Support NeoGAF

[TannerDemoz]

But we have games where you are paid for killing people.
Gameswhere you literally tear apart living beings in most brutal ways imaginable.

Should we bar them too, following this logic?

Nope, because you're comparing fiction to a simulator game that literally realistically depicts this stuff. Don't be silly. Also, I never said this game should be 'barred'.

 

[llien]

Nope, because you're comparing fiction to a simulator game that literally realistically depicts this stuff.

So it comes down to realism?
In what way does "Hitman" depict hunting and killing non-realistically?

My point was, other games are not teaching you to be moral. Why should this one?

I never said this game should be 'barred'.

Fair enough.

 

[ilfait]

You're maybe missing the context here, which is that the opening post 'article' that started this whole business is from KotakuInAction, the "almost-official Gamergate subreddit." So yeah, this whole thing was a Gator conspiracy theory from the get-go. (It's also why the mod criticism was wrong, because the justification for the accusation is there -- though I'll admit it was probably too vague because nobody on GAF reads links.)

Of course I agree with you that not everybody posting in this thread is a Gator, but the origins here are yet another paranoid GG op. (And hey, they could actually be right this time, but until we get greater confirmation that this is all the fault of evil liberal gaming joruanlists I'm going to take the safer assumption that they're not. Also, weird to complain about free speech when you're deliberately buying into a walled garden like PSN, where part of the whole selling point is a lack of freedom, but whatever.) So the criticism basically fits.

Anyway, the game seems a little gross to me (and the developers using the DMCA to silence criticism seems like a basic ethical violation to me), but I'm not going to spend money to play it and see for myself. Oh well. But it is strange to see so many people here pretending that PUA psychological manipulation isn't already super controversial and disliked by huge numbers of people, to say nothing of a guy who went on television and talked about how dumb and whiny British women are. So obviously something like this is going to come off poorly to most normal people, and it's a little disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

I'll admit it was definitely unfair for Sony to apparently lead these developers on prior to release, though maybe they were doing it as a funny meta-joke.

(My favorite PUA is Paul Rudd.)

The question of whether it was media and forum outrage that caused Sony to decide to not host the game is beside the point for me. Whether they succeed in a particular instance or fail, what these people attempt to do and why is disturbing. And that now it comes from alleged "liberal" advocates of games/movies/books, and not from some old conservative politician, or the puritanical Christian mother, or the fascist regime, makes it even more discouraging.

I had no intention to buy it myself--It's not something I'd buy even if it were the only game I could buy, so whether I'll be able to download it from Steam in future doesn't matter to me in this instance in a direct way, and "PUA culture" disgusts me like it does many people, but if groups try to limit the (good or bad) art or the (good or bad) entertainment that I have access to because they don't approve of the content, then they better at least have some rock solid evidence that it's doing irreparable, undisclosed and unavoidable harm to anyone exposed to it, and then they'd have to convince me why a warning label wouldn't suffice.

If censorial people, groups, movements, ideologies, whatever, truly want to benefit society, they should censor themselves rather than their targets.

 

[TheGraykid]

I played the whole game and it is a teaching thing with also really silly and hilarious choices he put in there for fun (showing randomly your dick) but then also tells you should never do in real life etc.

But it is never predatory. He always tells you to respect the women, to not randomly touch her, to not talk about physical preferenes (body), to stay honest etc. In fact would say that this is great in combination with the #metoo movement because it tells you how to respect women, to talk to women in the right way. Some of it can also be some advice for more social awkward people to be honest.

And another thing. He makes it also clear that the place matters and how you should talk to a women during the day in a cafe, or a street and how you can be a little more "direct" flirting in a club for example.

That all seems okay. The thing I saw people (the verge) push back against was the idea that in real life people, for whatever reason, just won't want to talk to you and this game doesn't really talk about that, they say that it frames walking away from an interaction without having the conversation as a failure. Which is problematic, because sometimes people want to be left alone and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Part of respecting others is walking away.

I think framing dating as a thing where you just have to say the right things and then you'll aquire all the females that you'd like, isn't on a personal level (for a person taking that advice and the people they interact with) a particularly healthy thing.

I am a live and let live person though, so I have no issue with this game existing or anything. I just think that seriously following this stuff isn't good for you.

