Freudian Quips: Polymorphous Perversity

By Adam Smith on July 4th, 2012 at 5:00 pm.

My penis just exploded, killing me instantly. That’s the fate that awaits players of Nicolau ‘Beautiful Escape‘ Chaud’s RPG Maker freebie Polymorphous Perversity if they don’t have sex with enough frequency. The game takes place in a world where sexual encounters are like greetings. “Hello,” you might start saying to a young lady, but before you even get to the ‘o’ you’re likely to be rutting away. Not only are the social barriers between genitals much flimsier than in Britain, there are very few physical barriers. People don’t care much for clothes here. Mostly the nudity is of the tiny RPG-person variety, all pixellated and distant, but character portraits are not faces. They are bums, breasts, penises and vaginas. What would a prude like me make of all this?

It’s a very clever game, exploring, among other things, the Freudian concept referred to in the title. I haven’t finished it yet and I might well write more when I do, but the broader theme seems to be inhibitions and the place of sex in our own various societies.

All of the expected mechanics are in place, with items to collect, weapons (toys) and fighting (fucking), and the tone is weird enough that even when there’s a joke it’s carried on a more serious undercurrent. Be warned though, despite the simple graphics there are some graphic displays, not only in the occasional invasive close-up on a portrait, but also in the actions performed. Inhibitions may be lacking but that doesn’t mean consent is always granted. There is grim content and I’m not talking about the visuals anymore. I’ve already seen one very disturbing scene in which I was offered a choice that essentially came down to, ‘do you wish to participate in non-consensual sex?’

In some ways, that seems a shame. The almost gleeful way with which the player character learns new sexual skills and drifts from partner to partner (and, less often, from gender to gender) seems to tell a different story, one of liberation. The darker side, which creeps into the thoughts of the lead as well, is more delicate and, I hope, fully justified. I suspect it might be, given the cleverness of the contrast so far and Chaud’s previous work, but these are hugely tricky subjects to tackle, particularly in a world that initially seems almost light-hearted in its approach to sex. That approach, of course, is part of what becomes dangerous.

I’d rather be bringing a full report but, dash it all, I must pack my bags for Rezzed shortly and I wanted to at least share the link first. I’m excited (oo-err, etc) by the idea of a game that’s willing to discuss sex, thin on the ground as they are, but I’m not yet convinced Polymorphous Perversity’s commingling of abuse and pleasure succeeds as a whole. It’s certainly provoking though. Just don’t download unless you’re willing to spend the next few hours looking at willies and depravity. Whatever your tastes or tolerances, you’ll most likely find something that makes you flinch.

I’ll probably tell you wot I think next week, time permitting.

, , , .

78 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Hypernetic says:

    Maybe it’s because I haven’t slept in over 24 hours but I can’t stop laughing at “My penis just exploded, killing me instantly.”

  2. misterT0AST says:

    I’d prefer a game that *implements* sexuality in a serious way, rather than a game which *is entirely about* sexuality in a serious way. Though I guess when a new topic is explored after being ignored for such a long time it’s inevitable to exaggerate it a little.

  3. Conor says:

    “My penis just exploded, killing me instantly.”

    And in the game?

  4. LionsPhil says:

    Just don’t download unless you’re willing to spend the next few hours looking at willies and depravity.

    And if you are, the Her Majesty’s government would just like you to sign up on this list over here…

  5. TillEulenspiegel says:

    The “renunciation of instinct” bit in the top screenshot is amusing. People still have their heads stuck in Freud.

    Humans are, by instinct, rather complex social creatures. That’s how we got where we are. You can’t dismiss, say, monogamy as purely a cultural construct when it’s observable in other animals as well.

    • lordcooper says:

      Surely the same would apply to polygamy then?

      • Ultra Superior says:

        Surely. Now get back to kitchen, your turn was yesterday.

    • Eddy9000 says:

      Something being a cultural construct doesn’t dismiss it as less important than a biological drive, and because a behaviour is observed in animals doesn’t mean that it isn’t a social construct in humans, and also animals do have rudimentary culture. you’ve opened a big can o’ worms there!

    • Bhazor says:

      Monogamy among animals is something of a myth. Truth is many animals are just good at getting away with affairs.

