Super Seducer is a blancmange of ineptitude and misogyny

Super Seducer is a game made by self-described “pick-up artist” (PUA) Richard La Ruina, aimed at teaching straight men so-called seduction techniques for attracting women. The result is a farcical and disastrous laughing stock of a game. But PUAs aren’t a funny joke, rather they’re a frightening reality of a deeply misogynistic culture that in its less PR-friendly moments has frequently advocated sexual assault against women.

Super Seducer is clearly intended to be part of the PR exercise, an attempt to portray PUAs as just guys looking for ways to convince girls to like them, albeit through techniques that are primarily focused around lying and manipulation. It’s an attempt to put a friendly mask on an ugly face. What’s so peculiar about it is that it’s not only bad at its attempts to do this, but it’s cringingly bad at everything.

La Ruina here is so demonstrably terrible at his professed talent, so revealingly incapable of holding even a scripted conversation with an actress paid to pretend to like him, that he at once reveals not just how idiotic the concept is from the ground up, but also can’t help but slip and show the true grim face of this movement. Super Seducer is the world’s most incompetent Trojan clown-horse for the true depths of PUA culture, and that deserves to be called out lest it get past anyone.

The format is video clips of La Ruina mumbling at the floor in front of pretty actresses, pausing for us to make a choose-your-own-misadventure choice of what approach he should take next in a variety of scenarios. Should he start touching himself in the street while talking to a stranger, or say something nice about her hair? Literally that level of idiocy, throughout. Choose the “right” answer (and believe me, the scarequotes are out in force for this one), and Richard will compliment your choice in instructional garble-barble confusion from the comfort of a hotel room. Get it wrong and he’ll explain why, and give you another go. And that’s it, in a series of increasingly uncomfortable and unpleasant encounters with this shambling creep.

“You’re walking and a girl catches your eye. Can you stop her, get her to talk to you, and make her want to see you again? Goal: Instant date.”

So begins your first challenge. And how do we stop this innocent person in the street? I choose to politely wave to her from one side. WRONG!

“You made it too easy for her to walk past you and brush you off.”

According to the game, the correct way to approach a complete stranger in the street is to walk directly in front of her, forcing her to slow down or stop. Crikey, I had no idea! It seems most people in most streets are apparently trying to seduce me. I’d thought they were just selfish pricks who don’t look where they’re going, but it turns out they all want to do me!

His victim at this point is of course completely helpless to his getting-in-the-way charms, and now suggests this peculiar man join her in the park! Here you have the option to a) let her do the talking, b) do most of the talking, or c) tell her she’s beautiful and lean in for a kiss. At this point, early on, I choose c), because honestly, I’m not sure what this idiot thinks can work, and thankfully she rejects his attempts and leaves. “I’m not trying to fuck you up the arse or anything!” Richard calls after her, because oooooooohhhhhh Goooooooodddddddd.

OK, let’s go with what hopefully any reasonable human might think is the polite response when talking to a stranger one wants to get to know: let her do most of the talking. So Richard induces this by delving deep into his repertoire of chatty banter. I quote, verbatim. “Do you live local, around here somewhere?” “Yeah,” she replies, doing most of the talking. “Ah, that’s nice,” Richard stumbles aimlessly in a script he wrote in advance of filming his imaginary wank fantasy. “Do you spend a lot of time in this area?” Seriously. That’s his follow-up to asking if she lives here. “I do, yeah,” the confused human replies, once again just dominating the conversation, as Richard begins telling the person who briefly agreed she knows the area that there’s a coffee shop around the corner. Oh dear, that was the last straw, and presumably physically exhausted from all that talking, she’s off now. We cut back to Richard in an anonymous hotel room, his beard three times longer for some reason, telling us that oh-ho no, that was all wrong:

“In the beginning the girl actually shouldn’t do most of the talking, so you don’t wanna ask a bunch of questions. You wanna make statements and do most of the talking yourself.”

Oh you dreadful little man. (For record, in this hellscape scenario of a woman getting to speak, she spoke a total of four words.)

So what should one say?! Here’s Richard’s pre-scripted dialogue to woo this lady:

“Yeah I was just walkin’, there’s a nice park down there, and then I’m gonna meet some friends but I’ve got like forty minutes and that’s why when I saw you and I fort you looked friendly so that’s why I came over and said hi.”

Careful ladies! And why does this work?

“In the early stages of an interaction, you actually do want to make most of the conversation, so she has a chance to relax, get comfortable talking to you, and snap out of the mindset she was in, thinking about what she’s doing and where she’s going, so that’s the right one.”

