyka whole. See? I can pull baseless speculation out of my ass too.

generals3:
It doesn't in my eyes. In my eyes it screams nothing. It screams what you want it to.

We're not playing subjectivist's fallacy.

generals3:
It's up to the player to look beyond what is scripted.

Oh for god's sake, it's up to the fucking developer's they're the ones presenting the damn story. It isn't my fault because I fail to appreciate their shallow, bare-bones, obligatory romance subplot. But let's follow this chain of logic. Hey, let's do an adaptation of Metal Gear Solid but let's hand the project off to Uwe Boll and just film six and a half hours of David Hayter's nutsack. You hate that? Too fucking bad, it's up to you to look beyond what was filmed.

generals3:
You could complain there is a lack of story and you'd want more in that regards. Fine. But trying to look at things which aren't there, no. I'm sorry but I hate this whole "let's guilt trip developers by making moral claims regarding their content so they make things more to my personal taste" attitude, mainly when said claims require personal interpretations which are often far fetched or stem from a very pessimistic/cynical attitude.

Evidently it's so far-fetched that your sole retort has been illogical rambling on how it's the player's fault for not writing their own script.

generals3:
I beg to differ. Driving friends around isn't something I can do by snapping my fingers. Neither is treating them to a round of beers (which requires money which requires working), etc. The only kind of "being nice" that doesn't require efforts is the one limited to words.

Aside from the fact that it sounds like you're being taken advantage of, so what? Do you believe anything you've done entitles you to sex with the friend of your choice? No? It should, it's considerably more effort than the player character in Dragon Age goes through to get in half the cast's pants.

generals3:
Well yes that's what I meant. But the lack of desire to be friends is because said person wants to be more.

That doesn't make any sense

One thing about the BioWare games is that they try to make the romance sidequests (if not necessarily the act of sex) carry some illusion of consequence, by having your first lover have a fit if you go onto somebody else (most prominently in the Mass Effect franchise, since the consequences of romancing, say, Ashley or Liara in ME1, and then going around to romance Tali in ME2, would force you to pick one of your two lovers in ME3, and have the lover you spurn off mad at both you and your new lover for the rest of the game).

If anything, some of the most mature depictions of sex come from deconstructions of the "dating sim" game - School Days is one of the most notorious examples, as screwing up the dating game doesn't just leave your character with blue-balls when he doesn't hit off with his two main romance interests, but can end up with either one or both of them going completely postal, either murdering you and/or your lover, or killing themselves (all of which is done really gruesomely, and not at all sexily - unless you're a sick fuck who's into that sort of thing).

Another one (I can't remember the title, but it was in some sort of contest for "most unique dating sim") is a dating game which flips the perspective to a girl being hit on by all kinds of lecherous, manipulative slime-balls that represent the typical "dating sim main character". Again, the maturity the game regarding sex isn't it showing sex in a mature way, but calling out the completely unmature (and borderline "would-be rapist") attitudes of how sex is usually portrayed in the medium.

Although I would one day hope a game comes out which quite maturely treats sex as the complex and intimate affair it is in real-life, good luck selling it in the United States, where we have harder rules against pornography distribution than we have on gun control. Because, obviously, distributing weapons which could snuff out dozens of lives in a matter of seconds is a constitutional right, but describing and portraying the process of how to safely create one new soul in this world? Something that would automatically turn our children into prostitutes, nymphomanics and/or homosexuals, and needs to be culled from public discussion, not caring that this would inspire falsehoods as destructive, if not more so, than the ones good old Jim-quisitor Sterling has enlightened us of here in this truly mature, tasteful, and all-around education video today.

P.S. There's nothing wrong with being gay - I was only talking about how some so-called "moral guardians" see the potential of telling children gay people exist is one reason to strip away sex ed. classes, as they would rather disinherit their children and force them to live on the streets before accepting them for being homosexual.

P.P.S. This also isn't meant to imply that all moral guardians are rabid homophobes. Indeed, I hope that there are people out there who want a higher moral standing of the community by condemning those who blindly hate someone else for their sexual preferences, rather than the other way around.

Fistful of Ebola:

I'd say you're trying to redirect but I don't think you even understand my point. Regardless, it's still wrong. Even if we accept games aren't to blame for what some people believe they can feed into and reinforce what people believe. Do you think and alternate version of Wolfenstein where you play as a Nazi is so widely played by neo-Nazis because it makes them neo-Nazis or because it reinforces their neo-Nazism?