 

[EviLore]

I initially cringed really hard at this game, especially the official PR video for it which plays it straight as some kind of learning tool, but all the reaction vids showing the weird/creepy options are HILARIOUS. The followup commentary Seduction Man includes for the bad options all seem clearly self-aware and tongue-in-cheek, too, so I can't hate. From what I can tell, beyond the surface trappings of the silly guy and his escorts on the bed, it's all basically just promoting decent behavior and having a good time with all the joke options to the point where anyone could have fun with it by exploring all the stuff you should never be doing IRL.

 

[Spukc]

It's like a lot of you people missed the joke. How on earth does one take this game serious?
After watching some videos and the reactions of the people playing it i can't imagine them actually using this IRL.
Why am i even trying to explain this? XD

 

[Mooreberg]

If it did not meet the criteria that would result in an "AO" rating (which console platform holders never touch) than it should be allowed on PSN. Somebody at SCEA should do five minutes worth of research on the game and reverse course here. Sad display from Motherboard, but not remotely surprising either.

 

[Dunki]

That all seems okay. The thing I saw people (the verge) push back against was the idea that in real life people, for whatever reason, just won't want to talk to you and this game doesn't really talk about that, they say that it frames walking away from an interaction without having the conversation as a failure. Which is problematic, because sometimes people want to be left alone and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Part of respecting others is walking away.

I think framing dating as a thing where you just have to say the right things and then you'll aquire all the females that you'd like, isn't on a personal level (for a person taking that advice and the people they interact with) a particularly healthy thing.

I am a live and let live person though, so I have no issue with this game existing or anything. I just think that seriously following this stuff isn't good for you.

This is really reaching in my opinion. You watch these advices for a certain goal to talk to A women you “like”. Not how you should do on a constant or common level. And it frames the women walking away as a failure. There is one out of 10 scenarios like the one you describe. In there you get told from her friend who is with her that she already has a boyfriend. And then she is looking embarrassed and admitting it. There you have an option to walk away and this counts as a failure but this is the only time. The others count as failure because they are stupid and you clicked on these because they are funny. For example you moonwalk away from her.
And again it is not only about dating it’s about becoming friends date or getting into anther social circle.

And it’s always about acting in a decent manner and kind way

 

[KevinKeene]

That all seems okay. The thing I saw people (the verge) push back against was the idea that in real life people, for whatever reason, just won't want to talk to you and this game doesn't really talk about that, they say that it frames walking away from an interaction without having the conversation as a failure. Which is problematic, because sometimes people want to be left alone and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Part of respecting others is walking away.

I think framing dating as a thing where you just have to say the right things and then you'll aquire all the females that you'd like, isn't on a personal level (for a person taking that advice and the people they interact with) a particularly healthy thing.

I am a live and let live person though, so I have no issue with this game existing or anything. I just think that seriously following this stuff isn't good for you.

It's a game. Not education software (and it never pretends to be). Your argument could be applied to every h-game ever made, 'making acquiring girls a game is wrong', no it's not, it's probably the most basic motivation any game could have. Remember Harvest Moon, where huge part of the game was to 'acquire' the girl of your choice - which required you to to do/say the correct things.

I'be never watched any of this pua stuff on the internet, but it exists because it works. And there's nothing bad about it unless you're a Barney Stinson.

Making a game of 'acquiring girls' is a-ok. I feel like one big reason why 'certain people' hate this game is because they KNOW that they cannot do their usual shtick of demanding the reverse - because everybody, even the most deluded feminist, knows that a game where you're female and have to 'acquire guys', would basically be 'pick and choose'.

 

[TheGraykid]

This is really reaching in my opinion. You watch these advices for a certain goal to talk to A women you “like”. Not how you should do on a constant or common level. And it frames the women walking away as a failure. There is one out of 10 scenarios like the one you describe. In there you get told from her friend who is with her that she already has a boyfriend. And then she is looking embarrassed and admitting it. There you have an option to walk away and this counts as a failure but this is the only time. The others count as failure because they are stupid and you clicked on these because they are funny. For example you moonwalk away from her.
And again it is not only about dating it’s about becoming friends date or getting into anther social circle.