During these hotel room lessons Richard is, for no explained reason, joined on the bed on which he’s sat, fully clothed, by two women in their underwear, who look outstandingly bored throughout his inane gibberish. Watch carefully and you’ll even see them subtly rolling their eyes at points.

For complete efficacy, Richard’s extraordinary seduction techniques could only work in the imagination of a man lying in a room on his own, eyes closed, his hand down his trousers. These are the only realistic circumstances in which the complete strangers he intends to seduce are ever going to reply with the required lines for these nonsensical techniques to work. Because after Richard has stopped a lady by getting in her way on the pavement, he then tells her how “elegant” she looks, which of course causes her to become all overwhelmed with lust. She immediately begins volunteering information about her plans to go feed some squirrels, which Richard immediately mocks, then concedes, like a gentleman, that “squirrels are cute”, and throws out the sort of killer line that no one would know without paying for his help: “Do you like animals?”

And so it goes on, showing you how to bother women in public in peculiarly dreadful ways. Two girls sitting at a bar chatting? Respect that they’re having a conversation and leave them alone? Consider the notion they may be a couple? Good heavens, no. Go manipulate your way into their conversation by saying all the “right” things.

And Richard just doesn’t know how to talk! In a supposed guide to tricking women into liking you, the best he can manage is to mutter, “Yeah, cool,” after most things women say to him, then look down awkwardly. If it weren’t for the camera cutting back to his creep-den, every scene would end with the women looking confused and making their excuses.

All the way through, the game attempts to disguise the repellent stupidity of the whole process with the outlandishness of the “wrong” choices. So those two girls in a bar – should you click on, “Ask them if they know what you like in a girl. The answer being your dick”? Ha ha! No! That won’t work! They’ll say, “Ew!” and ask you to leave! Much better to instead just creepily invade their lives for your vile creep motives.

These choices serve two purposes. They give you the option to watch Richard say the deeply demeaning thing to some actresses, and laugh at that; and they allow the so-called “right” option to seem, in comparison, much less lecherous. In reality, of course, you’re just picking the least creepy option of a bunch of creepy options, the result still being incredibly, repellently creepy.

Oh, and so you know, the way to trick these ladies into talking to you is to lie to them about having a best friend “who is a girl”, for whom you’re trying to buy a present, and can they help you? “A coupon” suggests one of the ladies, clearly bemused by the idiocy of the question. Richard meanwhile is dazzled with this rudimentary shopping advice. Cut back to Richard on his hotel bed with two deeply bored cold-looking ladies, as he explains that this is “guaranteed to work”.

He keeps trying to pretend that there’s any other goal in mind than sex. You could be friends, he pretends, for seconds at a time. When you find out a woman you’ve been chatting to has a boyfriend, it has the option to respect that and leave. Wrong, of course! Richard says to us that sure, we could do that, but we could stick around and maybe make friends with her (oh, really?), perhaps date her when she’s single, or perhaps she might become part of your social circle, and have other “plenty of other attractive friends” (oh I see). Or, he suggests, “You could pull the old switcheroo, go for her friend.” This immediate change from “make friends” to the immature vulgarity of “go for” is so embarrassingly revealing.

But what’s more insidious here is how cowardly and deceitful the whole project is about its true methods. If you’ve ever had the misfortune to read anything about the so-called Pick-up Artist world, you’ll know that these deluded single men believe in far more unpleasant and reprehensible methods. The most famous self-described PUAs are intrinsically woven into truly terrifying behaviour, with the likes of Julien Blanc refused entry to the UK in 2014 on the basis that his teaching, according to then shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, “directly exploit[s] vulnerable men who buy into rape culture.” La Ruina himself has been filmed teaching techniques to sexually assault women and “get away with it”. (Warning: this video is just so gross, with La Ruina physically demonstrating ways to grope on a woman live on stage.)

Another big aspect of the PUA handbook that’s revolting is “negging” – phrasing critical or unpleasant comments about women in such a way that they undermine or demean, without coming out as outright insults. The intention being to make one’s victim feel worse about themselves and thus, PUAs believe, be more vulnerable. Richard never directly states to do this in the game, but instead just piles it into the conversations, unmentioned, between your choices.

He’s faintly critical, voices lowest common denominator assumptions, and so on. When he finds out the girls in the bar are studying business and economics (having guessed drama and fashion), he goes on to incompetently mumble about how good it is that they’ve picked such difficult subjects, because “most of the girls” in the bar will “be studying Instagram”. He keeps saying things like, “Well done,” (even after asking if they got good grades!) as if its his position to compliment these lesser beings for having studied a supposed man’s subject. A woman who smokes is chastised as if a naughty child, then teased, then chastised again (you can see this scene in the video below to see how grim it is). Anyone who does their job for money rather than love is instantly condemned. He incessantly assumes the least of women, acting astonished when it’s contradicted, and then patronising in response. It’s relentless.