I'd say it's because they are Neo Nazis and they get to play as people who are on the same side? If Belgium was added in Civilization I'd play as them quite often too. Heck in Civ III i even added it in the world builder. (And I would have made it for Civ IV and V if i wasn't too lazy to mod)

I don't know where this notion comes from, we don't shrug-off casual racism or involuntary manslaughter because they didn't intend to offend black people or kill a person. Similarly, we don't shrug-off video games whose mechanics and subplots have unfortunate implications because that wasn't the intent of the developer.

But we do treat involuntary manslaughter differently than murder. And the reason why we don't shrug it off is because involuntary manslaughter either involves criminal negligence or negative intentions (like beating the crap out of someone) and/or the obvious use violence. On the other hand we do shrug off accidental killings where no malice was involved. And we also shrug off casual racism when it's clear none is actually meant (think of stand up comedians).

Nonsense, society has always dictated what is acceptable behavior and what isn't, yet we don't walk around in a "Scientific Paper-like world where" et cetera, et cetera. Do you really find it that difficult to avoid offending people or do you feel as if you should be able to offend someone without being criticized for it?

And society also dictates what is a legitimate complaint or not. And i'd say society is quite clear on this one: the issues of a few over-analyzing and sensitive people are non-issues. Exactly because if we would make issues out of such issues we would reach that dystopia.

Stop trying to redirect the conversation, we are very obviously not talking about sex work and I very obviously am not unaware of it.

You brought that up. Not me. If you don't want a point addressed why bring it up?

There's another person in your relationship and you both need to be happy and satisfied for the relationship to work. The difference is subtle but important.

And the other person is you. Investing in yourself is hardly investing in the relationship. It's simply investing in yourself.

All character development occurs secondary to the plot, and most stories have multiple story and character arcs running concurrently to the main plot. Look at any work of fiction and cut out everything not pertaining to the main plot, you're usually going to end up with alot of very awful and boring works of fiction. And, please, enough with the economics and player demand excuses. I'm not accepting excuses, it's awful regardless of what the reason is for it.

I beg to differ. In many stories the character development is key to the story. To take MGS as an example if it wasn't for all that happened to Big Boss and how he handled it (also mentally) the plot wouldn't be the same at all.

Yet it's a very valid excuse.

So essentially what I said? You're not here to discuss art and the treatment of sex therein, you're here to make social statements because you feel your preferred form of escapism is under attack. Well good news, no one is accusing games of anything and no is claiming video games with sex involved need more romantic development. So your presence in this thread is still confusing.

I beg to differ. Maybe you need to rewatch Jim's video. Jim calls it a "worrysome" element because of what some people believe in RL and that he decided to interpret it in the worst way. I'm here to simply make one thing clear: there is nothing worrysome about it at all. And what did the reference with the twisted version of the friendzone even do there if this was all about art?

If this was only about "art" than Jim particularly failed at making his point and my presence can than only be blamed on his bad skills at discussing something. Maybe you should send him an e-mail.

I don't think you know what a slot machine is. A slot machine is not an action followed by a scripted reaction, it's a device you pay into until you (theoretically) get a big payout. This is also not what I'm complaining about, see my exchange with theluckyjosh on the previous page.

It's essentially always like that in a game. You always do something and get something out of it. The only alternative would be treating the person of interest like an arsehole and than still get the sex scene? Would that be better? After all in that case you don't "pay" in any sense of the word. But that would be an even more ridiculous alternative, don't you agree?

Consequently as long as this particular aspect requires player input it will be like a slot machine. Because for obvious reasons it will always be the positive actions that will lead to the sex and since a player can hardly bring in some complicated input other than just choosing "option A" or "B" it will always be simplistic. But when mechanics bring in such limitations I believe it's up to the player to use his brain and imagination to think creatively and go beyond what is obviously being thrown at your face.

"Hey, George R.R. Martin here! You guys want an end to A Song of Ice and Fire? Well, you're not getting one! If you're too fucking stupid to figure out what happens then it's your own damn fault!" It's a romance subplot, not a murder mystery.

So? Because it's romance doesn't mean you should always shut your brain off and act like a zombie. What's wrong with filling some gaps yourself? What's wrong with thinking of reasons why character A likes character B?

Or maybe the writing staff were exterminated by a Dalek and Casey Hudson unhinged his jaw and swallowed Ray Muzyka whole. See? I can pull baseless speculation out of my ass too.

Ok, I give up. It's obvious the devs wanted to present the characters in questions as slot machines who only need to be given X stuff and than instantly want to have sex because that's how women work. It's totally not linked to limitations regarding gameplay or budget/time. No the previous explanation obviously makes much more sense!