      There is strong DNA evidence showing that the offspring of say swans simply don’t match the “parents” who raise it.

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Monogamy-Fidelity-Infidelity-Animals/dp/0716740044

      What happens is the female takes multiple partners and one male just hangs on and assumes the offspring is his. So do swans.

      • Ultra Superior says:

        And then there are human babies who die unless taken care of for long years. Mix that with female survival instinct and male pride and you’ve got yourself a family !

        • Bhazor says:

          Theres a whole host of sneaky bastard genes involved in trying to make a mother loyal.

          The DNA for creating thplacenta for example comes from the male chromosomes which try to create the most intrusive and disabling placenta they can. Placentas don’t just clip on, they drill in. They attempt to drain as much energy/nutrition from the mother as possible. On the other hand the mother’s chromosomes seem to focus on making a self suffiecent baby. A baby that could theoretically be away from her as soon as possible by rushing the pregnancy. A cell “pregnated” with two male chromosomes will create a very strong placenta but a blob of a child with no head. A cell pregnant with two female chromosomes however creates a strong fetus but with no placenta.

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v311/n5984/abs/311374a0.html

          What this antagonism between the sexes shows is that there have been millions of years of promiscuity to the point that the body goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure that a father knows a baby he raises is his. Extraordinary lengths just to stop Sasha Greys from repopulating the whole planet.

          As an aside when I tell people I study genetics the first thing they say is “you mean like paternity tests?”.

          • Eddy9000 says:

            Although those placental genes are to make the baby strong, rather than the mother weak I would think? I can’t imagine how weakening a parent would be conducive to natural selection. Also call me a genetics noob but if male chromosomes are required then how do females with XX chromosomes develop a placenta? (genuine interest meant, why do forum comments always look oppositional?)

            Here’s an interesting fact, know why your jeb-end has a ridge at the top? For scraping out the previous mans spunk to give your a better chance of fertilisation. Grossest fact ever.

          • Bhazor says:

            Like I said, a placenta is a feeding tube that digs into the woman and syphons off all the good stuff it can. Imagine the woman as a giant juice box feeding a baby that gets bigger and stronger and tougher and sexier as the mother drains. By the time the box goes concave and all you get is a rattle you have a full grown child that would be a picture of greek godhood.

            In genetic terms the mother doesn’t matter as long as the child survives. Just look at how many creatures die in child birth or conception.

            It’s known as the sexual arms race.

            As for the XX question.
            The female ovum and the male sperm only contain half the full genome. These then smush together during fertilisation. Through, as far as I know, no known mechanism each side can be identified as male or female during synthesis.

            As for the ridged penis
            Thats unlikely and unneeded. Sperm can survive a couple days but generally the sperm reaches the ovum much sooner and is generally too far in too scrape out anyway. Which is probably why it shoots out rather than dribbles.
            The more likely explanation based on other animals is that having a large bulbous head is usefull for forcing it in and harder to pull out. In the dark ages of Xmillion years BCE rapists could have fathered thousands making them much more successful than the cave gentlemen who didn’t kiss till the third date. More recently you can look at Genghis Khan who is now believed to have basically fathered 10% of Asia.
            http://web.unife.it/progetti/genetica/Giorgio/PDFfiles/ajhg2003.pdf

            The key thing to remember in “dark ages” genetics like this is that it doesn’t have to be nice to be useful.

          • LionsPhil says:

            By the time the box goes concave and all you get is a rattle

            This is such a hilariously horrifying metaphor.

          • Phantoon says:

            “like paternity tests?”

            Thanks. I now know the most annoying thing to say to biologists, geneticists, and anyone else of the sort.

        • Eddy9000 says:

          The ridged penis is pretty well supported as a sperm removal mechanism, other animals have more elaborate penis shapes for scraping, we also have ‘killer sperm’ whose function is to disable other sperm, taking care of their survival prospects. The ridge gets out the majority, the killer sperm go for the rest. Like I said, gross (but KILLER SPERM!). Conception can also occur up to 5 days after ejeculation so that’s plenty of time to scrape and replace, and I think in the animal kingdom males can hop on one after the other.