A woman jokingly says, of her love for some TV shows, “I’m a freak about…” Richard interjects, in a cutscene ostensibly about asking about her interests, in a jarringly unpleasant tone, “Yeah, I was going to say.” She carries on regardless. In the same conversation, having established she doesn’t have a job at the moment, in the guise of asking if they have an early start the next day sneers, “You don’t have to get up, because you don’t have to go to work…”

Choices are sold to the player as appropriate because they’re “playful” or “cheeky”, rather than labeling them as they are: downright insulting. When the two ladies explain they had burgers for dinner, Richard is disgusted at this. There they are, all pretty in their fancy dresses, he says, and yet they ate a burger??! They laugh, because they’re actresses being paid to not punch him in his face. “It’s something they know they shouldn’t do, so it’s nice to tease them about,” says Richard to us.

The negging aspect gets more and more revolting the further I waded through this. One particular section was so grim I watched through my fingers at points, and had to record it to demonstrate just what this is like. The following, edited down portion, contains pretty much every aspect: the constant criticising of the woman, the explanations of how to manipulate, the background homophobia, and a bit where he paid a woman to tell him how good looking he is.

I also, from earlier in the same scene, had to edit together all the bits of Richard’s best dancing, which he uses to successfully woo a lady, because IT IS THE BEST.

Please share this handy gif of the middle bit with your loved ones.

Of course, alongside its inherent grossness, PUA is complete woo from top to bottom. It’s entirely reliant on men who are so completely clueless, and so completely in denial of a woman’s agency, that they aren’t able to recognise that their ridiculous pack of “techniques” are a sordid fantasy. The concept is completely entwined in this idiotic notion that women are a near-inanimate castle to be conquered, just a series of routinely deployed defences to break through, before reaching the treasure hidden inside the walls. Rather than, oh I don’t know, being other humans.

Everything in Super Seducer is tragic. It’s deeply offensive, of course, perhaps even more so for what it deliberately leaves out than the wretched drivel it includes. It’s not too far fetched to believe that this is intended to be a gateway to the PUA world, PUA-lite, all of the lying and manipulation, none of the sexual assault techniques. Buy the game, then come to our seminars. Yet even what is here are concepts entirely rooted in a spiteful misogyny, where women are denied humanity, dignity and safety. It’s repellent, hiding behind genuinely astounding ineptitude.

This is a man who can’t manage a coherent conversation, pre-planned, with a paid actress, making him easy to dismiss as a laughable fool, right up until he utters words like, “This works psychologically because you’re taking away her independence.”

The “methods” here are simple to sum up, such that anyone tempted to buy the game can instead learn everything he has to teach from this: awkwardly lie to women, and then pay them to pretend they can’t tell. There is nothing else this has to offer.

Super Seducer is out now on Windows and Mac, via Steam. It was originally meant to be coming to PlayStation 4 as well but Sony blocked its release.


  1. Beefenstein says:

    “Press A to claim that there is no such thing as rape.”

    • Megatron says:

      Press Y to question the moral integrity of your actions and begin a journey of introspection that resolves with your acceptance of women as fully human beings who are as entirely capable of agency and deserving of dignity as you are.

      Press B to start living this fundamental truth.

      Over to you, Modders.

  2. Asrahn says:

    Rule of thumb: if they call themselves PUAs, they’re probably at the very bottom of the barrel of what mankind has to offer. Stuck, like the grime that never gets washed out between refills.

    Richard La Ruina and those who associate with him are no exceptions.

  3. Gothnak says:

    I had a friend who learned a lot of stuff from ‘the game’. Over a couple of years he went from a nice outgoing guy, to someone who had a lot of sex and no meaningful relationships, he also became pretty unhappy.

    I went out ‘on the pull’ with him a couple of times and it was split into two things…

    1. Talk to more people, be outgoing.
    2. Big yourself and you friends up, put women down.

    I came away, and learned a lot about 1. and fundamentally refused to do 2. as i thought it was inherently unpleasant.

    1. probably helped me meet me wife and now i’m happily married for 4 years while my friend is still single. I’m going to go out with him again soon, and teach him how to be a normal person again.

    • Gothnak says:

      Oh, i forgot. I also previously had another best friend who read a lot of ‘the game’. It helped him find a woman, although at the time i happened to be dating that woman, but it didn’t stop him… We broke up and they started seeing each other, that was fun.