And it’s always about acting in a decent manner and kind way

I don't think that point is about the scenarios portrayed, it's about the scenarios not portrayed. I think people wouldn't have this complaint if you had a scenario that was just like "this person isn't interested in the interaction, and wants nothing to do with you", where the answer was just like to be nice polite and leave (maybe this is there, please let me know). I think some of women's biggest complaint is about men who don't know how to take the hint, which is obviously an issue for us men as well because it means there are many men out there wasting their time, so shouldn't a scenario that explores that exist?

It's a game. Not education software (and it never pretends to be). Your argument could be applied to every h-game ever made, 'making acquiring girls a game is wrong', no it's not, it's probably the most basic motivation any game could have. Remember Harvest Moon, where huge part of the game was to 'acquire' the girl of your choice - which required you to to do/say the correct things.

I'be never watched any of this pua stuff on the internet, but it exists because it works. And there's nothing bad about it unless you're a Barney Stinson.

Making a game of 'acquiring girls' is a-ok. I feel like one big reason why 'certain people' hate this game is because they KNOW that they cannot do their usual shtick of demanding the reverse - because everybody, even the most deluded feminist, knows that a game where you're female and have to 'acquire guys', would basically be 'pick and choose'.

Have you read the steampage for this game? because this is very clearly educational game/software. The game is called "Super Seducer : How to Talk to Girls", it's created by someone whose job it is to teach people how to "pick up" girls. Their company is called RLR Training Inc.

Here's an excerpt from their steampage description.

"As you make your moves, renowned seduction guru Richard La Ruina (featured in Maxim, Men’s Health, The BBC, Piers Morgan) provides you with feedback for every choice you make, delving into the psychology and the hundreds of hidden secrets that separate seduction masters from everybody else.

Here’s the bottom line: if you make the right choices in the game, you’ll make the right choices in your life.

So, if you’ve ever run out of things to say, gotten stuck in the friend zone, or don’t know when to make your move - then this game will transform your love life forever.

It doesn’t matter who you are, how old you are, or what you look like - by the time you’re finished playing Super Seducer you’ll be able to attract and keep women who previously seemed unattainable.

.....

Seduction School - Discover state-of-the-art seduction secrets from the master himself, Richard La Ruina, Europe’s top dating guru and best-selling author of “The Natural: How to Effortlessly Attract The Women You Want.”

This isn't Harvest Moon.

 

[KevinKeene]

This isn't Harvest Moon.

I've watched the game. It's Harvest Moon. It's Mass Effect. It's a more harmless True Love.

Since you completely ignored the rest of my posting: Even if it was marketed as educational software, that'd be fine, too. Learning how to land with girls - why is this suddenly taboo?

 

[BANGS]

I would applaud Sony for not letting this trash in, but I can't because they let so much worse in by comparison...

 

[TheGraykid]

I've watched the game. It's Harvest Moon. It's Mass Effect. It's a more harmless True Love.

Since you completely ignored the rest of my posting: Even if it was marketed as educational software, that'd be fine, too. Learning how to land with girls - why is this suddenly taboo?

It's mass effect? That's like me calling my driving instruction software a visual novel.

Learning how to be better at dating isn't the issue here, people just don't like the way in which PUAs tend to go about that. Here it seems to not be as bad though, I admit. I still think some of the basic PUA thought is a stupid way to learn dating.

 

[buizel]

I initially cringed really hard at this game, especially the official PR video for it which plays it straight as some kind of learning tool, but all the reaction vids showing the weird/creepy options are HILARIOUS. The followup commentary Seduction Man includes for the bad options all seem clearly self-aware and tongue-in-cheek, too, so I can't hate. From what I can tell, beyond the surface trappings of the silly guy and his escorts on the bed, it's all basically just promoting decent behavior and having a good time with all the joke options to the point where anyone could have fun with it by exploring all the stuff you should never be doing IRL.

Yeah, everything about this game screams terrible 90s FMV game, and I FUCKING LOVE IT.

I'm not taking morals from a video game like this fucking lol. Then again I'm pretty successful with ladies

I'd play a game like this to choose the most awkward terrible choices cause I could never do that in real life.

 

[ilfait]

I don't think that point is about the scenarios portrayed, it's about the scenarios not portrayed. I think people wouldn't have this complaint if you had a scenario that was just like "this person isn't interested in the interaction, and wants nothing to do with you", where the answer was just like to be nice polite and leave (maybe this is there, please let me know). I think some of women's biggest complaint is about men who don't know how to take the hint, which is obviously an issue for us men as well because it means there are many men out there wasting their time, so shouldn't a scenario that explores that exist?



Have you read the steampage for this game? because this is very clearly educational game/software. The game is called "Super Seducer : How to Talk to Girls", it's created by someone whose job it is to teach people how to "pick up" girls. Their company is called RLR Training Inc.

Here's an excerpt from their steampage description.

"As you make your moves, renowned seduction guru Richard La Ruina (featured in Maxim, Men’s Health, The BBC, Piers Morgan) provides you with feedback for every choice you make, delving into the psychology and the hundreds of hidden secrets that separate seduction masters from everybody else.

Here’s the bottom line: if you make the right choices in the game, you’ll make the right choices in your life.

So, if you’ve ever run out of things to say, gotten stuck in the friend zone, or don’t know when to make your move - then this game will transform your love life forever.

It doesn’t matter who you are, how old you are, or what you look like - by the time you’re finished playing Super Seducer you’ll be able to attract and keep women who previously seemed unattainable.

.....

Seduction School - Discover state-of-the-art seduction secrets from the master himself, Richard La Ruina, Europe’s top dating guru and best-selling author of “The Natural: How to Effortlessly Attract The Women You Want.”

This isn't Harvest Moon.

What something intends to be isn't always the same as how it's used. Do you think that the majority of people who play this game are looking to it for educational guidance? People buy external USB drives to strip them and use them as internal drives, people watch The Room as a comedy even though it's intended to be drama.

And your suggestions on how it could be improved are like making minor suggestions on how The Room could be just a terrible drama instead of one of the worst of all time. Whether Wiseau wanted it to be or not, for anyone with close-to conventional taste it's a comedy. Super Seducer is a comedy.

 

[Dunki]

I don't think that point is about the scenarios portrayed, it's about the scenarios not portrayed. I think people wouldn't have this complaint if you had a scenario that was just like "this person isn't interested in the interaction, and wants nothing to do with you", where the answer was just like to be nice polite and leave (maybe this is there, please let me know). I think some of women's biggest complaint is about men who don't know how to take the hint, which is obviously an issue for us men as well because it means there are many men out there wasting their time, so shouldn't a scenario that explores that exist?



.

These kind of people would have these complains no matter what is in there. Even talking about stalking /harassment etc which is absolutely not in the game. As for your scenario That is not the purpose of this game though. In the advice he tells you also to step away not nagging at something. The moment a women has no interest and want to you to leave she makes it very clear, often also leave the scene. And then these scenes get hilarious making him an absolute idiot and asshole to have a bigger impact on how not to talk, react etc. No women in there ever hints and that she wants to be alone or feels uncomfortable because the right choices are very polite and respectful.

 

[ilfait]

I've watched the game. It's Harvest Moon. It's Mass Effect. It's a more harmless True Love.

Since you completely ignored the rest of my posting: Even if it was marketed as educational software, that'd be fine, too. Learning how to land with girls - why is this suddenly taboo?

It's not learning how to land with girls that's taboo, it's learning to land with girls in certain ways and with certain motivations that's taboo, and has been forever, though what's considered widely acceptable varies through time and cultures.

 

[KevinKeene]

It's not learning how to land with girls that's taboo, it's learning to land with girls in certain ways and with certain motivations that's taboo, and has been forever, though what's considered widely acceptable varies through time and cultures.

Unless you're lying, there's no way or motivation that's widely considered 'taboo'. Especially when most pua is, so I assume, about getting a girl to have sex with you - which is an absolutely normal motivation.

You're free not to like something. But trying to 'get rid' of it is unacceptable behavior.

 

[ilfait]

Unless you're lying, there's no way or motivation that's widely considered 'taboo'. Especially when most pua is, so I assume, about getting a girl to have sex with you - which is an absolutely normal motivation.

You're free not to like something. But trying to 'get rid' of it is unacceptable behavior.

