AAA Gimmicks I`m Sick of Seeing

Recommended Videos

Emiscary

New member
Sep 7, 2008
990
0
0
Oh! Right, and I forgot. There's also the fact that some people can't see any meaningful difference between a game that shows penetration and pornography.

And claim that there would be some sort of power struggle between the two industries.

Which is funny to picture if nothing else.
 

Emiscary

New member
Sep 7, 2008
990
0
0
XD

"DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!? YOU CAN'T! IT'S IN THE RULES!"

When the rules are retarded, you amend the rules. You don't bend society to accommodate their stupidity. Well, sadly people always *try* to do the latter... and it always fails eventually (say hi to DRM!).

Also, I *love* that people assume that a game that involved sex would be first and foremost *about* sex. Because... well shit if people wanna see romance portrayed in a semi realistic fashion they must be after interactive sex! Which would be impossible to sell! Because porn and- blah blah blah, whatever.

'THE EXISTENCE OF STUPID LAWS DOES NOT JUSTIFY STUPID IDEAS.'

That statement should be carved into the doorway of every courthouse.
 

Richardplex

New member
Jun 22, 2011
1,731
0
0
SAMAS said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Emiscary said:
7. Stripper Knights

Attend me and learn game devs, because I want you to understand something.

Whores =/= female warriors.

And female warriors =/= whores.
That's..that's kinda sexist, bro.
I think he means that in the Dave Chappelle sense: "You're not a ho, but you seem to be wearing a ho's uniform".

Or more accurately: Can we have more women wearing armor that's not designed to titillate?

Stuff like this:





1) You linked a picture of Saber, from the visual novel no less. My throat now hurts from the squealing, thanks for that :(
2) I'm amused how you linked Asuna, considering that's a fan picture (or a picture from the anime maybe? I've only read the manga and watched the Shaft version, so I wouldn't know) and that is definately not what she wears in the manga ;)
and 3) You might want to change the source for that picture ;)

Edit: oh, and 4) Fate/Stay Night also fails for the other gender funnily enough, with Lancer:

I get that Cu Chullain fought naked and wore blue body paint, hence this design, but no full body suit should be that tight, I find it hard to concentrate on anything else it's not classy enough.
 

DarkRyter

New member
Dec 15, 2008
3,077
0
0
I don't know why OP thought taking everything everyone complains about in other threads and complaining about them in one thread was a good idea.
 

Emiscary

New member
Sep 7, 2008
990
0
0
"The rules are right."

"Why?"

"Because they're the fucking rules! They say what's right."

"... no, people say what's right. We make up rules to reflect that. If it turns out we were wrong, we make up new rules."

"I DON'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE IN THE RULE BOOK!"

Is about the summary of your argument.

Also if I had to guess (based on the fact that you can't spell the word correctly and the number of times you used it derisively)... I'd say you're absolutely terrified of genitalia.

Like you're cool with everything about sex but the actual sex. As if your sexual education stopped at PG 13 movies (IE: tits are out, fade to black).
 

Emiscary

New member
Sep 7, 2008
990
0
0
DarkRyter said:
I don't know why OP thought taking everything everyone complains about in other threads and complaining about them in one thread was a good idea.
Save space? :p
 

Sindaine

New member
Dec 29, 2008
438
0
0
Wow, dude's getting REALLLLY mad that his games don't have pixel-porn and child-murder in them. Why do I get the idea he also likes to start fires, that he still wets the bed and tortures animals for fun?
 

Emiscary

New member
Sep 7, 2008
990
0
0
Yes, all societal customs exist for a purpose. Thing is, a lot of those purposes are flat out retarded.

Driver's licenses are issued to protect people from dangerous drivers. Not retarded.

What exactly does screening ads with tits from Tescos protect me from? My own squeamishness?

Oh also, Game of Thrones has already shown off bare pussy on more than one occasion. Would copious amounts of cock and ball make it better? Not necessarily for me, but I know a good half of the population that's pretty into dick.

My original point wasn't that pole is necessary. My original point was that making underoos part of the dress code:


Is not a preferable solution. You're better off not including anything in a game than you are rubbing 2 G.I Joes together for a few minutes.

So, consider your opinions noted, and summarily dismissed (on the grounds that they were dumb).
 

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
NinjaDeathSlap said:
Do you ever stop complaining? Like, ever? I mean I wouldn't mind so much if you actually offered any kind of fresh perspective, but you don't. First, as some have already said, half the things in here really aren't 'gimmicks', but more 'things that I don't like that I'm going to call gimmicks because it makes my opinions sound more valid' (which, ironically, is itself a gimmick often used by people wishing to rail against things); and second, everything you've said here has already been said, several times, and much more effectively, by other people. Continuing to go on about it will eventually only serve to annoy people so much that they stop listening.

Ok, so I'll bite, even though I'm probably going to regret it...

1.) Ok, maybe it is a little weird that we have these inequalities in censorship, but gaming is still very young as a medium. It's got very big very quickly, and it's had some major victories against the Jack Thompsonites as of late, but it's going to take more than a few months for the industry to really start feeling secure in its position. Give it time. Just like film had time, just like theater had time, and just like every medium before it had time to grow and mature properly. The last thing the industry needs is people demanding that it somehow makes decades worth of progress overnight, and that has nothing to do with them being "chickenshit".