          I still don’t get the conception thing, an egg always contains a female X and a sperm can either have an X or a male Y chromosome isn’t it? So if an X sperm fertilises the egg where do male chromosomes come from? I mean sure, half the genetic code is delivered from each parent, but the only male specific chromosome is the Y chromosome no? I’m a psychologist so my only knowledge is from A-Level biology and my evolutionary psychology lectures at undergrad. It should come as no surprise that I remember sperm scraping penises rather than sex-linked chromosomes!

          Also I thought sperm containing a Y chromosome contained only a small amount of the gene code, enough to say ‘make it a man’, rather than 50%, which is why disorders linked to the X chromosome (haemophilia, colour blindness) are more prevalent in men, because in females they have another copy of the full chromosomal information that might have non-faulty genes, whereas the limited Y chromosome has comparably little genetic code?

          • Bhazor says:

            I still say the sperm scraping would not be effective and it is much more likely a side effect of another use. Generally a ribbed penis is to remain conjunction as long as possible. Think about how dogs tie or how cats hook on.

            As for the conception question remember its not just the XX/XY chromosome thats shared. Every chromosome is shared, with half from each chromosome.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35ncSrJOwME&feature=related

            Here it’s explained. With “humour”. Unfortunately.

          • Eddy9000 says:

            Sure, half the genes comes from the sperm and half from the egg, but the only gender-linked genes come from the X/Y chromosomes, so I’m still confused as to how ‘male genes’ are required for placental formation when there’s a 50% chance that none will be present? Apart from the Y chromosome a man’s genome is identical to a woman’s. I realise I’m probably being thick.

          • Archonsod says:

            The X or Y combination merely determines gender, it’s not the only difference between genders. In short and loose terms, it’s presence determines whether your genome is developing in a bath of testosterone or estrogen, which by it’s nature will cause changes in the rest of the genome accordingly.

          • Eddy9000 says:

            That’s what I’m saying, but it doesn’t answer how ‘male’ genes can be responsible for placental growth in the absence of a Y chromosome. All other genes apart from those on the Y chromosome can be found in men or women, there is nothing male about the genome outside of genes carried on the Y-chromosome.

          • Bhazor says:

            Like I said the mechanism is still unknown (AFAIK) but chromosomes from male and females injected into an empty ovum act differently. Two sets of chromosomes taken from two different ovum injected into a third empty ovum act differently than two sets of chromosomes taken from two different sperm cells injected into an empty ovum. In both cases the ovum recieves a full complement of chromosomes but the result is dramatically different.

            But Vic, how does it work? I don’t know. But it does.

          • RegisteredUser says:

            You have to love RPS for threads like these.

    • Arkh says:

      Wait, someone is WRONG on the INTERNET. I can’t believe I’m reading someone try to argue that monogamy is natural! It could be, but you can’t know for sure. It’s like violence. Is violence natural or cultural?

      • Phantoon says:

        Both. Next question, please.

      • smb says:

        I can’t believe I’m reading someone trying to argue that culture is unnatural! What else affects this formation of culture and the longevity of a species other than its biological makeup and environment? That’s about as natural as it gets.

    • -Zarathustra- says:

      Monogamy is probably just pragmatic. Human offspring take a long time to reach adulthood and require attentive parents for the duration. We also value our own genetic material over that of others – why would I expend time and resources on rearing someone else’s child? Likewise, a woman would not want a man to divide his limited means between other wives and children whose genetic material are not her own. Modern social welfare programmes and changes in society have probably altered the dynamic somewhat.

      • LionsPhil says:

        why would I expend time and resources on rearing someone else’s child?

        Because we moved off the genetic timescale a few thousand years ago. Passing on your memetics is far more significant now; your knowledge, your ideology. The social and technological advances that result affect us a whole order of magnitude faster than any biological changes.

        • Bhazor says:

          No its still genes before memes bro.

          At least as far as our magic yarn thinks. Billions of years of evolution don’t just vanish because we invent the bicycle and movable type.