We're not playing subjectivist's fallacy.

I'm not playing anything at all. I'm saying things how they are. I'd say the fact this topic reached page 13 shows that i'm exactly right. People see very different things into it.

Oh for god's sake, it's up to the fucking developer's they're the ones presenting the damn story. It isn't my fault because I fail to appreciate their shallow, bare-bones, obligatory romance subplot. But let's follow this chain of logic. Hey, let's do an adaptation of Metal Gear Solid but let's hand the project off to Uwe Boll and just film six and a half hours of David Hayter's nutsack. You hate that? Too fucking bad, it's up to you to look beyond what was filmed.

I never said anybody couldn't hate anything. You're totally misinterpreting my point. My point is and has always been that the use of fabricated Real Life links for guilt tripping and trying to make things appear much worse as what it is, is not ok. If someone tells me they don't like violent games, fine. If they tell me they don't like violent video games because it turns people into psychopaths and that's worrysome and devs should think twice before making such games, not fine.

Evidently it's so far-fetched that your sole retort has been illogical rambling on how it's the player's fault for not writing their own script.

Writing their own script? No. Not entirely switching off their brains, yes. Is it too much efforts for you to think of reasons why Character A may wanted to have sex with Character B beyond the scripted events? I'm not asking you to come up with a 500 pages novel.

Aside from the fact that it sounds like you're being taken advantage of, so what? Do you believe anything you've done entitles you to sex with the friend of your choice? No? It should, it's considerably more effort than the player character in Dragon Age goes through to get in half the cast's pants.

Sometimes doing favors =/= being taken advantage of. Not sure if that's how it works in your group but we tend to be helpful :/
And nothing in the game suggests entitlement. So the use of the word "entitlement" is misplaced.

That doesn't make any sense

Actually it does. When you want more than what you have your current situation becomes undesirable.

generals3:
I'd say it's because they are Neo Nazis and they get to play as people who are on the same side?

In other words, exactly what I just said? There's being contrarian then there's just rephrasing my own points to make it look like you're disagreeing.

generals3:
But we do treat involuntary manslaughter differently than murder.

That's not what I said, I said we don't ignore it. You know, it is actually possible for people who disagree to find common ground. You don't need to invent positions of mine to attack.

generals3:
On the other hand we do shrug off accidental killings where no malice was involved.

We do not "shrug" it off, an investigation is done and it's determined that the accidental killer was not negligent and the killing occurred due to reasons beyond his/her control then he's exonerated.

generals3:
And we also shrug off casual racism when it's clear none is actually meant (think of stand up comedians).

That's not what casual racism means; when comedians make racist jokes more often than not they're using satire. When Sarah Silverman said that she is dating a half-black guy and followed up with "no, I should be more optimistic. He's half-white" she was being satirical. Racist and sexist sounding language can be used to point out the absurdity of those beliefs. We don't ignore jokes that are blatantly racist or sexist, like when Daniel Tosh told a crowded comedy club that it'd be hilarious if a female heckler were gang raped.

generals3:
And society also dictates what is a legitimate complaint or not. And i'd say society is quite clear on this one: the issues of a few over-analyzing and sensitive people are non-issues. Exactly because if we would make issues out of such issues we would reach that dystopia.

Make issues out of such issues? So it's already an issue but we shouldn't take it as such? Sounds like the issue is that you don't want the dominant paradigm challenged. Regardless, you really can't throw my argument back in my face in this instance, because I never claimed the hegemonic discourse is always correct. I'm pointing out that the hypothetical "dystopia" you refer to already exists depending on who you are. Racists and misogynists can't operate as openly today as they could sixty years ago, you can't slap your secretary on the ass then lynch a black boy for whistling at a white woman anymore. And that's really your complaint here, you don't want to have to be held accountable for your own bad behavior.

generals3:
You brought that up. Not me. If you don't want a point addressed why bring it up?

Sex work has nothing to do with the topic, we're talking about insincere input in the hopes of receiving a sexual output. You're attempting to redirect the conversation.

generals3:
And the other person is you. Investing in yourself is hardly investing in the relationship. It's simply investing in yourself.

How exactly do you maintain a healthy, happy relationship despite being unhappy?

generals3:
I beg to differ. In many stories the character development is key to the story. To take MGS as an example if it wasn't for all that happened to Big Boss and how he handled it (also mentally) the plot wouldn't be the same at all.