Yeah, there's outright lying, there's concealing intentions, there are levels of aggression or overtness, there are taboo places and times, there's ignoring of signals or requests. All kinds of behaviours are commonly considered taboo.

That's not to say that taboo equates to immorality, or that my personal morality must also be your morality. Different societies throughout history have had all kinds of standards surrounding the etiquette of dating, propositioning, etc. And right now, at least in North America, I'd say that the typical "pua" stuff is commonly considered to be anywhere from mildly scummy or embarrassing to disgusting. I agree with that sentiment, but it doesn't mean that I think games, whether the intention is educational or not, need to adhere to my morality.


Related to the "is it intended to be educational argument": I could point to thousands of works of fiction that are "used" or "received" as educational tools far more widely and to a far greater extent than Super Seducer ever would be, no matter how many people end up playing it. But I might not defend it to the same degree that I would intentional art.

 

[camelCase]

That's fucked up, censoring content effectively.

It's a shame when art and creation is stymied because a few people can't handle to expierience the ideas within, what a bunch of pussies.

 

[NickFire]

"Left wing agenda" is the reason many people will never agree you. That kind of conspiracy signaling is unrealistic. There happen to be separate actors which happen to have a lot of overlap in their ideas. There is nothing sinister going on. Consider the number of liberals that don't care about this. You are taking the voices of a few and assuming they are the voice of an entire political opposition movement because you are noticing patterns of behavior. The patterns are there, they just aren't as connected as you think.

For my money, the game seems to be satirical. And satire is always a tough sell. Satire often shows some of the worst qualities in order to critique or mock them. Take South Park's Cartman, for example. The show portrays a child as having INCREDIBLY racist attitudes. This is done to mock racism but could just as easily promote it if viewed by someone who was racist. One step further, the movie Bamboozled shows the revival of a traditional blackface minstrel show in order to draw parallels to current trends in entertainment. So, yeah, satire can make many people uncomfortable.

That said, I'm not saying I agree with Sony dropping the title. I happen to like satire.

I didn't say its a conspiracy. I do think there is / was in the past tacit agreements to push a similar narrative at times, but by and large I think most of these kind of people are acting by themselves. They just so happen to do the same crap after being indoctrinated with the same nonsense.

 

[ilfait]

"Left wing agenda" is the reason many people will never agree you. That kind of conspiracy signaling is unrealistic. There happen to be separate actors which happen to have a lot of overlap in their ideas. There is nothing sinister going on. Consider the number of liberals that don't care about this. You are taking the voices of a few and assuming they are the voice of an entire political opposition movement because you are noticing patterns of behavior. The patterns are there, they just aren't as connected as you think.

For my money, the game seems to be satirical. And satire is always a tough sell. Satire often shows some of the worst qualities in order to critique or mock them. Take South Park's Cartman, for example. The show portrays a child as having INCREDIBLY racist attitudes. This is done to mock racism but could just as easily promote it if viewed by someone who was racist. One step further, the movie Bamboozled shows the revival of a traditional blackface minstrel show in order to draw parallels to current trends in entertainment. So, yeah, satire can make many people uncomfortable.

That said, I'm not saying I agree with Sony dropping the title. I happen to like satire.

A lot of people would agree with him, and I agree with him so long as I take his definition of left wing in the spirit of how I think he intended it.

 

[TrainedRage]

Nah, not at all. This is a productive comment (yours), but I really can't justify any defence of this game.

I'm probably the furthest thing away from a social justice warrior, but I've got a strong opinion on shit like this playing out in bars/club/public places or whatever like you mention. To see a game encouraging this kind of behaviour kinda sickens me. Maybe this could be justifiable if it was decent satire? But it's not, is it? It's honestly just a really, really, bad game.

I'm all for the argument that a gaming press outlet shouldn't be a role to keep a game from being released. As someone who works in PR I completely agree with what you're saying and I welcome any discussion/open forum about censorship. Having said that, I absolutely do not think there is room in the industry for games like this. Ironically, it's now received more coverage given it's removal and it probably could have just been ignored if Motherboard missed this.

This game is bad, though. And implores some horrendous stuff (IMO). And I'm still disappointed by the general consensus of a lot of members who think stuff like this is 'harmful' or a result of 'social justice'.