Also, yes, it may be unrealistic, even immersion breaking for some, but if you're seriously going to get this irate about not being able to murder kids in Skyrim, I don't think you've got much cause to lecture anyone about their priorities.

2.) I haven't actually seen many, if any, developers trying to claim that the sort of example that you present is equivalent to being "the author of my character's destiny". So either you are using hyperbole to an extent where it becomes counter-productive to your own argument, or I just don't follow marketing as closely as you do. In which case, it's marketing for crying out loud! Of course they are going to stretch things to the limit when advertising their game, because they need their game to sell and to do that they need people to be paying attention. That doesn't excuse outright lying, but such occurrences are rare.

Over-zealous marketing happens everywhere, not just in AAA gaming (Hell, have you ever noticed how many 'motion picture events of the year' there are every year in the film industry?). Best solution is to just be aware when someone is trying to sell you something, and take what they say with a pinch of salt. Buying into it only to rage later doesn't help anybody, least of all you.

3.) This one I have no issue with. DRM stinks and needs to go away. It's really not a 'gimmick' though.

4.) So the sort of DLC that seems to really piss you off here, is the cheap, superficial stuff that doesn't take anything of substance away from your experience if you don't buy...

I see. In that case just don't buy it then! They're just a quick and easy way for people to make some quick and easy revenue from the people who are actually willing to shell out what little these optional extras cost. I really don't see how you or anyone else is being hurt by any of this right now. If you don't want it, don't buy it, and neither you, nor any other consumer will have lost anything of value.

5.) See above (mostly). Nobody's mugging you here. You don't want 'Tired Sequel 6: The Stagnation', then nobody is forcing you to buy it. If, however, enough people still do want it to justify it getting made then I really don't see what business it is of yours. If we want the industry to serve the consumer, then no one consumer should have the right to deny millions of others a game they want, just because that one consumer doesn't want it.

6.) Oh, for God's sake. See Above... Again.

7.) I agree with you here; and this one really is a gimmick this time, and a particularly stupid and outdated one at that.

8.) Again, I agree. Though this time with the caveat that I've played some really good games that have cliffhanger endings, as well as some really good sequels that were jumping off their previous installment's cliffhanger ending. But yeah, more often than not this is just annoying and I wish it didn't happen quite so often.

9.) See my response for point #2. It's marketing, deal with it.
I feel that I need to thank you for two things
1. Saying exactly what I was going to say
and
2. Allowing me to realize just how immature this guy really is and how it is not worth it to respond to his OP
 

Ashannon Blackthorn

New member
Sep 5, 2011
259
0
0
RazadaMk2 said:
Emiscary said:
"The rules are right."

"Why?"

"Because they're the fucking rules! They say what's right."

"... no, people say what's right. We make up rules to reflect that. If it turns out we were wrong, we make up new rules."

"I DON'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE IN THE RULE BOOK!"

Is about the summary of your argument.

Also if I had to guess (based on the fact that you can't spell the word correctly and the number of times you used it derisively)... I'd say you're absolutely terrified of genitalia.

Like you're cool with everything about sex but the actual sex. As if your sexual education stopped at PG 13 movies (IE: tits are out, fade to black).
No, I just think they have their place. Some societal rules are around for a reason. Surely you can see the merit of them? I mean, the merit behind not advertising Girls Gone Wild in Tescos or similar? Surely you can understand why such a definition was drawn and why it should stay the way it is?

I like how you dismiss my entire argument based on... Your obsession with uncanny valley sex. However, this entire debate is utterly circular. You are right. Dissentors are wrong. Because... You are the sole dictator of your new Rulebook?

Look, I disagree with the entire premise of this particular argument, hence making reference to A Game Of Thrones. That HBO series is particularly mature and I do not think adding copious amounts of cock and ball would make the series any better. This is the argument I use to dismantle your whole "Its not realistic sex without cock!" argument (Which is essentially your entire argument.) unless you have decided that the sex within that series is no longer realistic.

Consider this argument closed. Your viewpoint is illogical, your wish is illogical and your inability to understand the reasoning behind laws makes me twitch.

Good day to you, Ser.
I commend you for trying ot reason with the OP so long. However, seeing the OP is completely unable or unwilling to concede any point but his own is valid it's a losing venture.

On a side note, christ do people like the OP piss me off. Completely unable to concede he might be wrong and anyone who disagrees is obviously a moron. Hey OP, why don't you join your local junior high/high school/university debating team. You might learn something.
 

Grygor

New member
Oct 26, 2010
326
0
0
RazadaMk2 said:
If something depicts penetrative sex, it cannot be sold without a licence. It cannot be displayed. It cannot be advertised. That is simply the law in the UK. I dont know what it is like in the US, but I know most of Europe seems to follow the same logic (Bar Cyprus. Which is not really Europe, I know, but god, they advertise porn everywhere. And trust me. It is just nasty).
In the US, it varies from state to state, but as a general rule no such permit in needed to sell such things - though in many places there are zoning restrictions that limit WHERE such goods can be sold.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
burningdragoon said:
[

You don't need to make gore porn to explore so the darker side of human nature. Which brings us full circle to where I asked how and why "mature" content makes something better (Specifically I said what does it add). So far all I got was because people are evil and want to see it, which is barely different than "just because".