      • noom says:

        I find it odd how The Game (I’m assuming you mean the Neil Strauss book here?) is often portrayed as some kind of PUA manual. I read it a while ago, and while he does speak frankly about most of the techniques employed by PUAs, the book as a whole certainly doesn’t paint the community in a positive light.

        I actually found it a fascinating read, and would recommend anyone to give it a go.

        • KidWithKnife says:

          I do agree with you about The Game, but I think it’s fair game for criticism. Strauss is critical of what the PUA scene as he knew it developed into, but he never really comes out against the concept or comes clean about the way most of the book sanitizes the entire premise of pickup artistry. He’s honest about how awful some of the specific individuals on that scene are, but he doesn’t connect the dots and make it clear that the problem is the scene itself and not just the specific people he had a problem with. Given how squeaky clean and woman-friendly he makes pickup sound earlier in the book, I think it’s fair to take him to task for not being more plain about that. Or at least that’s how I remember it anyway, it’s been a while since I’ve read it.

        • Nogo says:

          I’d actually heard about the book during a time in my life where that kind of thing seemed useful. I’d gotten the impression it was more of a journalistic thing where the writer joins a culture and then examines it personally. I figured it’d have useful lessons about being outgoing and meeting people while tempered by cautionary tales of people losing themselves to false promises and destructive behavior. Basically a low-rent Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.

          I went to the bookstore expecting to find a used paperback or something, asked a nice woman to help me find it, and we both ran into a $30 leather bound monstrosity. She look at it a bit askew and said “it looks like a bible..?” I just slowly backed away going “oh no, no no no. Thank you but no.”

          • MikoSquiz says:

            Yeah, it’s a Neil Strauss book. He’s also got one about delving into survivalist groups in the USA, and one about the endeavour of being mates with erstwhile Jane’s Addiction and Red Hot Chili Peppers Dave Navarro during his most self-destructive heroin & hookers phase. He went from a music writer to a kind of gonzo journalist.

            “The Game” is a wends its way from a chirpy “what’s this PUA business all about, then?” into a rather melancholy group portrait of some very broken people. The follow-up, “The Truth: An Uncomfortable Book About Relationships” is about recovering from immersion in PUA culture, and starts with the author in rehab for sex addiction.

    • Seafoam says:

      Sickeningly sad thing about stuff like this is that it can actually work. And some praise it because of it.
      But that’s the same as approving of ethnic cleansing because it frees up real estate (and some do that as well).

      • PanFaceSpoonFeet says:

        Steady on now. That’s just… mental.

      • Premium User Badge

        kagechikara says:

        PUA techniques work on teaching people how to emotionally insulate themselves from rejection and just keep approaching people. It works for the same reason cold calling sales tactics work, not because there’s anything inherently worthwhile about the methods.

      • MisterFurious says:

        Yeah, I tried being an asshole to women just as an experiment and it really does work. This was a long time ago before “The Game” and all that crap became popular and I hadn’t even heard the term ‘negging’ yet. I just got tired of women running all over me for being a nice guy and doing very horrible things to me so I decided to be a jerk and would tear women down but do it in a joking way and it always made them laugh. They liked me a lot more when I was a dick than when I was nice.

        • Dewal says:

          It’s not the “being an asshole” that helps but “being confident”. Apparently the only way for you to appear confident was to being a jerk, I hope you’ll grow out of it.

        • Ragnar says:

          If you’re pretending to be something you’re not to attract people, even if it’s working, you’re meeting and attracting the wrong kind of people. Unless you’re not pretending, which I hope isn’t the case as that would mean you’re actually a dick.

    • SaintAn says:

      Sadly that sounds like women are enabling and rewarding people that act like that.

      • Premium User Badge

        kagechikara says:

        “It sounds like men are gross manipulative assholes.” < Discuss why that generalized statement is wrong and see if you can find a way to apply it to what you wrote.

      • Dewal says:

        Scam artists are getting money from what they do. Seems like people are enabling and rewarding people that act like that.

      • Stevostin says:

        Yes but apparently it’s not acceptable to try to make this a part of the discussion. Ssshhh.

        • JarinArenos says:

          Having fun completely ignoring the people that replied before you directly addressing this comment?

          The real echo chamber was inside you all along.

          • Stevostin says:

            What made you think I was referring to that thread and not the way the debate is handled within the society?

            Even so even here it’s still barely scratched. At least at the time I posted.

    • sewers-of-mars says:

      Yeah same I had a friend from highscool who got really into PUA stuff. He was on the spectrum, and just needed a framework to approach social situations. I approached and met my first GF thanks to his help, but of course we weren’t compatible, and probably weren’t very good for each other.

