View Topic

But did the game make you horny?

Let's be honest...most people are playing these sorts of games for the interactive smut and the hot pic gallery you get as you play the routes. If you're able to identify the guys with what you're looking for in a boyfriend and get some introspection off of it, that's great, but they're mostly selling some eye-candy and smut. Even I realize that all of the routes follow a trope or cliche, but those tropes wouldn't exist if there weren't guys that didn't have those fantasies. I know I have a new asian punk rocker fantasy now thanks to this game.

I still think the game is designed well overall. The characters are more or less relatable, even if I would have liked to see more character development and story filler. The smut is awesome for this type of game, it's obvious they spent a lot of time planning the particular acts and situations your character can get into on each route and then drawing the art for them. This is doubly so with the Brofindr dates, all of which are with guys that are at least interesting and have personality in some way (the opposite of what I usually find on grindr).

I was overall satisfied with what the game did, even if it was a bit on the cliche side, especially seeing as there's so few quality gay/bi games like this out there. I've played some romance/sex games that were just tedious horrors to play, and others that constantly teased the player with sex throughout the game but didn't put out in the end. At the end of the day, if it gave you a boner and made you want to rub one out or seek out sex, it did its job. If it didn't, well, you probably regret buying it then. v_v

But did the game make you horny?

Actually no.  The script put me off enough to where it was difficult to enjoy overall, let alone experience any arousal from it. 

Overall, from a game that touts itself as an experience beyond a simple erotica, and prides on the reviews that even try to emphasize that point, I'm a bit disappointed.  Yes, the concept is interesting in a way...but I wouldn't call it an "experience" in the slightest.  Clearly I'm a bit more critical when it comes to story and dialogue than others that have played the game, because people seem to really love the script and even go so far as calling it "witty" and "clever," which I really didn't find it to be either thing.  As I said, I found it to be a typical cliche fantasy-fulfilling romance game than anything unique and "witty."  There wasn't really as much character development as people think there was, using characters like Phil and Brad as examples.  It's a typical short game, so when they do decide they like you, it almost feels sudden and out of nowhere.

As a simple erotica, it's a little better than the original thing.  As something that tries to go beyond that, it still falls a bit short.  And once again, good god if the script were more refined and less casual, then it probably would have performed better.  But that's just me...others seem to be perfectly okay with it and consider it a masterpiece, so whatever.

Actually no.  The script put me off enough to where it was difficult to enjoy overall, let alone experience any arousal from it. 

Overall, from a game that touts itself as an experience beyond a simple erotica, and prides on the reviews that even try to emphasize that point, I'm a bit disappointed.  Yes, the concept is interesting in a way...but I wouldn't call it an "experience" in the slightest.  Clearly I'm a bit more critical when it comes to story and dialogue than others that have played the game, because people seem to really love the script and even go so far as calling it "witty" and "clever," which I really didn't find it to be either thing.  As I said, I found it to be a typical cliche fantasy-fulfilling romance game than anything unique and "witty."  There wasn't really as much character development as people think there was, using characters like Phil and Brad as examples.  It's a typical short game, so when they do decide they like you, it almost feels sudden and out of nowhere.

As a simple erotica, it's a little better than the original thing.  As something that tries to go beyond that, it still falls a bit short.  And once again, good god if the script were more refined and less casual, then it probably would have performed better.  But that's just me...others seem to be perfectly okay with it and consider it a masterpiece, so whatever.

Then it sounds like you didn't have much fun at all.

Have you ran across any games that turn you on? There are so few gay romance smut games out there, and Coming Out on Top is probably the best one I've personally ran into (not counting games that are entirely sex and have little to no romance element). Maybe the genre as a whole isn't meeting your needs at this time?

Dusted off my PS3 to give Catherine a go, since recently learning that this game exists.

I must say I'm surprisingly torn between Katherine and Catherine. Katherine means well, no doubt, but good God, does she have to be so controlling? If they're setting me up for the ultimate evil choice, then I guess I'm evil, in this game.

Speaking of evil,

To get ready for the sequel, I decided to finally finish playing through The Evil Within.

It's a great game and a welcome successor to franchises like Silent Hill.  It's gory, disturbing, and overall the atmosphere is great as are the enemies.