Videogames are art. We shouldn't censor and say there is nothing of value in this art. What if the game is actually teaching these sex obsessed guys how treating women like portrayed in the game is NOT realistic.?

 

[jadedm17]

First of all this is not harasment and secondly he never tells you to lie but rather not tell it if its boring for her or it would hurt her. He mostly tells you to stay honest and that if you think something stupid not to tell her. And of course anyone should challenge someone in a good conversation? Here is one advice. You do not have to agree to everything a women says. You also can challenge her to explain why she is passionate about something. Like in the Cafe scene with the teacher.

Seriously if you think that a normal conversation is disgusting then maybe you are the one who has problems.

He has said to lie, I've watched it.

And the ruin a book of a person you just met?

Talking about immigration to someone you met two minutes ago isn't challenging them, it's being a weird douchebag.

I know my lines and this game is way over the line.

For my money, the game seems to be satirical. And satire is always a tough sell

From press release, to who he's sent copies to (including a small Youtuber who makes "Why ______ is Garbage" videos), to how Richard acts on Twitter I've seen no indication this game is satire.

 

[KevinKeene]

I know my lines and this game is way over the line..

And that's fine. Just don't push your lines on others.

 

[wondermega]

I sure do miss the days when the gaming press wasn’t knee-deep in activism and instead just covered the games themselves. Aside from the occasional Letter From The Editor, coverage mainly revolves around the games— photos, explanations, impressions.

When the 24-hour news cycle and always-connected internet required a fuckton or content to fill in the gaps, that’s when gaming press started to go off the rails.

Then it was talking down to its readership in a holier-than-thou manner, calling readers “entitled” and other choice terms.

Then it slid into activism, of which this scenario is but one of many examples. It promotes divisiveness; you’re either with them or against them. There’s no nuance, and limited ability to make choices for oneself because readers are being told what to think— and worse, the industry kowtows to them (again, such as this occasion).

VICE got its web traffic and emerged victorious in its crusade to prevent a game from being released. It’s a win-win for them, and emboldens the outlet to pull more of these stunts in the future. You’d better hope the outlet doesn’t target a game you’re interested in.

You are absolutely right. Basically all news has been getting political the past several years and I don't see an end to it. Though it was difficult and upsetting to watch, at this point I believe it was a blessing in disguise when the gaf meltdown occurred and we can once again discuss these things like actual people instead of every other thread being full of land mines..
As for Vice, shame on them for singling a game like this out, hopefully the dev will enjoy a sales boost on steam and their reputation won't be too damaged. This continues to bode poorly for the future.

 

[DigitalScrap]

Actually, nobody cares about this game over there. Despite having vastly more users than over here, this thread has garnered more replies than the one over there.

I’m not sure which thread there you are reading, but the one I’ve been reading is 9 pages long. So not sure about that.

That said, I’m not sure people here constantly talking about what must be happening “there” is productive. I participate on both forums, and it doesn’t have to be an “either/or” or “us/them” thing.

 

[Petrae]

And that's fine. Just don't push your lines on others.

So much this.

There are plenty of games that I find to be “over the line”— but I don’t actively push for them to be banned or never released.

I just don’t buy said game. It’s not up to me— nor should it be up to any individual or group— to decide what games cross that “line”.

You are absolutely right. Basically all news has been getting political the past several years and I don't see an end to it. Though it was difficult and upsetting to watch, at this point I believe it was a blessing in disguise when the gaf meltdown occurred and we can once again discuss these things like actual people instead of every other thread being full of land mines..
As for Vice, shame on them for singling a game like this out, hopefully the dev will enjoy a sales boost on steam and their reputation won't be too damaged. This continues to bode poorly for the future.

It’s a damned shame that the video game press has become this group of activists and gatekeepers. I used to love reading gaming mags and early versions of websites during the late 1990s and 2000s. It’s where I got my news from, how I kept up on new releases, and kept me “plugged in” to the industry that I was such a fan of.

It’s really from the Mass Effect 3 incident on that I began to notice this insidious change taking place, as games press began to treat its readership like children, scolding and haranguing people like it was a duty. It only went downhill from there.