Character development is always key to the story, if you're writing a good story anyway. How the plot changes your character and your character changes the plot is integral, but if you have multiple characters with conflicting goals then the plot surges forward regardless of how it changes. To go back on the GRRM analogies, the plot of ASOIAF is constantly changing and moving forward. An assassination might happen here, a character might have a change of heart and fundamentally alter the course there, a character might do something and change it back, but its moving forward regardless and the gorram Others aren't waiting for anyone.

This is the problem with the romance subplots of Mass Effect et al, they occur outside the main plot, whether you fall in love with Morrigan or Leliana, Liara or Ashley does. not. matter. And because it doesn't matter your courtship does. not. matter.

generals3:
Yet it's a very valid excuse.

No, it doesn't! If thirty out of thirty-one people expect to be served a steaming pile of cow shit at a restaurant that doesn't change it to fillet mignon. Food critics don't have to sit on their hands and ignore it when that restaurant serves more cow shit despite claiming to serve the finest foods. It's the same damn principle here; Bioware is serving up a platter of bad slashfic and calling it "tasteful and mature", we're not obligated to ignore the bullshit there. The fact that bad slashfic is what the fans of Mass Effect are expecting doesn't absolve Bioware from criticism.

generals3:
I beg to differ. Maybe you need to rewatch Jim's video. Jim calls it a "worrysome" element because of what some people believe in RL and that he decided to interpret it in the worst way. I'm here to simply make one thing clear: there is nothing worrysome about it at all.

How is he interpreting it in the worst way? It is what it is; Bioware and Quantic Dream have a history of making very shallow romance subplots and presenting them as artsy. Jim found commonalities in their presentation with how a worrisome element of the male population views relationships. Calling out two video game developers is not a condemnation of gaming as a whole. Interestingly, the person who is being hyper-sensitive and interpreting things in the worst possible way is you. There's an article I want you to read that sums up your problem, that privilege views any surrender of ground as an attack.

generals3:
And what did the reference with the twisted version of the friendzone even do there if this was all about art?

I'm guessing you're new to criticism of art in any form; critics often ground their criticism in existing social concerns and trends.

generals3:
It's essentially always like that in a game. You always do something and get something out of it.

Stop right there; we aren't talking about a random action followed by a random reaction. We're talking about a very specific set of actions followed by a very specific reaction, talking about it in general terms doesn't further your argument.

generals3:
The only alternative would be treating the person of interest like an arsehole and than still get the sex scene? Would that be better? After all in that case you don't "pay" in any sense of the word. But that would be an even more ridiculous alternative, don't you agree?

So our only options are shallow love scenes or spousal abuse? Yeah, that's not a false dilemma in the slightest...

generals3:
Consequently as long as this particular aspect requires player input it will be like a slot machine.

Oh for fuck's sake, read this wikipedia page and come back to me before continuing to use the slot machine analogy. I will say it again, a slot machine is not an action followed by a scripted reaction. Repeating that multiple times doesn't make each subsequent iteration more true.

generals3:
Because for obvious reasons it will always be the positive actions that will lead to the sex and since a player can hardly bring in some complicated input other than just choosing "option A" or "B" it will always be simplistic.

Yet games have somehow managed complex and interesting interactions between characters before, somehow because Bioware and Quantic Dreams can't make an interesting romance subplot this means gaming as a medium can't do it.

generals3:
But when mechanics bring in such limitations I believe it's up to the player to use his brain and imagination to think creatively and go beyond what is obviously being thrown at your face.

I can't possibly facepalm at this enough, the response to bad storytelling is not to head-canon a better story into existence.

generals3:
So? Because it's romance doesn't mean you should always shut your brain off and act like a zombie. What's wrong with filling some gaps yourself? What's wrong with thinking of reasons why character A likes character B?

See, I don't even think you have a clue what the fuck you're talking about. You criticize romance subplots for existing; then criticize people for criticizing Bioware/Quantic Dream's romance subplots because good ones would be be too long and uninteresting, then cite Metal Gear Solid and its hour long cutscences vomiting exposition all over the player as good storytelling. You don't have a consistent, logical point to make. You're just here complaining about complaining and utterly failing to see how it relates to your own complaints. There's no point in even continuing this conversation because the entirety of your dialogue is just blasť contrarianism.

jehk:

OT: Only thing I disagree with is the shity music bit. I've always loved this song despite not really liking the many of the scenes during which it played.

Agreed, really love the Dragon Age/ Dragon Age 2 soundtracks.

