- Nov 26, 2008
They didn't say it was the best, most expedient way. They just said it was the quickest method to establish intimacy. And it is.Fox12 said:I think that they were saying that we need to be prudish, and live by other peoples value systems. Grey and Cory are both pretty infamous for hating sex, which is why Critical Miss never deals with it.Lightknight said:Is the point of this that sex in games is icky and people need to be more prudish and live by other people's values or is this just a joke to enjoy in passing as I'm enjoying it now?
A romantic relationship is an incredibly fast way to establish intimacy. He wasn't technically wrong. Portal had to stew that relationship for quite some time.
This is, of course, a ridiculous attitude. Sex is the best, most expedient way to show a relationship between two characters when you don't understand how human interaction works. I know that I never would have cared about Agro, from Shadow of the Colossus, if they hadn't included that intimate scene where Wander dry humps his leg.
The point people should be making is that "quickest" often isn't the "best". A game that makes you grow to care about the characters in meaningful ways is far more interesting than the quick way (to most of us anyways). The developer wasn't wrong about the expedience of sex in developing intimacy, but in the real world we know that's a physical level sort of intimacy and not a deeper caring of a real relationship. A good example would be Ellie from The Last of Us. That relationship was developed through time and hardship. I can't imagine caring more about some character my avatar only slept with than I'd cared for Ellie who the avatar never touched.
So please understand, my contention here isn't regarding the value of non-sexual relationships. It's disappointment at completely missing what the developers were saying. Sex is fast, dialogue takes more time. It's true. But the response in the cartoon is a red-herring that other relationships can be meaningful too. Yes they are but that's not the point. The cartoon could have made their point with a qualitative distinction that sexual relationships are often shallow unless founded in more dynamic relationship background. But if their contention was that sex was used at all then that throws the logical approach out the window.