Epilogue: Real shocker here maybe, but I do think games could do well to explore more "mature" things in ways that are actually mature. I don't expect the AAA scene to deliver that for a while though. What I do not buy into is that games need to do anything, nor do I believe that "mature" somehow automatically makes something "better". That's just stupid.

All this basically comes down to you not liking the answer, not that I didn't give you one. There is no real logic to this, "it's because this is how we are" is the answer, at the core of this and a lot of other issues is human nature. It's one of the building blocks things spring from, rather than something itself that can be analyzed. What you love and don't love, and what you like and don't like, aren't always things that can be rationally examined. The same can be said of mature content. Why people like that kind of thing doesn't have an answer, ask a hundred differant people and you'll get tons of differant answers, there isn't one reason other than "because we do" and attempting to rationalize something that really can't be rationalized doesn't do anything but lead to more confusion.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Kahunaburger said:
[

There's a pretty narrow band of temperatures, technologies, and economies where it's optimal to go into battle with a melee weapon, a big shield, and not much else. Cultures living in pretty hot places, both of the humid and arid varieties (Yucatan Peninsula, West Africa, Indonesia, New Guinea, Arabia, Egypt, etc.) often opted for armor when they could afford it because of the "being stabbed sucks, especially when you don't have antibiotics" principle. Fun fact about the Celts, btw: they generally wore mail when they could afford it. There are limited contemporaneous accounts of Celts going into battle naked, but it was the exception, not the rule. If you've ever been to inland France, the Alps, or the UK in the winter you'll be able to tell why.

Also, the whole line about "but won't it hurt if someone hits them in the boobs?" is hilarious to me. Trust me, if you get stabbed in the chest with a spear, that's gonna hurt with or without boobs, and if a thrust to the chest bounces off your armor, you're gonna be happy you brought it, once again with or without boobs.
As far as John Norman goes, your simply wrong, I'm not the best at defending him, but then again I'm not the one who put him in the "master" catagory. Even if a lot of those elements were around beforehand, he's the one who combined them, and popularized a lot of them. As I pointed out, the guy sold like 12 million books.

Don't get the wrong impression either, he's not one of my favorite authors, he's simply a good example for this. I'm also not defending his writing as the second coming, as I've said, I tried it, and gave up after like 8 books out of 20. All I can say is that if you read that much of what he's wrote you can understand why people call him a master, the potential to be something really great was there, but he DID get sidetracked by all the bondage philsophy stuff to the point where there was gradually little story left (that much is true), and when there was a story it eventually turned into a situation where not one major character was remotely sympathetic.

As far as the bit I quoted, which is the gist of the discussion, the big differance is that if a guy takes a shot to the chest he's liable to get a bruise, and especially in the heat of battle be able to keep fighting due to adrenaline and so on. A girl takes a hit hard enough to leave a bruise like that and she's going to feel it a LOT more and effectively be taken out of the fight. What might be a glacing blow is going to effectively take her out of the fight, at least long enough to be finished.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying breasts make women invalids, what I'm saying is that armor of the sort guys use just isn't functional in the same way.

What's more, one has to remember that all of this female-warrior stuff is pure fantasy anyway. Women were second class citizens for most of history because in the end they are less physically capable than men. Part of that comes down to potential strength, speed and endurance (as well as things like potential healthy mass and weight), but some of it is related to anatomy. People can bring up exceptions where there were female warriors, but most of them didn't exactly follow the same order of battle as guys did, and in some cases like Amazons, actually mutilated themselves to be more effective fighters (ie removing a breast to more easily handle a bow in some cases, though that was apparently by no means universal even to the Amazons despite myths).

When argueing realism, the first thing you have to understand is that this isn't real, it never actually happened, especially not on the scale we're seeing. Once you ignore that bit and start thinking "well, what if we have RPG-type equality in potential 'stats'" you still have the question of anatomy to deal with, and get to the point where simply wearing as little as possible is going to be the most effective route. Granted it's NOT as good as being able to wear and fully exploit armor would be, but it IS the best possible path.

My comment about temporate climates was based on a specific picture, the "sexualized" woman sitting there in what amounts to a bikini. The leopard skin and the way that was drawn made me think of someone at least visiting a temporate climate to begin with, so that kind of makes it a bad example, since even if she could effectively get by in a breastplate or corslet and have it work, it probably wouldn't be a location where she'd want to wear one.
 

Gormech

New member
May 10, 2012
259
0
0
I'm tired of games letting people pay for increased rates of exp or weapons that are not just for looks. The whole paying money to save time thing falls flat for me. If you want to be at a higher level than other people playing, PLAY THE -derogatory comment here- GAME! I'll pay money to make my character look how I want but once it turns into pay-to-win, I'm gone.