And maybe they're not the best, maybe the animation when we get to the love scenes are bad (just skip them) but I think the love interest options in Bioware games adds to the story. If I hadn't have romanced Alistair in Dragon Age would I have convinced him to stand up for himself? Would he have taken the throne?

Agree to disagree on this one Jim

ThinkerT:
I think it's completely relevant. If it's just "sex", then what you say is true, but that then is the crux of Jim's complaints - it's just sex as an achievement in the game, not any sort of mature intimacy. However, if the sex is the culmination of the developing relationship, I think anyone who's begun a committed relationship can attest that many things change at that point.

Not necessarily. Hell, some people start relationships with sex. This is just somebody defining what sex is and what sex should be portrayed as when it isn't that static. Can in impact the relationship? Sure. Look as Shepards relationship with Jack in Mass Effect 2. It is the PERFECT example. Jack will oblige casual, meaningless sex early on. But the relationship between you and her is irreparably harmed for you taking that out. A little bit of delayed gratification and you can have an ongoing meaningful relationship with her.

But what I'm saying is that, in a fight to save the world, what kind of impact does it have outside of that relationship? The relationship, sex included, is and will always be a side-story in most games. Sex is a part of a relationship. It is a natural step and aside from it usually being an increased intimacy in the relationship, it doesn't usually bleed out into daily lives.

I guess it depends on where you are in your life. A teenager or early college student would have a much more inflated opinion of it than a married adult or any individual that has had multiple relationships where this is just a step. It's just a stage of a relationship that some people don't get to. I don't think the hero should be a emotional weakling aobut it just to give the event some kind of unrealistic drama about it. So I'm not sure what Jim wants. Does he want them to reconvene every three days after they've had sex to talk about it while doing their nails?

thebakedpotato:
Someone's not gotten a new job and had to send the awkward facebook message of "Hey, remember the time when I occasionally expelled bodily fluid on your face? Yeah I didn't expect to meet you again either. How do you wanna play it?"

Sex is the most complicated thing in our society and culture. Tradition and etiquette and all sorts of other shit are based off it. It is enshrined and embraced and condemned and other words all at the same time. It is, essentially modern man and society coupling with the need to procreate, and the desires and instincts such evolutionary drive creates within self conscious beings.

To see it handled in the same way as a lockpicking minigame...

There has to be criteria unless we develop characters that are actual AI. How do you propose it be done without criteria?

The "Friend Zone" is not a "dismal purgatory certain men have contrived to describe the feeling you get when you are kind to a woman and she has the audacity not to repay you with sex."

The "Friend Zone" is a situation where a woman is fully aware of a man's attraction to her, rebukes his advances, but then proceeds to use him for emotional support much in the same way men are accused of using women for sex. Just because a girl says she's not interested doesn't mean that your feelings toward her magically go away, and there are women who will take advantage of those emotions.

Fistful of Ebola:

In other words, exactly what I just said? There's being contrarian then there's just rephrasing my own points to make it look like you're disagreeing.

And than there is being very bad at expressing yourself. What i said is totally different from what you said.

" Do you think and alternate version of Wolfenstein where you play as a Nazi is so widely played by neo-Nazis because it makes them neo-Nazis or because it reinforces their neo-Nazism?" =/= playing as a neo nazi because you're one to begin with (which doesn't imply either a transformation or a reinforcement).

We do not "shrug" it off, an investigation is done and it's determined that the accidental killer was not negligent and the killing occurred due to reasons beyond his/her control then he's exonerated.

If there was criminal negligence it starts getting into involuntary manslaughter territory. Once the killing has been determined to be accidental it's being shrugged off.

Make issues out of such issues? So it's already an issue but we shouldn't take it as such? Sounds like the issue is that you don't want the dominant paradigm challenged. Regardless, you really can't throw my argument back in my face in this instance, because I never claimed the hegemonic discourse is always correct. I'm pointing out that the hypothetical "dystopia" you refer to already exists depending on who you are. Racists and misogynists can't operate as openly today as they could sixty years ago, you can't slap your secretary on the ass then lynch a black boy for whistling at a white woman anymore. And that's really your complaint here, you don't want to have to be held accountable for your own bad behavior.

What I obviously meant was: making a big issue out of one which is barely one to begin with. I guess you could call swatting a fly animal abuse but crying murder over it surely is taking things out of proportion? That's my point.
And it's not a manner of how you cannot operate. It is about how we would operate. By making a huge deal of non-issues (or barely issues) and often relying on creative thinking to actually get there the only logical solution is to adopt scientific paper like standards to everything that is being communicated. Otherwise "offense" will continue being caused. And since obviously that's "wrong" why beat around the bush? Let's just go there straight away. And if it's not the ultimate goal than maybe some complaints need to be revised.

