It's a quick way to gain stat bonuses, and on one of the paths it was the only way to max out affection scores.erttheking said:
There was no undressing, it's just pats on the head, and it only got lewdish when you were petting the person you were married to.Zhukov said:
Also, I love the whole "look at games twenty years ago. they did it too" thing. It's great to know that they don't see any need for thing to advance then either, besides just saying videogames need to grow up over and over.
I'm assuming Nintendo has enough brain cells to rub together to put in a way to get around this. If not, well, there's a good reason to pass on this game.Metalix Knightmare said:
Umm, Sexy girls isn't something that happened to Digimon recently, friend. Angewomon's been around since 1998. Rosemon, Ladydevimon, and (questionably and much more subjectively) Renamon have quickly followed suit. I'd say it's still as kid friendly as it's ever been.SquallTheBlade said:Why not? They CAN stop being games for just children if you ask me. Just look what happened to DigimonRevnak said:
Can't wait untill I get my hands on the Cyber Sleuth
If that something is going to make the game experience worse for me, absolutely cut it. Just because there's more in a game, doesn't mean it's magically better.Bix96 said:
I will never understand this kind of mindset. Whenever I see stuff in a game that I don't like, I just think "Well I don't like this but I guess someone else will" and move on. I ignore the aspects that I don't like and focus on the things that I like. This way everyone wins.RedDeadFred said:
I should probably mention that I know very little about the game, but seeing as this series used to be a serious RPG, I assumed that petting allies would have some kind of in game bonuses (maybe they unlock a special skill once they like you enough). If it's really just a side romance thing that adds nothing to the actual combat, then ya, go for it. I won't use it, but someone else will.SquallTheBlade said:
Even the frustrating annoying parts that get in the way? Because I hope you understand that when I'm watching my best friend being forced to play the most goddamn annoying gambling mini-game that basically goes "You lose" and forces you to constantly reload so you don't go broke, just so she can get someone to join her party and she can get the good ending in Suikoden II, I don't see how many people will be thinking "I guess someone else will like this BS mini-game that's frustrating me and wasting my time."SquallTheBlade said:
Kind of like how when you first responded to me, you went after me because you "never said you were pissed?"MatthewTheDark said:
That last part is kind of the conundrum. Since it's their title, they could ostensibly do it. But it probably isn't worth it if it was controversial even in Japan.EternallyBored said:
Of course, most (or possibly all) of those comments are because people have decided to frame this as a new thing that is recently happening to games, despite that not having a lick of truth. Or blame this sort of thing on [insert recent SJW bogeyman here], which is similarly untrue.Metalix Knightmare said:
I guess? If it annoys me, I wouldn't do it. I don't see a reason why I should force my way and do it. I'd just focus on the things I like.erttheking said:
Because she needed to do it. She needed to force her way through that video game to get the best ending, and not the one that left you feeling depressed as all hell. In order to get the best ending in Suikoden you need all 108 Stars of Destiny, all the characters recruited, which required multiple goes at this stupid gambling mini-game. That's the thing with some of these annoying mechanics. Sometimes you NEED to do it if you want to access some parts of content that you actually want to get to. That seemed to be the case here too, if you wanted to get some of the higher parts of the characters forming relationships. So not only is it stupid, it's now intrusive.SquallTheBlade said:
Except it's not supposed to be grinding. You're just supposed to win one game. A single game. But the game constantly goes "Your opponent rolled an impossibly high score for the fifteenth time in a row, too bad, you lose all your money." And there's no skill to it! It's pure luck. It's basically pushing a single button and being told "Do you want to actually progress? A. Eat Shit B. Eat shit," and then you lose all your money. Any game where you have to constantly reset the game in order to get past an event that sucked away all your resources because the odds are horrifically stacked against you and you have to keep smashing your head against a wall until you get lucky is doing something wrong. I fail to see how I'm arguing against "Difficulty, loss condition and challenge in general." That's an example of putting words in my mouth if I've ever seen one. I notice the word "Intended" here. I can't help but feel that the gambling mini-game was intended to be enjoyable too, but that doesn't mean it can't just get in the way when people want to get back to the parts of the game they actually came there to play.Dreiko said:
This raises an interesting question. Does it cost more to localise than it does to remove?Something Amyss said:
I doubt there'd be any ratings issues, the game's already rated 15+ in Japan, and I wouldn't expect it to get anything higher than that in the west based on similar ESRB examples.Something Amyss said:
This seems to be a problem with the gaming community/industry in general. I don't understand why people are so averse to having optional things in games that they don't like. We saw the same thing with same sex relationships in Mass Effect and Dragon Age.Something Amyss said:
No one forced her to do it. There was no NEED to do it. It's just a game which you can stop playing at any moment if you don't like it. Why would you do something that you don't find fun? I just don't get it.erttheking said: