Jimquisition: Sexual Failing

[Tono Makt]

Mostly I'm disappointed that you seem to want to actively discourage developers from even trying - what it sounds like you're saying here is "I don't like the way you're doing sex and romance in your games, so its bad and you shouldn't do it until you figure out a way I like better". I mean I'll agree that it isn't perfect - but at least they're trying and from what I've seen getting better at it as time goes on - see Garrus and Tali pairing up on their on in ME3, or only being able to actively fail at attempting to romance Aveline in DA2 for example. It seems to me that they're actually trying to make these kind of romance subplots to work better - and a lot of people enjoy them (or they wouldn't keep doing them), so I'm having a hard time seeing what the harm is.

I got that impression too. The biggest question I had from the video is "What does Jim actually think a relationship, from courtship to sexual intercourse, entails? What general arc does he believe they follow?" When I met Mrs. Makt (well before she was Mrs. Makt, it must be said), it was a long time of talking to her, getting to know her likes and dislikes, getting to know what I could and couldn't say to her or around her, deciding that I wanted to say more of certain things to her, buying her gifts (paying for movies and dinner, driving her home from work, etc. She paid for quite a bit of it as well, refusing to let me pay for everything all of the time - which is a very large reason why Mr. Makt worked so hard to convince her to become Mrs. Makt.) and generally "choosing all the right options" to unlock the "Has Sex" and later "Get Married" and "Have Children" Achievements. (It would have been nice if there had been a DA:O type bar and something that popped up over her head when I did something, or a Wiki that would say "Will Not Leave Friendzone Under Any Circumstances. See: Sten, Shale, McBitsTheirBalls" for women I courted before meeting Mrs. Makt, but I digress.) I've never looked at it from a game POV before, but it isn't hard to fit our courtship into a Bioware-esque game scenario. Maybe Jim says what he thinks is a more normal courtship/relationship arc somewhere in this thread, but it's already 11 pages long, and frankly I just don't have the time or inclination to go through every post to see if it's answered.

Regarding Mass Effect, I'm scratching my head over its inclusion in this particular discussion. To unlock most romance options you need to spend a fairly decent amount of time working at the relationship, you can't do it all at once (after each major mission new dialogue options are sometimes made available) and then the relationship only really reaches a peak when there's a good chance that everyone is going to die. The Suicide Mission in ME2, going to Ilos in ME1. (ME3 is the exception as it really depends on who you romance when the romance reaches its peak.) It tends to make more sense in those situations because people who have an attachment to one another, even a loose attachment, tend to decide to have sex when it looks like it's the end, or there's some sort of catastrophe. Two of my most memorable personal sexual experiences came during natural disasters, one of which is actually topical.

There was a massive ice storm in the last 90's in Eastern Canada, and a bunch of friends were literally frozen into a house for a night. A woman who had been pursuing me for a few months was there as she was invited there and invited me to come as her date. She cooked me dinner that night and had movie tickets, but the roads were too slippery to drive down so we decided to go to the party instead. As the storm got worse, one thing lead to another and the basement was off limits to the rest of the people that night. The relationship didn't go anywhere after that night as I really wasn't that interested in her as anything more than a friend, but looking at the situation from a Gamer POV, it has an amusing amount of parallels.

1) The pursuit was one sided - she wanted me and initiated the courtship. (She was the Player, I was the NPC.)
2) She spend a great deal of time getting to know what would make me respond most favourably to her advances.
3) She gave me gifts which were intended to make me more receptive to her advances. (Meals, alcohol, movies, companionship, etc.)
4) An extraordinary circumstance led to a situation in which sexual intercourse was a viable option. (Being literally frozen inside a house during the Ice Storm)
5) Once she got what she wanted, she moved on to other pursuits and our relationship went into the Friend Zone from then on.

Heh. If she had tried Jim's "Saints Row 4" approach and simply said "Wanna go have sex?" right off the bat, I probably would have said no. She had a reputation as either a slut or a confidently sexual woman (depending on your POV), and I was too old even then to deal with the baggage that came with women I thought were sluts. (Jumped at the chance with a few when I was younger, and it never ends well.) It took a few months before I came to appreciate who she was (a woman who was extremely confident in her sexuality and herself, and who was very particular in whose opinions she took into consideration about herself) and where I was willing to say "Yes" when she said "Wanna go knock boots?".

Alot like a Bioware romance storyline. Maybe that's why I've always been so willing to accept how Bioware writes their romances.

 

[Jan Smejkal]

Sexual Failing

Some developers will have you believe they are purveyors of tasteful, mature, adult sexual content. Some developers are talking out of their arses.

Watch Video

k, Jim, I agree, mostly. Do you have some positive examples in this regard?
I always think of Planescape Torment, where Annah (NPC!) flirts with and seduces the Nameless One (PC). It never end up in sex though but anyway. Although it all happens in text and static sprites it is so natural and even more tasteful than anything I've experienced in Bioware games. It is also not some hidden sidequest or minigame. It just happens during certain dialog scene (even in certain place I think) and strengthens one of the themes of the main story.

 

[Trizzo]

I love when sexuality and gender issues come up on escapist. You'll never find a safer window to view pure unchecked toxic hatred from.

A lot of argument seems to concern Bioware games and whether or not Jims examples fit the bill. Let?s put aside Bioware debate and acknowledge that you will be hard pressed to find any other game that does it better.

That?s somewhat depressing considering the plethora of sexual content in video games. In short this is one of Jims best rants yet.

It's always sad to see the topic of sexuality, which concerns both men and women equally, constantly derailed by shrill activists and or anger, seemingly stemming from a failure to have success at or understand intimacy.

Ahahahahaha. This video is hilarious. So wait doing nice things for someone and spending a lot of time with that person leading to sex is in some way perpetrating a toxic idea?

Strawman. Jim took issue with the mechanic that the 'input = i expect sex'. You should always do the "nice things" for the sake of doing it. That is true love and a true relationship, not based on manipulation. Therefore the slot machine anaology.

Is it wrong to show students study hard and than get good grades because somehow that might reinforce the idea that studying hard makes you entitled to have good grades?! Absurd. Plainly Absurd.

Yes this is abusrd. Studying hard does not entitle you to good grades. Studying hard gives you the skill to get those grades. Nothing is owed to anybody, even those that put effort in.

And secondly, please don't legitimize the internet pricks by applying their definition of the "friendzone". Friendzone is a term which merely refers to a predicament into which a person is. .

The internet is not the sole possesor of the term friendzone. It is a broad term that has many meanings. The fact the very term exists is toxic. Why is it friend zone? Why not just friend. By calling it a "zone" that implies different levels. The outside zone, the "friend zone" and we assume the relationship zone.

The talk of zones is a bad way to look at relationships. It seems to many people on this forum think that they are destined to remain in one zone. We aren't talking about "breakup advice" or "intimacy issues" or "how to find a partner". This debate concerns the total lack of sucess.

Some posters describe the agony of being in the "friendzone". Get over it and move on. This self pity is terrible a self perpetuating catharsis. I see it in some many of my friends. Lonely>play video games>make advance>get rejected>lonely>play video games... Little wonder why there is so much sexual angst on display and why levels of loneliness, isolation and long term relationships are statistically at historic lows.

It takes courage and a degree of self respect a lot of people lack to move on if you have your sights set on somebody and they don't requite your advances. But it is far less pain than an actual breakup! Even so a breakup is no excuse to mope for an extended period...but i digress

And here is your perfect case study from the prior page. No need to post the rest of the comments they are puerile.

Is this a 100% accurate simulation of a relationship? Of course not, but neither are the relationships presented in novels or movies. I have yet to see such blanket condemnation leveled at the Film or Paperback publishing industries.

Films have a 60-80? year headstart on video games but it is only recently that they have had the complexity (due to technology) to even begin exploring sexuality in any meaningful way. Films tackle and have tackled sexuality in ways that video games have not even yet dare attempt, from pornography to pulp.

To even begin to compare the impact that books/writing have had on human sexuality, over the course of thousands years, to video games just shows what a sad and safe little bubble of ignorance you are living in.

 

[The Ubermensch]

I'm honest to god still confused by this argument every time I see it. I mean...

a) Is it really not possible to ignore these discussions if they bother you that much? This is what I usually do when the news starts to bother me too much- I stop reading it for a while. (I frequently have to stop reading US national news, and slightly less frequently international news.)

There is nothing inherently wrong with history or feminist propaganda; white people did do some stuff, and everyone should be treated equally. What happens is some of the themes that are... harmful? to someone's identity are subtle.

b) Are your principles and morals really so swayed by what everyone else is talking about? Don't you have beliefs of your own that can persist in the face of these discussions?

When I was growing up; yeah. It's developmental theory 101 that you gain your morals and values from those around you. Now? Well I've explained that I'm Superior Gender Futanari in my heart.

c) I dunno that blaming "someone else" for whatever instance of sexism while simultaneously trying to argue against the validity of said argument (the person you quoted) is really logically sound. Either it exists and it's not your fault, or you argue it doesn't exist and it quite possibly is your fault if it exists. Both...doesn't make sense.

... The person I quoted was Tyler Durden, look him up, he's got some nails.

d) The whole "friendzone" thing... I don't even know how to address that because it's clearly a term like "hipster" or "feminist" or "Christian" that has evolved a whole set of conflicting meanings. Suffice it to say there's definitely a definition of "friendzoned" that includes people bitching that a woman they were nice to won't sex them.
(and for the record, I have been friendzoned. turns out being friends with someone I thought was cool enough to date is not the worst thing in the world! still saddening not to have interest reciprocated but it didn't kill me.)

I will concur here. And I will admit to walking the Friend Zone for the sole purpose of attaining pussy. I will also stipulate that I've grown since then and now consider my male friends as potential sexual partners.

e) Does Jim really point the finger at the (presumably your) demographic of twenty-somethings? Or is he pointing the finger at game developers? And do we really think game developers aren't at least noticing these shitstorms when they happen? Nobody is that insulated.

I was offering suggestions to the guy above me really, he just seems to be a bit inflammatory. THB my argument is a little out of context here; but there is a reason why this kind of romantic narrative is popular and that is the mentality of the 20-30 year olds playing it. Sexual Frustration.

f) The original quoted argument makes less and less sense every time I see it. Jim's obviously using a pretty specific definition of friendzone, and not understanding what that definition is when he spells it out reads like deliberate ignorance.

I know, which is why I was saying "Hey mate, we need more context for this grevence"

g) I dunno that "propaganda" is necessarily all that less inflammatory than "misandry", although the latter definitely makes you harder to take seriously.

"The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."
-Valerie Solanas
Source: http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

So if misandry doesn't exist, whats this? An acceptable statement?

To say there aren't extremists on both sides is ignorant. Misandry exists with in the feminist movement, and saying that it doesn't is, as far as I'm concerned, an endorsement of these ideas.

h) We're never going to fix our parent's fuckups if we aren't aware of what they are, which is something all these pieces of "propaganda" achieve quite nicely. If you recognize them as problems, good, fine, feel smugly superior to elderly people. You probably should, they're usually racist too. If you don't recognize them as problems and attempt to paint them as unimportant, well, you probably do need to feel bad about it because you're making it worse.

The former, I'm trying to spread my glorious wisdom to the masses. I'm good mate; employed with a roof over my head and a motorbike in my garage. But I see a lot of miserable people and I'm trying to speed up the recovery of my generation.

You mean, just like Generation X (which includes members in the mid-50-years-old) felt?

This is not a new thing, you're basically describing the typical angst of a 20-something. The parents of 20-something-year-olds today will typically be members of Generation X. And they had the exact same complaints about their parents, The Baby Boomers. They had the same lack of access to quality employment, and they shared the same lack of involvement in large-scale wars or in sexism and racism.

And in turn, the Baby Boomers felt the same way about their "Greatest Generation" parents, at least until they got good jobs and social privilege. I suspect the same will be true of the current youth. Seriously, tell me that all these 20-something internet billionaires are not going to abuse their privilege and buy expensive environment-destroying vehicles and indulge in other excesses.

Every generation thinks it is not like the one before, but history shows us that we have more in common than we might think.

Fair call, but I argue that we are different. First of all the economy is probably the worst its been since the great depression. We have the ability to have arguments with people across the world almost instantaneously, to share data at a whim. And finally;

This is one of the first times in history that there have been more middle aged/elderly people than there have been young adults/children. So their opinion is dominant, and they are going to be a burden on the economy as they continue to age.

So yeah, what we're going through is similar, but the context is very different.

 

[PrarieDog_319]

Entitlement is not expecting something for something... entitlement is expecting something for nothing.

A guy giving up his time and money for a girl and expecting sex in return is not entitlement, its reciprocation.

A girl expecting a guy to give up his time and money for her, while expecting to give nothing IS entitlement. (Do I hear a projector running?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XDb0nxSO4

 

[Trizzo]

Entitlement is not expecting something for something... entitlement is expecting something for nothing.

A guy giving up his time and money for a girl and expecting sex in return is not entitlement, its reciprocation.

A girl expecting a guy to give up his time and money for her, while expecting to give nothing IS entitlement. (Do I hear a projector running?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XDb0nxSO4

So in your world gifts=sex. Not the simple joy of giving, giving for the sake of love or at the most basic equitable level a gift given gets one in return? No for there to be recipocity one party has to give more.

This is no basis for a healthly relationship. If you are so damaged to think that that is how it works, as Jim said i put my coins in the slot machine (gifts) and get the payout (sex), all i can say is that you have at best not been in a healthy relationship or maybe never. This is precisely why you ascribe two different outcomes to two identical examples.


To paraphrase, a girl wants gifts and uses the potential for sex to get that end (material gain) or just gives nothing back because she expects it (selfish/manipulation). Too you this is selfish or entitled. I agree it would be. (insofar as expecting gifts is selfish but being given a gift that has some implied action and NOT rising to that manipulation isn't selfish)

THEN

Your first exmaple we have the same situaiton but a different diagnosis: A guy gives only because he wants an end (manipulation) or because he expects it (selfish). But to you that is reciprocation? You are incorrect. They are both equally selfish.

When you draw different conclusions between your exemplifiers when their motivation and selfish ends are the same, and the only disticntion is their sex, we can safely call this sexist.

And have a flawed defintion and understanding of entitlement, that flawed definition informed your entire argument and you used it to fit your equally poor examples.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Fair call, but I argue that we are different. First of all the economy is probably the worst its been since the great depression.

Absolutely not. The economy was much worse in the 70s, and Australia in particular remained in recession through the 80s and even into the 90s. Since you cite Australia, our economy is quite strong at the moment - young people have more disposable income than ever, and we have access to cheap goods like we never did before, and the Australian dollar has been hitting unprecedented high levels.

This is one of the first times in history that there have been more middle aged/elderly people than there have been young adults/children. So their opinion is dominant, and they are going to be a burden on the economy as they continue to age.

Once again, incorrect. Generation X was a "baby bust" generation following the baby boom, and there were far fewer Generation X kids born in the West than their parents' generation. Look at the chart you post, how the population drops off over 35. That is not because people were dying in their 30s to 50s - average life expectancy is higher than that.

And again, Generation X was born into economic recession, while their parents were born into a post-WWII era of economic growth and an unprecedented increase in living standards. Meanwhile, Generation X was racking up debt on University educations, with few getting jobs that used or required that University education.

So, yeah. Nothing new going on with the current 20-something generation. And you have access to cheap technology and white collar jobs that were not available 20+ years ago. I grew up in an era when buying a computer was a rarity, because they cost thousands of dollars for not very powerful machines, combined with a struggling economy where we had little disposable income. Today with cheap Chinese manufacturing, you have access to so much great stuff for so little money.

And the ability to have conversations at a whim and socialise online is somehow a bad thing? We used to have to send fucking letters - and in many cases we didn't know that other nerds with similar interests even existed. Today you are able to find support and friendship easily, even if you have "weird" or obscure interests.

 

[Deadagent]

The whole "friendzone" thing... I don't even know how to address that because it's clearly a term like "hipster" or "feminist" or "Christian" that has evolved a whole set of conflicting meanings.

Just want to point out that "Feminist" and "Christian" dont have different conflicting meanings.

Theres different kinds of feminists, sure sex negative and sex positive, But they're all focused on womens issues.
Some legimate issues, some not.

And with Christian, if you believe that Jesus was the son of god then you're a Christian, nothing more to it.

With "hipster" im not entierly sure because it's the kinda word that isn't all that well defined. From what I understand it's a person that trys to be cool by being as much anti-trend as possible, thats why you get this "too mainstream" thing. Thats just what I've gathered tough.

 

[PrarieDog_319]

So in your world gifts=sex. Not the simple joy of giving, giving for the sake of love or at the most basic equitable level a gift given gets one in return? No for there to be recipocity one party has to give more.

Reciprocity means an equal exchange. That is what the word means. If I shoot you in the foot, and you shoot me in the foot, that is reciprocity. If I buy you a Honda Civic, and you buy me a Cessna Caravan, that is not reciprocity. But it would be appreciated.

This is no basis for a healthly relationship. If you are so damaged to think that that is how it works, as Jim said i put my coins in the slot machine (gifts) and get the payout (sex), all i can say is that you have at best not been in a healthy relationship or maybe never. This is precisely why you ascribe two different outcomes to two identical examples.

Relationships are simple transactions. Both parties must add value to the other in such away that each benefits (ie a trucking company buys gas from a gas station because the gas is more valuable to the trucker than the truckers money). Otherwise the relationship ceases to be mutual, and becomes something else. This is the complaint that guys have regarding 'friend-zoning'; the relationship is not 'win-win'. If one party is adding all the value to their side of the relationship and receiving nothing in return, then how can that relationship be 'healthy'?

As for my state of mind, well... I'm arguing on the internet, so you kind of have me there.

To paraphrase, a girl wants gifts and uses the potential for sex to get that end (material gain) or just gives nothing back because she expects it (selfish/manipulation). Too you this is selfish or entitled. I agree it would be. (insofar as expecting gifts is selfish but being given a gift that has some implied action and NOT rising to that manipulation isn't selfish)

You don't have to accept any gift you don't want. Especially if there are undesirable implications involved with it. I've said as much to many a door to door salesman.

Your first exmaple we have the same situaiton but a different diagnosis: A guy gives only because he wants an end (manipulation) or because he expects it (selfish). But to you that is reciprocation? You are incorrect. They are both equally selfish.

Reciprocation means an equal exchange. Giving something and expecting something is not manipulation. We are voluntarily having this conversation right now, both expecting to gain something from it (are we being selfish and manipulative right now?). If I turned out to be an NSA agent, trying to build a profile on you, and not a bored college student, that could be considered manipulative. Manipulation implies one party is misleading another party as to the true terms of the exchange. If I offer you $10 for your shoes, you accept the $10, and keep your shoes, that would be manipulative. The ethical thing to do is to simply decline the offer.

And have a flawed defintion and understanding of entitlement, that flawed definition informed your entire argument and you used it to fit your equally poor examples.

I'd actually go even further to say that entitled people generally are not willing to put in effort to get things they want. Entitled people don't work for things they want in an attempt to earn them in a fair exchange of labor, they simply demand them (ie, demanding more female protagonists in videogames via youtube rather than learning a programming language).

Its funny that you use a slot machine as an example of entitlement, because being in the friend zone really is like being a compulsive gambler. I will do the same. If put my money into a slot machine and go broke, I would be entitled if I went to the cashier and demanded my money back plus winnings. I would not be entitled if, after 2 years of playing, and never winning, me walking out of the casino because it's obviously rigged.

If the casino pursued me on my exit and said "Hey! You shouldn't just put your money into a slot machine because you expect to win every so often! If you were a real (insert socially desirable thing here) you would continue to play for (insert socially desirable motive)!" They would now be entitled. But that's the whole thing about casinos isn't it? They wouldn't make any money if they told you on the front door that you're gonna lose your shirt.

Welp. This should end well.

 

[Trizzo]

So in your world gifts=sex. Not the simple joy of giving, giving for the sake of love or at the most basic equitable level a gift given gets one in return? No for there to be recipocity one party has to give more.

Reciprocity means an equal exchange. That is what the word means. If I shoot you in the foot, and you shoot me in the foot, that is reciprocity. If I buy you a Honda Civic, and you buy me a Cessna Caravan, that is not reciprocity. But it would be appreciated.

Sorry I meant to convey that your exmaple of a guy giving a gift and then expecting sex is not recipocity. More on this later.

You don't have to accept any gift you don't want. Especially if there are undesirable implications involved with it. I've said as much to many a door to door salesman.

Put aside the social faux pas that refusing any gift that someone bought for you suggest that it become impertivie on people reciving gifts to suss out an ulterior motive. So suspcion is at the core of your transactions. Instead of trust at the core you see manipulation. I'd say good evidence you have mistaken bitterness for experience and relathionship wisdom.

Relationships are simple transactions. Both parties must add value to the other in such away that each benefits (ie a trucking company buys gas from a gas station because the gas is more valuable to the trucker than the truckers money). Otherwise the relationship ceases to be mutual, and becomes something else. This is the complaint that guys have regarding 'friend-zoning'; the relationship is not 'win-win'. If one party is adding all the value to their side of the relationship and receiving nothing in return, then how can that relationship be 'healthy'?

Lets have a look at your assumptions about relationships and this "friend zone". We will just ignore your assumption that guys add the value in relationships...you lost me (or it), i'm not quite sure about this "being in the friend zone" and "a relationship"...with the same person...at the same time

"This is the complaint that guys have regarding 'friend-zoning... the relationship is not 'win-win". Well no crap! You aren't in a relationship at the time, what do you or should you expect from someone who isn't even going out with you?! You can't be friend zoned and have a functional relationship with the same person...

Lets put on our detective caps:
*I gave gifts, no sex was forthcoming
*She does not want to develop a deeper emotional bond

Lets carefully weigh the possibilties: Hmmm...well after some consideration I think she might not want to be in a relationship with me? (that could be it) Best not muse on it too much. You cripple your future chances and risk doing serious, self inflicted emotional harm.

Transactions and people sharing the load of a relationship is key but healty ones are certainlly not based on transactions that are in fact manipulations to please ulterior motives. Honesty is key. If you want sex talk about it and ask. Not complicated.

Reciprocation means an equal exchange. Giving something and expecting something is not manipulation. We are voluntarily having this conversation right now, both expecting to gain something from it (are we being selfish and manipulative right now?). If I turned out to be an NSA agent, trying to build a profile on you, and not a bored college student, that could be considered manipulative. Manipulation implies one party is misleading another party as to the true terms of the exchange. If I offer you $10 for your shoes, you accept the $10, and keep your shoes, that would be manipulative. The ethical thing to do is to simply decline the offer.

It fail to see how you don't understand when you gave a perfect exmaple of what i was saying.

If I give a gift, i tell her or him it's in exchange for sex or to do a fetish that i have been nagging for that is not manipulation, thats a fair exchange. Or if he or she does it without being prompted (wether or not that result was on your mind) thats fair.

If I give a gift, don't mention I expect sex or anything, am then angry and hold a grudge when no sex is had, manipulation is clearly at the core of giving that gift.

Your exmaples were all the latter.

 

[Trizzo]

I'd actually go even further to say that entitled people generally are not willing to put in effort to get things they want. Entitled people don't work for things they want in an attempt to earn them in a fair exchange of labor, they simply demand them (ie, demanding more female protagonists in videogames via youtube rather than learning a programming language).

*I'm marching on the streets demanding that I be allowed to vote because my skin colour should not prevent me from doing so
*I'm marching on the streets because I should be allowed free expression according to my Bill of Rights/Human Rights/Charter of Freedom etc...

According to you all of these people who "simply demand" change in a public square are "entitled" simply because they aren't running as a professional politicans. Therefore they have nothing meaningful to suggest.

In a word, bullshit.

Its funny that you use a slot machine as an example of entitlement, because being in the friend zone really is like being a compulsive gambler. I will do the same. If put my money into a slot machine and go broke, I would be entitled if I went to the cashier and demanded my money back plus winnings. I would not be entitled if, after 2 years of playing, and never winning, me walking out of the casino because it's obviously rigged.

So do you choos to blame the machine for the addiction or yourself? Do you take responsibility, take charge to better yourself or you happy casting yourself as the hapless victim bobbing in the sea against the oppressive femin...i mean casino bosses and simply end up broke. I know from experience that it is easier to whine, play videogames and assign blame than actually do something.

 

[Anthony Pankuch]

From the looks of this thread, I can only assume the world's turned into some sort of dystopia where life is nothing but a series of economic exchanges and emotions, kindness, and giving a single rat's ass about another human being are foreign and toxic concepts. Someone really needs to keep a better eye on the world.

Sex is one part of a healthy relationship. It's not an endgame or the guaranteed follow-up to buying dinner. If you want to pay money to have sex with a person whose personal desires you have no care for, there's a word for that, and it's not "relationship."

 

[generals3]

Ahahahahaha. This video is hilarious. So wait doing nice things for someone and spending a lot of time with that person leading to sex is in some way perpetrating a toxic idea?

Strawman. Jim took issue with the mechanic that the 'input = i expect sex'. You should always do the "nice things" for the sake of doing it. That is true love and a true relationship, not based on manipulation. Therefore the slot machine anaology.

I don't agree at all. If that was true I would be doing the nice things i do for friends for other people. But I don't. And that's quite simply because with people you care about there is an implied symbiotic relationship. I wouldn't do nice things for people I know wouldn't return any favor if i ever needed it. Not to say i do friends a favor just so I can put it on a list and than later say "I did this and that for you so now you have to that for me!". But I don't nice things for "the sake of it" either.

There is a huge grey area in between doing things for the sake of it and manipulation. But this misconception doesn't surprise me. It's very common on this forum when we talk about these kind of subjects that all the grey is taken out of the issues and they are reduced type black and white issues.

And Jim did just that too. He assumed said tasks are insincere. Unless the game says they are it's all assumptions. And i'd say in cases where the game is not clear about the sincerity it's all up to the player to determine whether or not it is sincere when he performs these tasks.

And how what these games do somehow reflect his misconception of what the friendzone is is just beyond me. (well no, i see how he went there, but going there requires a lot of efforts. Efforts stemming from a very toxic attitude)

Is it wrong to show students study hard and than get good grades because somehow that might reinforce the idea that studying hard makes you entitled to have good grades?! Absurd. Plainly Absurd.

Yes this is abusrd. Studying hard does not entitle you to good grades. Studying hard gives you the skill to get those grades. Nothing is owed to anybody, even those that put effort in.

Glad we agree here. But somehow you failed to see how agreeing with this ultimately leads to you needing to disagree with Jim if you want to remain consistent.

The internet is not the sole possesor of the term friendzone. It is a broad term that has many meanings.

I can't say i know where and when it started. But I know I heard it first on friends and that was years before this expression spread around. So I'd say that whatever definition you follow it's probably a bad one. One based on how some jerks twisted it to hide they're jerks and pretend they're somehow victims. Which, btw, only works if the word itself has an initial meaning which would do exactly that.

The fact the very term exists is toxic. Why is it friend zone? Why not just friend. By calling it a "zone" that implies different levels. The outside zone, the "friend zone" and we assume the relationship zone.

Because there are different levels. And when someone is friendzoned that particular level is considered inferior to the desired one (which is logical since the other one is the desired one). There is nothing toxic about that. It suggests you have been put in a place you'd rather not want to be.

The talk of zones is a bad way to look at relationships. It seems to many people on this forum think that they are destined to remain in one zone. We aren't talking about "breakup advice" or "intimacy issues" or "how to find a partner". This debate concerns the total lack of sucess.

The word friendzone is only used when someone is stuck there. Someone who is befriended with someone else and just started to have a crush two days ago isn't "friendzoned". At least unless the other party clearly stated they would never be more than friends. This isn't a way to look at relationships in general. It is just an observation of the current status of a relationship.

Some posters describe the agony of being in the "friendzone". Get over it and move on.

I would agree but obviously not everyone can get "over it" as easily as others. I know friends who can't at all and others who don't seem to break a sweat over such things. So your advice, while good, doesn't somehow invalidate someone's agony.

This self pity is terrible a self perpetuating catharsis. I see it in some many of my friends. Lonely>play video games>make advance>get rejected>lonely>play video games... Little wonder why there is so much sexual angst on display and why levels of loneliness, isolation and long term relationships are statistically at historic lows.

I don't think your example illustrates what you implied it would. Your friends aren't examples of people who can't get over it and are full of self-pitty.

It takes courage and a degree of self respect a lot of people lack to move on if you have your sights set on somebody and they don't requite your advances. But it is far less pain than an actual breakup! Even so a breakup is no excuse to mope for an extended period...but i digress

And here is your perfect case study from the prior page. No need to post the rest of the comments they are puerile.