 

[TannerDemoz]

My point was, other games are not teaching you to be moral. Why should this one?

Because this game is literally 'teaching'. That's my issue with it. It's been created to 'teach people how to pick up chicks.' Games aren't marketed to be taken literally – this one is. I don't agree with the motivation behind this game, I think it's a huge, self-inflated ego push from the creator and I think it normalises and trivialises lame behaviour from guys.

 

[WaterAstro]

Because this game is literally 'teaching'. That's my issue with it. It's been created to 'teach people how to pick up chicks.' Games aren't marketed to be taken literally – this one is. I don't agree with the motivation behind this game, I think it's a huge, self-inflated ego push from the creator and I think it normalises and trivialises lame behaviour from guys.

And what's wrong with "picking up chicks"? You're obviously taking it out of context without having played the game as we've all stated many times against you.

You have no idea how much this game reinforces the idea of non-sexual harassment behavior and promotes good, gentlemen behaviour, but continue to spout nonsense as someone who never played the game or watched playthroughs.

 

[TannerDemoz]

And what's wrong with "picking up chicks"? You're obviously taking it out of context without having played the game as we've all stated many times against you.

You have no idea how much this game reinforces the idea of non-sexual harassment behavior and promotes good, gentlemen behaviour, but continue to spout nonsense as someone who never played the game or watched playthroughs.

I've watched playthroughs and I reckon our definitions of "good gentleman behaviour" are completely different dude.

 

[Dunki]

He has said to lie, I've watched it.

And the ruin a book of a person you just met?

Talking about immigration to someone you met two minutes ago isn't challenging them, it's being a weird douchebag.

I know my lines and this game is way over the line.

Oh boy...

Please tell me the scenario where he wants you to lie. He says do not say everything you think and if its boring do not bother with it or do not tell.

For the spoiler thing its a dick move? Yeah maybe would I do it? No Is it harassment? No it is not.

The only thing I found strange was the immigration part. But even here it is a HUGE topic in Europe so go with some toical discussion is also a nice idea. And he lets you chose her view and your view. It is a discussion you can have with opposite opinions on something. I know having different opinon is for some people harassment (Anita S.) but for normal people it is not.

Also how is he not advocating respect and good behaviour? And Do not come again with the spoiler thingy...

 

[WaterAstro]

I've watched playthroughs and I reckon our definitions of "good gentleman behaviour" are completely different dude.

lmao so give us an example then. The part where he guesses the woman's career by saying it's fashion or art related in order to compliment her, what would you do that is of a good gentlemen behaviour?

 

[Dubloon7]

I would applaud Sony for not letting this trash in, but I can't because they let so much worse in by comparison...

for example? what game do you deem more trashy than this trash?

 

[BANGS]

for example? what game do you deem more trashy than this trash?

Horse Racing 2016, Life of Black Tiger...

 

[Dubloon7]

Horse Racing 2016, Life of Black Tiger...

so, poorly developed games are more trashy than this one? smh.

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

And what's wrong with "picking up chicks"? You're obviously taking it out of context without having played the game as we've all stated many times against you.

You have no idea how much this game reinforces the idea of non-sexual harassment behavior and promotes good, gentlemen behaviour, but continue to spout nonsense as someone who never played the game or watched playthroughs.

I could be wrong, but I think males have been trying to 'pick up chicks' since before videogames were even a thing!

 

[BANGS]

so, poorly developed games are more trashy than this one?

Of course... not sure what kind of answer you were looking for lmfao

 

[WaterAstro]

I could be wrong, but I think males have been trying to 'pick up chicks' since before videogames were even a thing!

Not according to GAF man! Some guys don't even know how to talk to girls in a rescue situation.

 

[ilfait]

Not according to GAF man! Some guys don't even know how to talk to girls in a rescue situation.

In a rescue situation I choose option c) pretend to be blind. That way nobody will hold me accountable for her death.

 

[TheDuskwalker]

I forgot about this video from a little over a week ago before all this happened.


It's like the guy kind of deserves this since he seems like a major dick, yet he got it for all the wrong reasons. I'm so torn on this.

 

[WaterAstro]

I forgot about this video from a little over a week ago before all this happened.


It's like the guy kind of deserves this since he seems like a major dick, yet he got it for all the wrong reasons. I'm so torn on this.