But despite all that, it isn't scary.  I actually wish it was a bit more, because otherwise for a "Survivor Horror" game, it feels like it's slacking on the horror part.  I should be freaking out and hesitating to continue playing such as with games like Outlast. 

Instead, I find myself interested in getting further as I would be with games like Uncharted or RE 4 (which this is supposed to be a real spiritual successor to).

It's a great, but also terrible quality at the same time.  A scary game should be scary, not intriguing.

I finally cracked open Pillars of Eternity last night, and got through the first few areas. I really enjoy the dialogue and the way the game plays...in a way it reminds me of the original Fallout, except combat is real-time, and I'm also finding that I enjoy playing an archer/ranger on multiple RPGs now...I first started playing hunter on World of Warcraft, and like on that game Rangers get an animal companion on Pillars of Eternity (mine is a bear). I really like that setup because the bear is great at tanking enemies and keeping them from coming after me.

I think this is going to be a fun game...my hopes are high.

For this month's 'games that just came out that I've nonetheless played through already':
Shadow of War is a solid improvement to Shadow of Mordor. My sole complaint, although it's a serious one, is the interminable grind of Act 4 - not like a 'I need to level' kind of grind, but the kind of slogging drudgery that renders things deeply unfun. 1 siege is entertaining - the prospect of 30 fills me with a terrifying dread.
Act 1 is pretty much the same as Udun in SoM; Act 2 is Nurnen, but bigger, and Act 3 scarcely deserves the name because it's about 1 hour long - most comparable to 'that bit where you go fight The Tower in SoM'. Act 4...it has this weird mix of feeling like the game's over and you're in freeroam as far as urgency goes, but the fact that there's an ending locked behind the slog gives you an objective anyway that is kind of annoying to do, really. They seem to have failed to realize that the game is best when you're just fucking around in it.
The microtransactions and lootboxes are so utterly unnecessary that they should have been left out entirely, but I suppose that is akin to saying 'if you have to do them, do them like this'. I guess the lootboxes do hold content that you can't find organically in-game, but since you can find them in the lootboxes you can buy with in-game currency (and said currency is bounteous), I find it NBD.

Fractured But Whole is a solid enough sequel to Stick of Truth. Combat feels about the same, the plot is decent enough, and there's some neat changes that make it feel fresh again. Same South Park satire as ever, so get it if you like South Park's humor, otherwise pass - and if you don't know, pick up Stick of Truth and play that instead, it'll be cheaper. Which is not to say that you need to play Stick of Truth to get the game - but it helps a little. I honestly didn't remember a lot of details from it.
As far as breakout characters go, Thcott Malkinthon hath grown on me a lot, to the exthtent that he'th been in my party thinth I unlocked him. Thankth, Captain Diabeteth. It helps, of course, that he can do some limited control, is a solid tank, and has a strong damage output (because of the power of diabeteth, of course).

I already didn't like Gandhi for being a racist misogynist despite whatever good he did otherwise, but the Civ games, now Civ 6 included, make me really annoyed with him for being a constantly judgmental bastard.

Declare war on everyone? Gandhi denounces you as a warmonger. Fine, that makes sense.
Declare war on someone who ignores yours requests not to settle near you and had an army threatening your border? Gandhi denounces you as a warmonger. Ugh, fine.
Get attacked, and take a city from the civilization that attacked you first? Gandhi denounces you as a warmonger. Come on now, they started it...
Build up too many (in his opinion) military units to prevent anyone from thinking about attacking you? Gandhi denounces you as a warmonger. Seriously? I'm trying to prevent a war, those muskets are for protecting the rockets I want to send to the moon.
Put any production towards a military unit even if next turn you change it to building a harmless aqueduct? Gandhi denounces you as a warmonger.
Start the game with a military unit and don't immediately sell it? Gandhi denounces you as a warmonger.
Hover over the Declare War button for even a second? Gandhi denounces you as a warmonger.
Even consider for one moment about being at war with any other civilization? Gandhi denounces you as a warmonger.
Did you have any war games installed when you bought Civ 6? Gandhi denounces you as a warmonger.
Does your name have any threatening looking letters in it? Gandhi denounces you as a warmonger.

Maybe exaggerating a little, but it's close to how AI Gandhi really acts.
So, no, Gandhi, I won't accept your delegates when I meet you, one of them might get a papercut and immediately denounce me as a warmonger.