Not sure what point you were trying to make there. I agree but yeah, that's it.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

Hopefully that japanese company (I forget the name atm. rawr) that Escapist posted news on opening up a base in California will help change things in videogame romance in the western world. Then again, stores have to have the balls to stock these games, I guess.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind a strong relationship mechanic in a game, and a relationship that brings about emotion, and what not.

Of course, wanting variety, and being a quiet perv, I wouldn't mind variation. What we have with bioware, something "fade to black," and something itneractive.

Then there's the whole issue the industry has with LGBT relationships. :/ Relationships in games don't do me a whole lot of good if I can't invest in them. then it becomes an excercise in what I can get out of it.
Buuut that's not saying it's impossible to invest in a straight woman's relationship from the woman's point of view. I took a shine to Zaeed (sadly not dateable) and Garrus in Mass Effect.
Still, I want LGBT relationships.

Then again, there aren't exactly a lot of games in the modern console era where women have relationships, and even less where they have a choice in the matter. Again, I hope the Japanese Game company that set up base in California can change that.

Speaking of Japan, despite the eroge industry with few exceptions (like Vahalla Knights 3 and Yakuza 3-5) there is very little if any actual sex in their console/handheld games. At best the play is treated to swimsuit/bathing tease. Never you see them going at it unless it was from Atlus. Hell Drakengard 3's approach to sex is going to interesting since it has been said repeatedly than Zero and some of the Utautai are not virgins and I wouldn't been too surprised if they actually give us a softcore scene or at least some burden of proof.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm sorry if I've missed it. I checked the first few pages and didn't see Jim clarify.

But is there an alternative for how he'd like it to work? Even though relationships don't always pay out in sex, they often demand time and effort regardless. Is he saying there shouldn't be a set amount of effort or something? I'm unsure what the contention is here. While real life has far more parameters involved, it's still a set of conditions. Time spend, approved behaviors expressed, attractiveness, availability, etc. The only way to make game characters more meaning is to somehow create artificial intelligence with its own thoughts and feelings which would draw an ethical line about why the hell we're trying to coerce an AI into meaningless game sex when they're unaware of the greater world. Like a slave limited to the confines of a building in which we may enter and exit freely.

How would he like to see them impact gameplay? In real life I didn't magically level up after sex and see it fundamentally impact my days. It was just a step in the relationship or a strengthening of relationship. Would Jim prefer to see the individuals who had sex run around screaming that they've had sex or just continue to work together to achieve the common goal with the internal knowledge that they've shared that level of intimacy.

As for games being more revealing. Laws and regulations have to grow up before developers can afford to.

Additionally, these same complaints can be easily leveled at other forms of media like movies and the like. Very seldom has sex in other media been meaningful or tasteful by any of these standards.

In this video, Jim explains a lot of contention he has with the practice but not really any alternatives or solutions to why things are done that way.

 

[generals3]

I'm sorry if I've missed it. I checked the first few pages and didn't see Jim clarify.

But is there an alternative for how he'd like it to work? Even though relationships don't always pay out in sex, they often demand time and effort regardless. Is he saying there shouldn't be a set amount of effort or something? I'm unsure what the contention is here. While real life has far more parameters involved, it's still a set of conditions. Time spend, approved behaviors expressed, attractiveness, availability, etc. The only way to make game characters more meaning is to somehow create artificial intelligence with its own thoughts and feelings which would draw an ethical line about why the hell we're trying to coerce an AI into meaningless game sex when they're unaware of the greater world. Like a slave limited to the confines of a building in which we may enter and exit freely.

How would he like to see them impact gameplay? In real life I didn't magically level up after sex and see it fundamentally impact my days. It was just a step in the relationship or a strengthening of relationship. Would Jim prefer to see the individuals who had sex run around screaming that they've had sex or just continue to work together to achieve the common goal with the internal knowledge that they've shared that level of intimacy.

As for games being more revealing. Laws and regulations have to grow up before developers can afford to.

The only way to please him I can think of would probably anger a lot of gamers: developing the thoughts of the characters extensively. Personally I really wouldn't like that. If there is a sex scene the last thing i'd want in the game is there to be to a 30 minutes exposé of the feelings of said woman because some people like to twist any "grey" area into a black one. (And the reason why I would hate such an exposé is because I don't give a crud about romance. I don't really care for sex scenes in games to begin with, but I can live with 5 minutes of my game time wasted in pointlessness, but add to that 30 minutes of useless talks about feelings and i just shut down the game)

 

[Echopunk]

If memory serves, Xenogears did a good job dealing with a "mature" romance/relationship between Fei and Elly. You don't really get anything on-screen, but just a feeling that, yeah after they come out of that forest together they are a couple. Shared hardships, emotional baggage, something happened in camp, and now this pair of loners acts less like a pair of loners.

I was really disappointed that Mass Effect 2 simply assumes you had some kind of relationship with Liara if you didn't elect to romance your Virmire Survivor. My first Shepard romanced Ashley. I was playing him as a staunch Earth First kind of guy, and she made more sense than the alien chick (though there were a few eye rolls. They really made the Ashley character about as far right as possible without looping around. In fact, she might have lapped herself a couple times). Of course, the mission also came first, so I ended up saving Kaidan based on how I set the teams up. In the second game, they didn't do a very good job differentiating between Liara's friendship with Shepherd and her love interest version - in my opinion.