          • LionsPhil says:

            Yeah, “moved off” is too strong. But I would still expect that memetic legacy makes for a stronger pressure for reinforcement of stable relationships than genetic, if only because it literally demands that it is you who is present for the extensive duration of raising the child, since the transfer of information is a hell of a lot more gradual and incremental. That reinforcement isn’t going to be in the wetware yet*, but it is decidedly in (most) culture.

            (Also that adoption isn’t entirely snooker-loopy from some kind of kooky optimizing-for-propagation-of-self viewpoint.)

            (*Probably. I cede to actual biologists in just how much it might be represented.)

          • Skabooga says:

            I don’t agree with your assertion, the “nature vs. nuture” discussion and research in developmental biology has been going on for decades, and shows no signs of slowing down. The most we can definitively say is that both make important contributions, at least with regards to human development.

            Edit: Addressing this post to Bhazor.

          • Bhazor says:

            @LionsPhill
            Thats why I said according to your magic yarn. Humans switched from soloing to forming groups tens of thousands of years ago. Mutual support became more important than personal ability as we switched to less rigid power structures.

            We still get throwbacks though. You could argue that the rapists, sociopaths, mass murderers and egotists were just born too late. In the dark ages they would have been top dog, the cats pajamas, the ruler of the biggest pack with the strongest most vicious offsping. Just look at how powerful some of these throwbacks can become when there’s no restraints(The Romans, Genghis Khan, Hitler).

            Now Co-operation is much more important in human society.
            But all the old stuff didn’t go away.
            It’s still sitting in there.
            Snarling.

            @Skabooga
            There’s no chance for nurture without nature. It’s like Magic the Gathering, two people with identical decks can play their cards very differently but they can’t change them.*

            * Actually they might be able to in Magic The Gathering. I don’t know, I don’t play it.

          • John Brindle says:

            Don’t think your historical examples stand up at all. ‘The Romans’ was a pretty wide category; were they all mad buggering rapists? Or in fact were they an incredible ‘civilised’/strategised society with complex political structures like we have? Ghengis Khan was in a similar position. He didn’t just ride around killing people. As for Hitler, he was completely a specimen of bourgeois society who was not especially smart, frequently indecisive, made many tactical blunders, ended up leaving most of the actual ruling to his subordinates, and came to power for pretty specific economic, historical and political reasons. Acid-membered ubermensch he was not.

          • LionsPhil says:

            Yeah, I hadn’t replied because I basically agreed and had nothing to add, but Hitler seems a bit of an odd one to list, because his influence wasn’t really se—

            —goddamnit, Wikipedia. Why do you even have an article on this?

          • Bhazor says:

            Genghis Khan has been romanticised recently. Calling him a great unifier, a scholar and all sorts. Truth is he unified Asia the same way Hitler unified Europe.

            In reality he was an absolute thug, raped thousands and killed millions. He had a policy where upon conquering a village he would execute any male who was taller than the bridle of a wagon then have every woman of any age raped. I’ve heard it referred to as rape and murder on an industrial scale. Every

            Hitler was by all accounts a sociopath. Short tempered, malicious and power hungry. The numerous genocides and seeking of purity also push him well into the dark ages.

            For hundreds of years the Romans really weren’t a civilised nation they were just the tribe with the sharpest swords. To quote a scholar of the time “The Romans will turn a city into a wasteland and call it peace”. It was a culture that celebrated and even deified blood thirsty generals, to a Roman glory was more important than their lives. In contrast many of the so called barbarian tribes were more modern in terms of cooperation. They had mutual trade rather than tribute, they had their own religions and their own culture and their hierarchies were not as reliant on physical power. In contrast the Roman Repulic’s democratic process was all about power, politcal parties wandering the streets like gangs, brawling in the street and openly murdering rivals in public. The Roman culture including its religion was taken like plunder from the Greeks. Ceaser and many other Roman leaders were infamous adulterers.