If I knew it was a Jim Sterling video, I wouldn't have clicked it.

But I did, and whatever, I already disagree with his comment on Richard's youtube response. Yes! There are virgin nerds who "aren't allowed" to meet girls on the street. "Aren't allowed" is their lack of confidence of being able to talk to women. We're in a world where men and women think they can't even face the opposite gender without loads of plastic surgery (particularly in Korea). I would rather men get confidence by listening to the advice in this game instead of staying at home and going depressed from the lack of socializing, and "being yourself" for many people doesn't work because what they are might not be desirable behavior in a social setting.

Also, the fact that Jim Sterling made that video before the game is released is just case in point to his type of sensationalism. He's not going to play the game looking for facts and seeing if Richard's game is actually useful. He'll just make quips based off Richard's remark and manipulate his audience into thinking the game has no chance.

 

[xStoyax]

Isn't Jim gay? Why would I be surprised he'd hate a game about meeting girls?

 

[jadedm17]

Jim Sterling absolutely nails everything about this game.

If you don't think this game is pure garbage then I'm sorry.

Also this game is pure garbage.

 

[TheDuskwalker]

If I knew it was a Jim Sterling video, I wouldn't have clicked it.

But I did, and whatever, I already disagree with his comment on Richard's youtube response. Yes! There are virgin nerds who "aren't allowed" to meet girls on the street. "Aren't allowed" is their lack of confidence of being able to talk to women. We're in a world where men and women think they can't even face the opposite gender without loads of plastic surgery (particularly in Korea). I would rather men get confidence by listening to the advice in this game instead of staying at home and going depressed from the lack of socializing, and "being yourself" for many people doesn't work because what they are might not be desirable behavior in a social setting.

Also, the fact that Jim Sterling made that video before the game is released is just case in point to his type of sensationalism. He's not going to play the game looking for facts and seeing if Richard's game is actually useful. He'll just make quips based off Richard's remark and manipulate his audience into thinking the game has no chance.

Yeah, I don't agree on a lot with the vid (or a lot of Jim's bitchyness in general in regards to certain things), like opinions on a game he's never played, but I was more focused on how the dude reacted towards the end in regards to the DMCA and using them just out of a spite. Thankfully he did go back on it, or at least said he did.

 

[camelCase]

so, poorly developed games are more trashy than this one? smh.

Of course they are! Would you rather play a bad game or a game that offends you? I'm sure there are tons of hardcore christians that would call CoD trashy and offensive who think it should be banned but we would laugh in the face of that. The game could end up being good and you have everyone fighting its release because of some hyperconservative ideals that will go away in years to come.

 

[xStoyax]

It must be killing the pro censor groups that on steam the reviews are currently rated "Very Positive"

 

[buizel]

why isnt vice motherboard shut down considering all the shady stuff you hear about them.

i mean, how did this even happen? why are vice motherboard important?

vice has been garbage trash for a while now.

 

[TheDuskwalker]

why isnt vice motherboard shut down considering all the shady stuff you hear about them.

i mean, how did this even happen? why are vice motherboard important?

vice has been garbage trash for a while now.

It would be nice if the rules of the world actually were bad things happen to bad people, and good things happen to good people, but sadly.....

 

[buizel]

It would be nice if the rules of the world actually were bad things happen to bad people, and good things happen to good people, but sadly.....

man i used to be such a big lover of vice in my hipster teen years. suicide forest video and that interview with a cannabal are some of the best documentaries ive seen, even the north korea one was awesome.

now its like... real bad. theres an ep where they go to a puppet convention and the Vice guy is .... so god damn awkward in the whole thing, spends the entire time criticising how low-brow humour puppetry is, then accepts to go on stage for an impromptu puppet show, and really fucks up and resorts to the exact racist humour he demonised not 10 minutes prior. vice in a nutshell now.

its just so odd because games like GTA and CoD id argue are way more controversial, but its easier for these social justice types to gang up and pin the blame on 1 specific person than an entire company.

even childrens youtube channels are WAAY more toxic than a game like this


it just feels like such an odd thing to center your outrage on, and theres much more deserving people and subjects to focus your intense hatred on.. idk man