How exactly do you maintain a healthy, happy relationship despite being unhappy?

If the reason you'd make yourself happy is for a relationship i'd say you have a bigger problem than a unhappy relationship. Being happy is what you do for yourself. You do it regardless of your "relationship status". As such I don't see how that is "investing in the relationship", at least not in a direct manner.

Character development is always key to the story, if you're writing a good story anyway. How the plot changes your character and your character changes the plot is integral, but if you have multiple characters with conflicting goals then the plot surges forward regardless of how it changes. To go back on the GRRM analogies, the plot of ASOIAF is constantly changing and moving forward. An assassination might happen here, a character might have a change of heart and fundamentally alter the course there, a character might do something and change it back, but its moving forward regardless and the gorram Others aren't waiting for anyone.

This is the problem with the romance subplots of Mass Effect et al, they occur outside the main plot, whether you fall in love with Morrigan or Leliana, Liara or Ashley does. not. matter. And because it doesn't matter your courtship does. not. matter.

The fact the romance stories didn't actually matter. That's a valid complaint for sure. Now off course i personally don't care that much because in my experience usually when romance drives a plot it does so in boring ways and usually the plot suffers in quality. But that's me and my opinion.

No, it doesn't! If thirty out of thirty-one people expect to be served a steaming pile of cow shit at a restaurant that doesn't change it to fillet mignon.

No but it does justify why the restaurant serves a steaming pile of shit and suggests that perhaps filet mignon is not as good as you make it out to be. (considering taste is 100% subjective, I personally think cheese is close to be on par with a steaming pile of crap but i know a lot of people don't agree)

Food critics don't have to sit on their hands and ignore it when that restaurant serves more cow shit despite claiming to serve the finest foods. It's the same damn principle here; Bioware is serving up a platter of bad slashfic and calling it "tasteful and mature", we're not obligated to ignore the bullshit there. The fact that bad slashfic is what the fans of Mass Effect are expecting doesn't absolve Bioware from criticism.

And what determines what is fine food? If people prefer crap isn't it the critics who may have the crappy taste?

How is he interpreting it in the worst way? It is what it is; Bioware and Quantic Dream have a history of making very shallow romance subplots and presenting them as artsy. Jim found commonalities in their presentation with how a worrisome element of the male population views relationships. Calling out two video game developers is not a condemnation of gaming as a whole. Interestingly, the person who is being hyper-sensitive and interpreting things in the worst possible way is you. There's an article I want you to read that sums up your problem, that privilege views any surrender of ground as an attack.

The found commonalities are based on the most negative interpretation possible of what is presented, that's how.

I'm guessing you're new to criticism of art in any form; critics often ground their criticism in existing social concerns and trends.

And I've found many critics to be really bad at what they do. So i guess that explains that.

So our only options are shallow love scenes or spousal abuse? Yeah, that's not a false dilemma in the slightest...

game mechanics wise yes. Gameplay is based on scripted reactions to actions. If the idea a woman has sex as a result of the gamer giving positive inputs is bad the only way out of that is by having him giving negative inputs. Remember we're talking about romance as part of the gameplay here.

Oh for fuck's sake, read this wikipedia page and come back to me before continuing to use the slot machine analogy. I will say it again, a slot machine is not an action followed by a scripted reaction. Repeating that multiple times doesn't make each subsequent iteration more true.

Euhm, maybe you need to call up Jim than. He clearly used it as follow "as long as you put enough emotional coins in it you will get sex" (well i'm paraphrasing because i really don't feel like going through his bad video to have the exact words). This suggest a fixed reaction as a consequence of an input (as if it was, *gasp* scripted). Which is INEVITABLE in games when gameplay is involved.

Yet games have somehow managed complex and interesting interactions between characters before, somehow because Bioware and Quantic Dreams can't make an interesting romance subplot this means gaming as a medium can't do it.

Only possible if it doesn't involve gameplay. The limitations to game mechanics will always reduce the "complexity" of interactions between characters.

I can't possibly facepalm at this enough, the response to bad storytelling is not to head-canon a better story into existence.

Who said bad? All i said is "has blanks". All stories have blanks. And I'd say stories which don't are probably horribly boring.