I don't actually need to see my characters performing onscreen heavy petting or anything more explicit. I tend to make malleable characters look like me, and it is kind of weird to watch a stack of pixels and polygons that bares a passing resemblance to me, dry humping another assortment of polygons as the love theme swells in the background. If I want to see sex, I can either go have sex, or barring that, watch porn. Unless the scene is actually important or properly integrated into the game, it doesn't need to be there. Fade to black is fine. If need be, I can picture something in my head that would be a lot more organic anyway.

Lets say that games actually get sex right some day (in the distant future). What is the next step? I don't want to have to start using the bathroom in games. Imagine Mass Effect with realistic bladder simulation. Some of those elevator rides would be pure murder. I'm Commander Shepherd and I'm blasting my way through a crowd to get to the nearest men's room. You changed the floor plan again!? What the hell room is this? Well, it is the men's room now. My compliments to the ambassador.

Someone brought up Banshee, in a list of titles, when they were citing how video games are shooting for the premium cable brass ring these days. I watched Banshee. I enjoyed it, but it was a freaking comic book, and about as "mature" as your average frat party. Classic skin-e-max style entertainment. Gore, blood, bad-assery, and gratuitous nudity/sex. I can't be the only one who dvr's stuff like that and skips the overlong scenes with the actress that looks sub-18 crap to get back to finding out who is setting who up, or who is about to get shot in the face.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm sorry if I've missed it. I checked the first few pages and didn't see Jim clarify.

But is there an alternative for how he'd like it to work? Even though relationships don't always pay out in sex, they often demand time and effort regardless. Is he saying there shouldn't be a set amount of effort or something? I'm unsure what the contention is here. While real life has far more parameters involved, it's still a set of conditions. Time spend, approved behaviors expressed, attractiveness, availability, etc. The only way to make game characters more meaning is to somehow create artificial intelligence with its own thoughts and feelings which would draw an ethical line about why the hell we're trying to coerce an AI into meaningless game sex when they're unaware of the greater world. Like a slave limited to the confines of a building in which we may enter and exit freely.

How would he like to see them impact gameplay? In real life I didn't magically level up after sex and see it fundamentally impact my days. It was just a step in the relationship or a strengthening of relationship. Would Jim prefer to see the individuals who had sex run around screaming that they've had sex or just continue to work together to achieve the common goal with the internal knowledge that they've shared that level of intimacy.

As for games being more revealing. Laws and regulations have to grow up before developers can afford to.

Additionally, these same complaints can be easily leveled at other forms of media like movies and the like. Very seldom has sex in other media been meaningful or tasteful by any of these standards.

In this video, Jim explains a lot of contention he has with the practice but not really any alternatives or solutions to why things are done that way.

I registered to say basically this but then saw that you'd already said it.

I'm not hearing Jim present any good alternatives, or examples of games that do it right. This video isn't about how to portray sex in games with taste and maturity; it's just about how BioWare games don't do it. And that's disappointing. Partially it's disappointing just on the general principle that it's better to build up than to tear down. And partially it's disappointing because I think an examination of how the video game medium can and can't portray sex leads you to be more understanding of the BioWare model.

To wit: Yes, real human beings aren't robots - but video game characters *are*. Writing them is about maintaining the illusion that they're actually people. And BioWare characters are (mostly) well written. I didn't hear Jim complain otherwise. Jim's complaint as I understood it was simply about how the romance plays as a game mechanic. Well, mechanically, if a player is interacting with another character in a romantic plot, what's the best way to do it, bearing in mind that the character is actually a robot that the game is simply trying to pass as a person? Well, the devs can put the romantic plot on rails and play it out in cutscenes and the like, just like a movie or a book would. But if they want it to be *interactive*, they pretty much have to do exactly what BioWare does: let the player get to know the character by investing time with them, roleplay through decisions that the character will like, and so on. If the writing is good, then this will look like an organically developing relationship. If not - well, *there's* your problem, not the mechanics.

In short: If there is a better alternative to these mechanics, I don't know it and Jim hasn't shown it to me. So don't be so hard on BioWare games. They're pretty darn good.

I might also mention, as an aside, that BioWare uses the same mechanics for both male and female romantic interests. So Jim's complaint that it's a reflection of a male sense of entitlement towards women seems a little off-base.

 

[SuperScrub]

And now the SuperScrub with wise words on the friendzone.

"Being nice and expecting to be rewarded with sex is like learning not to cover up your thumb when ever you throw a punch and expecting to be a World Heavyweight Champion boxer."

Yea video games have a long way to go before sex can be presented in away that's mature or isn't simply a reward for being "nice". But when it does happen we can look forward to some great games that depict romance in a way no medium can even dream of doing.