          • John Brindle says:

            Your supposition seems to be that ‘civilisation’ and group-based organisation cannot produce these results, that they require some swaggering caveman-that-time-forgot, as opposed to being frequent and systemic historical consequences of the civilisations that produced them. I can only disagree (i.e. I would like to disagree strenuously and at length, but have not the time)

            As it happens, Freud actually anticipated a holocaust-like event, at the end of his 1929 essay ‘Civilisation and its Discontents’. Identifying aggression and violence as a part of man’s nature that civilisation must repress in order to sustain itself (thus producing neuroses and psychoses), he reflects on what he (like you) sees as a resurgence of natural savagery:

            “The fateful question of the human species seems to me to be whether and to what extent the cultural process developed in it will succeed in mastering the derangements of communal life caused by the human instinct of aggression and self-destruction. In this connection, perhaps the phase through which we are at this moment passing deserves special interest. Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature to such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man.”

            But then again, he also diagnosis civilisation as frequently failing in its task of regulating man’s instincts, because it treats them with an unrealistic and unpsychological attitude:

            “The command to love our neighbours as ourselves is the strongest defence there is
            against human aggressiveness and it is a superlative example of the unpsycho-logical attitude of the cultural super-ego. The command is impossible to fulfil; such an enormous inflation of love can only lower its value and not remedy the evil. Civilization pays no heed to all this; it merely prates that the harder it is to obey the more laudable the obedience. The fact remains that anyone who follows such preaching in the present state of civilization only puts himself at a disadvantage beside all those who set it at naught. What an overwhelming obstacle to civilization aggression must be if the defence against it can cause as much misery as aggression itself!”

            (I’m not trying to make a point with this really, I just thought it was interesting/related)

          • Bhazor says:

            Genetic throwbacks can happen anytime and anywhere. Many terminal diseases are throwbacks, a mutation that was bred out millenia ago but still crops up when a piece of junk DNA (DNA the body stopped using thousands of generations ago) is suddenly read.

            For me sociopathic and megalomaniacal tendancies are a throwback to the dark ages. Sociopaths live in a much more savage world where people are tools or weapons. They live in a world where everything is still a competition, power is a zero sum game and they want it all.

            The problem occurs when a civilisation/culture champions or supports these sociopathic throw backs. In most modern cultures these people are taught to suppress it, they are brought up in a world reliant on them interacting and cooperating. But again, the whole Roman culture was built around being the most ruthless, cut throat and savage you could be both on a military campaign and political campaign. The people who rose to power were the people who craved power. Gold wasn’t the point, gold was something you used to gain honour, honour was something you used to gain power. Sociopaths were born into a world that hailed them and rewarded them for seizing and conquering.

            Aside
            This discussion started with animals having affairs. Funny where things end up sometimes.

          • newprince says:

            Well, Bathor, I’m afraid the Roman culture isn’t all as cut-and-dry as you posit. You are somewhat on the mark about the first hundred years of whatever we would like to call ‘the Romans’ in terms of open aggression, but the problem is there they weren’t exactly the same people hundreds of years later. They were initially a small band of agrarian people under the yoke of the Etruscans. Even as they threw them off and absorbed surrounding provinces into the Republic, though, they still had a culture. Isn’t it weird how culture and brutal imperialism can co-exist? I recommend Said’s thoughts on this matter.

            But in the same breath you cite the Roman Imperial period, which is separated by centuries and the gain in terms of land mass of most of the known world at the time. Being ‘Roman’ in that period was hard to define, much like being ‘European’ nowadays.

            No doubt Roman civilization was brutal and emphasized ‘manliness’ in a way we would associate with… murderousness today. But it had its own culture, and while it stole some of its later foundations from Greek culture, it had enough shared history and enough distrust of Greek culture to develop its own. To label it all as simply ‘sociopathic’ is a bit dishonest.

          • ramonkahn says:

            Furthermore, stating that “we” live in a more civilized age than in the “dark ages’ tad optimistic, especially considering the worldwide differences – Relevant parts of our economic model are built on domination and exploitation (ie. Children’s work in India or exploitation of natural resources in Africa).
            If you argue, that sociopaths need group support, then their dominance is per definition also a social phenomenon and not mainly a resurgence of an old, successful gene. Sure, the genes influence the actions of a person, but so does the environment the person grows up; Therefore saying that people are outgrowing “dark ages” and relying less on genes is just as incorrect as stating that civilization does not matter, I think.

      • Tatourmi says:

        “why would I expend time and resources on rearing someone else’s child?”