See, I don't even think you have a clue what the fuck you're talking about. You criticize romance subplots for existing; then criticize people for criticizing Bioware/Quantic Dream's romance subplots because good ones would be be too long and uninteresting, then cite Metal Gear Solid and its hour long cutscences vomiting exposition all over the player as good storytelling. You don't have a consistent, logical point to make. You're just here complaining about complaining and utterly failing to see how it relates to your own complaints. There's no point in even continuing this conversation because the entirety of your dialogue is just blasť contrarianism.

Good ones? Again, who used the word "good"? All i'm talking about is that I find it weird that someone needs all details in order to avoid the worst possible interpretations because if something isn't there than there's nothing there. After all we all know all stories are 100% complete. We always follow all characters 24/7 and know exactly what they do and think at any given moment.

The Ubermensch:
>I don't like Abbot, but we need to get our debt under control
...We have a debt to GDP ratio of under 20%
>But we need to get it under control
Japan has a debt to GDP ratio of 210%, but due to those investments they are going to dominate the domestic robotics industry for the next 80 years
>Oh, but we need to get our debt under control
Don't you have a mortgage? you know, debt, that's building up equity.
>But Australia's got several billion dollars in debt
Australia's a fucking nation
>Oh, well I'm still voting Liberal

I can't speak for Australia, but taking you at your word, this is a rightwing screed that works in the U.S. as well. The trick is that the source of the debt is never discuss. In the U.S., that's the military, eating up 54% of the budget. But that, too, is a dodge: the military isn't meant to protect the U.S., but fuck over anyone who doesn't get with the kleptocratic program of a narrow elite and, even more importantly, keep contractors flush with cash. And once you get to the other 44% of the budget, a sizable portion of that is welfare for the extremely wealthy. So if you cared about the debt, you'd care about those two things. . . but the people who claim to care about the debt never do. Instead, they want to screw over people of the wrong skin color/social class, and they need a cudgel with which to justify it. Thus, on election day, the rest of us have to pay the highest economic price possible because a group of jackasses can't reconcile their marathon masturbation sessions to exotic models with their searing racial hatred. It's not a lack of logic, but a lack of ethics.

treeroy:

keserak:

treeroy:
. . . it is very much is about one person wanting a relationship and the other wanting friendship.

The relationship includes sex, so, by your own account, you're wrong. You don't get to slam a person for not wanting to be involved with you, and you sure as hell don't get to slam a gender because you're not able to convince them to sleep with you with inducements. The problem with the friendzone is that it automatically begins with self-indulgent entitlements.

There are people that would just be happy to have a friend. To have friends, then criticize them because they won't sleep with you, is the ultimate in jerkish entitlement.

I think we have different understandings of what the friendzone is. Where I come from, it's when a guy likes a girl but she wants to just be friends rather than be in a relationship. Of course relationships involve sex, but the idea of the friendzone is nothing to do with sex. It's not about wanting to shag your friend, it's about having feelings for them and that not being reciprocated. And it is nothing to do with entitlement.
But, clearly your definition is different.

As I mentioned before, no one in the U.S. seriously used the term "friendzone" any other way than what I'm describing before the internet existed as a large social phenomenon (early nineties), and I strongly suspect this newfangled definition was a way to re-color a particularly antisocial phenomenon.

You can even see it in this thread. Again and again, there are people here who -- seriously -- maintain that the point of the definition is that the woman is doing a bad thing. The fact that, in that case, the only way that there is any conflict would be if the man were also doing a bad thing to is irrelevant to them, because, in their mind, being a man means being entitled to the bodies of others. There wouldn't be a term here if there wasn't any misogyny.

rynoth25:
The "Friend Zone" is not a "dismal purgatory certain men have contrived to describe the feeling you get when you are kind to a woman and she has the audacity not to repay you with sex."

The "Friend Zone" is a situation where a woman is fully aware of a man's attraction to her, rebukes his advances, but then proceeds to use him for emotional support much in the same way men are accused of using women for sex. Just because a girl says she's not interested doesn't mean that your feelings toward her magically go away, and there are women who will take advantage of those emotions.

Exactly. The friendzone is lamenting unrequited love. This is a perfectly legitimate thing to frustrate anyone who is in love with a person who will not have their love but still wants to use them as a friend. To relegate this situation to a guy just being horny and mad that he's not getting some "deserved" sex is a great injustice to the condition afflicting humankind since time began.