I mean, to be fair, Civ 6's AI strikes me as fucking awful, because it appears to be wholly motivated by agendas, but they seem to have made it specifically to spark conflict - even people I've been besties with for the whole game declare war on me whenever I'm within sort of 50 turns of victory (I only ever played it once, on Marathon, which was a hard sell for the friend who family shared it to me, because hell if I was going to buy an untested Civ (a move which I'm proud of because diplomacy strikes me as utter fucking shit in that game), but I bribed him with my origin account so all's fair).
But like, sure, Gandhi hates war and all, but everyone else hates far more annoying things. Saladin hated it when I don't share his religion, which is going to be my default mode of play since religion offers big fucking boosts. Kongo was almost as annoying since they were too far for me to meaningfully spread my religion to them (especially since this fucking religious combat mechanic seemed opaque as fuck). Pericles hated it when I went for the same city-states as him, which was obviously going to happen because our capitals were separated by like 20 fucking tiles. Barbarossa shared our continent, and apparently he fucking hates people who even bother with city states. Pedro cried whenever I got a Great Person. Cleopatra hated me for a small military, Alexander hated me for not being at war...
The net result was I was at war with 5 of them in the fucking Renaissance, which I absolutely detested because I tend to go for the peaceful sorts of victory conditions.
Evidently the secret to having an enjoyable game now is to hand-pick who your opponents are based on what you want to do in the game, instead of feeling reasonably secure in doing a random draw.
Or, doing what I did, which was 'not buying 6' and continuing to play V.

I like what Civ VI tries to do, because to a point it makes sense. A culture that believes in a strong military might look down on another culture that doesn't have one, and a culture tied to a particular religion might view a culture tied to another religion as a rival or worse. The problem is that the effect is these agendas are too strong and seem to override any other consideration...for example, I once had a civ express displeasure that I didn't have a large navy, even though I didn't even have a city on a shore. The game also seems to forget that a point of diplomacy is to overcome these cultural differences...there doesn't seem to be much you can do to that effect long-term in the game.

There's some things I like about Civ VI, but the diplomacy system needs more work for sure.

I suppose if I get any lesson from Civilization 6, it's that we can't all just get along. Even if it's 1960 and you were last at war in 500 BC, because if you ever slight anyone even a little, they'll hate you forever, so you may as well murder them so they can't denounce you for the next 2000 years.
Probably not the best lesson but that seems to be what the game mechanics favor.

I've been playing Assassin's Creed Origins for about six hours now, and to my astonishment, I wholeheartedly enjoy it. I wasn't expecting that. I literally just bought it to see ancient Egypt in all its superb graphical glory, which tends to be the reason I buy most of the Assassin's Creed games. They were really going for a Witcher 3 vibe, but learnt some lessons from Metal Gear Solid: The Phantom Pain and Shadow of Mordor too. Note that I say that's what they were going for, but I'm not saying they're always successful. They just don't have the writers to pull that off, and the one year they spent polishing the game cannot perform miracles. That said, it is a very competent RPG, and I would heartily recommend it if you've ever liked any of the Creeds that came before it. I have no idea if enough has been done to win over those who've never cared for Assassin's Creed. Probably not.

Civ VI sucks, has sucked for a long time and all they're doing is pumping out fucking faction DLC.

If I ever play an Ubisoft game, it's getting the Assassin's Creed IV treatment. Fuck Ubisoft.

I've been feeling so...bored lately. I've got Divinity 2 and Total Wawa 2 and I don't want to play either. Wawa is ok, Div is great, but they require too much thinking and I don't want to use my head too much. I was thinking about the Grim Dawn expansion or Endless Space 2 but I'm sure I won't play them either, the latter because it'll call on my brain again.

I wish I had the money for a Switch and Odyssey.

I wish EDF 5 was out and ported.

You liked Black Flag? This was made by the same team, and it shows.

Ive decided to do a CK2-EU4-Victoria2 converter game with an Italian Duchess. Im still in CK2 but have a bit of a dilema.

Sunset Invasion or no?

The big problem is that when I get to EU4 the Native American nations will be OP as all hell despite the fact that, realisticly, that would be impossible. But hell, it would be fun. So should I go for it?