        That sentence just struck me as out of place, and mebbe very occidental. MY child. MY resources. THEIR stuff.

        I don’t think capitalism or the concept of ownership is in our blood.

        • LionsPhil says:

          I don’t think…the concept of ownership is in our blood.

          Plenty of animals are really, really serious about the concept of owning territory.

        • Subject 706 says:

          Many animals, including our close genetic relatives, beg to differ. Stray into what a flock of chimpanzees consider THEIR territory and see what happens.

    • Dr I am a Doctor says:

      shut the fuck up about animal dicks you cretins

  6. InternetBatman says:

    It’s not as good as marvel brothel.

  7. Apples says:

    Dungeoneer gave me such a bad feeling while playing it (and a bad dream after playing it) that I never got very far in; one of the few pieces of media I’ve seen that have genuinely bothered me, and I don’t exactly stick to tame stuff. Not sure why either, since when I think back on it the individual pieces seem silly: bad graphics, cliche song choices, shock tactics, but the thing as a whole was just… unsettling. So of course I’ve been perversely looking forward to this one! The gameplay is pretty frustrating (lol) and opaque, which was also a problem in Dungeoneer, but it’s a completely bizarre and dark game and worth looking at just on that basis. A lot of the NPC dialogue sounds like edited quotes from actual people; I heard the guy was an actual psychologist of some sort so maybe they are, which would be interesting.

    edit: played a little bit and so far your comment about the unpleasant tone of the game vs the supposed liberation seems to be the point of the thing. The ‘liberation’ is, mostly, to someone or something’s detriment; abuse falls on other people, inanimate objects, yourself (haha). The sexual partners are not framed as equal partners but as weaker opponents to be defeated in battle, and most of them are depicted purely as objects of the (probably pathological) main character’s desire. There’s also the interesting thing that this ‘liberation’ is off limits or out of the reach of some of the other characters, like the guy on the train and a lot of the people in the first town – even in this fantasy liberated wonderland there are people who can’t engage properly and just watch.

    It’s also obv a very male-focused view of sexuality but I’m not sure that’s a problem as such, since he seems to be aware of that and intentionally setting out to explore that, at least so far…

    • RegisteredUser says:

      So translate this into modern internet hype speak for me.

      Is it filled with triggers and does it depict women in a totally wrong and bad way, thus irrevocably changing the fabric of every human being coming into contact with it, making them instant sexists, rapists and fanatical evildoers?
      Should I ready my righteous credit card and do we need several kickstarters and donation pledges, both for those that have suffered the indignity and horrors of knowing about it, as well as making sure everyone knows about it, and show in detail just why and how it is bad, so that we can all totally avoid it that way?

      Ooooor

      Is it a cunning modern take on the issues and dilemmas we face in an ever changing, never ending discussion both with ourselves and society about the meaning of sex, gender, liberty, social interaction, value and sexuality?
      Is it elevating the videogame medium to represent more than its parts?
      Thus also enabling us to get over the actual core gamplay mechanics and shortcomings, because its special in its own right?

      Ooooor

      Is it just a game by some dude with dicks, chicks and tricks?

      Basically I need to know if I should groan in more exasperation, roll my eyes or slightly shrug.

      • Dances to Podcasts says:

        I see you’re the sort of person who needs other people to tell him what to do. Don’t worry! I’m here for you.

        So, the first thing you do is set up a webcam. Then you put your left pinky in your right ear. Then you take off your socks and stuff them in your shirt. Find a pan in the kitchen and put it on your head. Next, you sing the national anthem of Peru. Post the results in this thread and we’ll proceed to step two. Thanks!

        • RegisteredUser says:

          I’m not falling for that again.

          Last time I did that, 4chan talked me into taking too many pills live on cam, I overdosed and then died.

          No thank you, talking myself out of that and getting a refund was hard enough to do once.

      • Apples says:

        OK having played some more of it last night, it is stupid and deliberately offensive in a way that Dungeoneer wasn’t. It is full of triggers and the dialogue is head-slappingly awful. It’s not titillating in any way unless you’re a real deviant, so your first paragraph isn’t quite it, but nor would I say it’s particularly progressive or thought-provoking. And the gameplay is so bad arghh! If you’re going to make a ‘social commentary’ game maybe make it possible to see the social commentary without your dick exploding during an unskippable cutscene!?!