I do find it surprising when such an avid and clearly qualified wordsmith like Jim mixes a term like this up with something intrinsically depraved and dirty.

keserak:

I can't speak for Australia, but taking you at your word, this is a rightwing screed that works in the U.S. as well. The trick is that the source of the debt is never discuss. In the U.S., that's the military, eating up 54% of the budget. But that, too, is a dodge: the military isn't meant to protect the U.S., but fuck over anyone who doesn't get with the kleptocratic program of a narrow elite and, even more importantly, keep contractors flush with cash. And once you get to the other 44% of the budget, a sizable portion of that is welfare for the extremely wealthy. So if you cared about the debt, you'd care about those two things. . . but the people who claim to care about the debt never do. Instead, they want to screw over people of the wrong skin color/social class, and they need a cudgel with which to justify it. Thus, on election day, the rest of us have to pay the highest economic price possible because a group of jackasses can't reconcile their marathon masturbation sessions to exotic models with their searing racial hatred. It's not a lack of logic, but a lack of ethics.

Yeah, but in saying that debt is not a bad thing, and America doesn't really need to give a shit about debt BECAUSE it's got the most powerful military in the world. But I get what you're saying "WE NEED LESS DEBT, BUT WE ALSO NEED MORE DAKKA" is kind of hypocritical. However, that 2.8 billion going to DARPA should never bet touched and if anything increased. Their cybernetics research, advanced weaponry and weather control projects all have really interesting civilian applications.

In my opinion though, a national budget should always be in debt unless the CFM has a very good reason to expect a massive recession. If it's in surplus... that's money that could be going to things that improve health care, roads, education, research, robotics and it's just sitting there doing fuck all. I've got no issue with taxes proving you don't waste my money and don't just leave it somewhere to rot.

A lot of this drama is just that, drama to distract you from the real issues. Those being that we are in an Aristocracy, there is a glass ceiling that most of us will never be able to break through, and if we do, we have to compromise our ideals. The decisions are made by unknown men in back rooms.

A friend posted this a few days ago; Russel Brand adequately emulates my thoughts and frustrations with the current political climate, of which, this whole notion of the "friend zone" is a small but none the less important part of understanding the psyche of the disenfranchised masses, and the mind of a 20-30 y.o gamer. Which is why I'm like "well rather than spend all this energy on yelling at people about a minor specific thing, why don't you use it on fixing the root cause."

Guys, do not accept your circumstances simply because its the right thing to do. If a relationship with a woman is dependent on sexual intercourse, then it's fucking dependent on sexual intercourse. If she's not interested move on, but don't let anyone tell you that it's unacceptable to want that. Providing what you want doesn't harm anyone else don't let anyone talk you out of doing anything you want or voicing your opinion that "This shit is wrong."

while i agree that sex isn't being handled maturely here, video games are fantasy. Not reflections of reality, if i wanted a real interaction with a woman. i'd go and meet one. Also, stop denying a woman's agency in using a man for emotional validation then denying him that same validation, ala friendzone. It's as sexist as the loids saying sex is a reward for emotional validation.

From an evolutionary stand point, the payoff/goal for any social interaction, for a heterosexual male, is sex. Especially if you prescribe to Richard Dawkins selfish gene, which is not just about biological altruism.

I know I am in the minority here, but it seems to me that it is quite pretentious to discard the idea of slotting "emotional points" for sex, when it is quite natural.

Yes it is lazy to cram it into a game due to some minimum content requirement check-list, but the presence of sex as a reward is an emulation of what social interactions at their core are about. If you don't mind the pun, "Tit for Tat" (or "Tat for Tits" in this case) is viable, and crucial game theory.

A more accurate reflections of success would be incredibly difficult in an interactive medium, especially since when it comes to social success it is very subjective what peoples goals are, and if they even are aware of their goals with a specific person. That kind of personalisation is not really possible yet, definitely not in a "choose-your-own adventure" type game

I am not endorsing this kind of thinking wholeheartedly though, not all natural behaviour is legitimately good or fit for intelligent and civilized people, just look at rape a relative good reproduction strategy just ask Genghis Khan, but a crime that is beyond terrible. I know I have digressed, and I know that most rapes are not sexual in most cases, but acts of pure malice and downright evil.

Edit: Also the whole evolutionary prerogative goes both ways, there is no point whining about not being chosen, no matter how much you think you have slotted up and are entitled to a relationship of some sort, she might still go for the 6.2 dude with the cool ride, abs and sideburns... because sideburns.

I don't know Jim, being nice to me is a pretty good way to get in my pants.
I don't lament the friend zone because a woman doesn't give me sex, I've always thought the friend zone was the idea that sex was impossible with a particular person, like I say at the beginning of the post, being nice might allow a woman "private access" but there are some women I'm not going to sleep with no matter what.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

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