        So, I guess my recommendation is, roll your eyes AND groan in exasperation. Unless it really does something amazing at the end but I don’t see how it could retrospectively make the rest of the game worthwhile.

  8. Urthman says:

    Always depressing to see rape treated as just a more XTREME version of consensual sex.

    • Apples says:

      Where do you see that in this game? There is one piece of dialogue like that but there is also at least one actual rape scene, which is definitely not treated that way and… it’s hard to tell how it IS treated, but it’s not as a form of consensual sex.

  9. The Random One says:

    It’s interesting how some time ago I was thinking on how traditional JRPG mechanics are so abstract that that could conceively convey anything, not just physical confrontation. A few days later Unemployment Quest came out, which uses the concept of random battles to represent mental states. And a few weeks later, this.

    So now I’m thinking how interesting it would be if I was rich, and also had a cool girlfriend that liked computer games and wild sex.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      I’d be (and was for a while) happy with just 2 of those three.
      Heck, one.

      ..half?

  10. Porpentine says:

    I was really excited for this and the opening is fun and flashy, but it gets bogged down both mechanically and intellectually as the game progresses–puzzles and battles become more unsatisfying and frustrating, and there’s some transphobic shit that turned me right off. The year is 2012, LGBT people shouldn’t be featured as cheap gags.

    • KaL_YoshiKa says:

      Yeah, mostly this, the game falls apart very quickly with dull obtuse mechanics and unhealthy sums of repetition. Also the Trans stuff is sort of weird, it’s presented in a light that’s sort of negative but not overtly. From a story perspective it’s also exceedingly tedious. If you’re in to cheap low pixel count thrills you might get something out of it but all the freudian babble in history isn’t going to salvage this.

      *At this point I’ve not actually finished the game but I’ve gotten to the end boss area, unsure if the game will somehow have a not contradictory and confused message despite that being where it’s heading.*

      • MacGuffin says:

        As I understand, part of the fantasy of transexual encounters for a segment of straight men is being “tricked” into sex by the transexual and that’s the nature of the transphobic bits, the game is not making a statement about transexuals, it’s making a statement about straight men.

        • Phantoon says:

          Not everyone will see it that way.

          So in effect, I guess this is art.

        • RvLeshrac says:

          Are you trying to counter the “Need to be Offended by Everything” with logic? I wish you luck!

    • Apples says:

      Given the way Daily was presented in Dungeoneer it seems unlikely that the dev actually has transphobic views – could there not be other, intentional reasons behind that part of the game? I mean maybe give the guy the benefit of a doubt and assume that he’s trying to say something rather than unconsciously/consciously being a bigot.

      Or maybe he is, I have no idea, I’d be kind of surprised though!

      edit: i take it back, that part of the game really is terrible

  11. BreadBitten says:

    “‘do you wish to participate in non-consensual sex?’” I think my brain just exploded from all this rampant oxymoron running around the internet as of late…!

    • Chris D says:

      Pssst!… I think it means non-consensual for the other person.

      • Phantoon says:

        “Would you like to engage in non consentual sex with me?”

  12. Dr I am a Doctor says:

    Holy shit it’s terrible.

  13. Baines says:

    In some ways, that seems a shame. The almost gleeful way with which the player character learns new sexual skills and drifts from partner to partner (and, less often, from gender to gender) seems to tell a different story, one of liberation.

    To be fair, the initial “Tale of a Flower” trailer from last year had some dark ideas. (Youtube link has video of pixel art sex.)

  14. MacGuffin says:

    A lot of the system issues stem from limitations inherent in RPG Maker 2003. The good side of this is that pretty much anyone can use the same tool to change the game to be whatever they want, there is really no programming or scripting involved.

  15. MrEvilGuy says:

    This game is absolutely brilliant. I’ve recommended it to all my friends. Truly inspirational, a game I wish I made. I’ve jacked off to it several times, an action that seems to connect be closer to the game, creating an intimate bond with the screen. I almost want to recommend it to my supervising professor, but I’m too nervous to do so.