      I get the feeling that for certain men PUA behaviour is innate. This PUA stuff is maladjusted nerds trying to emulate the behaviour of another caste.

    • Premium User Badge

      MajorLag says:

      Pick up has evolved a lot since The Game. Ultimately, it’s a scientific approach to understanding how attraction works and using that understanding to get what you want in life. For a lot of men, that’s just sex, and that’s fine because that’s true for a lot of women too. You don’t hear about the people in these communities who get into conventional monogamous relationships because that isn’t exciting or rage inducing.

    • Kitsunin says:

      I find it strange, because talking to people, honestly, about topics which interest you, is really all it takes to develop relationships with shockingly reliable efficacy. Even if those interests aren’t particularly mainstream. I say that as someone who almost literally didn’t have any friends or romantic relationships between the ages of 18-21, due to being shy and unconfident.

      But, I can understand the idea of being taken in by the idea of “scoring” by using tricks, if you aren’t confident in yourself actually being a good enough person to be liked for who you are (protip, if you can understand what I’m saying, you’re almost certainly good enough).

  4. Pogs says:

    Just seen this crap being sold on Steam. Guess this is how Valve say Happy International Woman’s Day.

    • Beefenstein says:

      It is always helpful to know your enemy.

    • Kelrash says:

      Come on now, how is this not obvious to you that it is satyre?

      This is a legit conversation from this game:

      « You off to the park to feed squirrels? What do you feed them? Hot dogs? »

      • John Walker says:

        Yes, he says this. He says it to ridicule the woman who said she enjoys feeding squirrels. It’s one of many mocking or derogatory things he says to her.

        The game isn’t satire. There’s no evidence to support that, and La Ruina’s whole life is focused around teaching this crap.

        • Kelrash says:

          Yeah as I wrote below:

          Tbh I was told to google the dude by a guy on facebook and it appears the dude is a serious creepy dude. It still comes off as way too over the top to be taken seriously imo.

          Also I don’t understand how that conversation is mocking or derogatory, it just makes him sounds moronic for asking something as dumb as “what do you feed squirrels?”.

          • Malkara says:

            Poe’s law, and all. Can’t differentiate crazy people from satire sometimes, but this is definitely the case of deluded person.

          • Beefenstein says:

            Your comments, ignoring the reality of this person and the community they are part of, seem so deluded that I can’t take them seriously. Surely you are joking.

        • Dreamstory says:

          Hello john. Long time listener, first time caller.

          As a dye-in-the-wool liberal, social democratic and believer in social justice, I too agree that this type of nonsense is toxic. I’ve not even bothered to watch the video as it looks like a waste of my time. I did read your article, however.
          I’ve been reading RPS for a long time but I can’t help but roll my eyes these days when I see a click-baity article title vaguely suggesting some type of social injustice has been done because I know it’ll be written by you, grinding your axe all over the place.
          Yes, John, we get it. Discrimination is bad.
          Reading RPS these days, it feels like you have a real agenda, and you can come across as a bit shrill. Maybe tone it down slightly?

          Just my two pence
          Love to hear back from you
          Peace out

          • Sarfrin says:

            The title isn’t at all clickbaity, it’s a concise summary of the content of the article. I’m rather pleased that RPS isn’t afraid to take a stance on issues like this and I admire John for not shying away from the flak he’ll inevitably take for it.

          • John Walker says:

            I’m genuinely confused as to what you think is clickbait in this title. It’s an accurate summary of the game written about below, and the text substantiates the words in the headline. I don’t know if you’ve just misunderstood what “clickbait” means, or if you’re being disingenuous, but it’s not a meaningful accusation here.

            Further, I find it astonishing that you think it’s inappropriate to condemn advocates of sexually assaulting women, as if it’s some crazy liberal extreme! You start off by saying it’s “toxic nonsense”, but then spit at the notion that some “social injustice” has occurred. Good grief, when IS someone allowed to be critical in your bizarro ruleset?! I’m a little concerned by what you consider “liberal” to appoint yourself the title!

            Aaaand, you know what – when I’m reviewing a game whose central thesis is “discrimination is good”, I have an inkling of a feeling that a sensible way to critique it is the question that notion.

          • datreus says:

            Given his agenda is clearly that ‘discrimination is bad’, you’re clearly less ‘dyed in the wool’ and more ‘soaked in the batter’.

          • Stevostin says:

            @john walker
            Either La Ruina “be a dick” approach doesn’t work and it’s indeed hate against women aggravated by a call to action.
            Or it works (even on occasion) and it’s a very different story where males who are nice are punished by a significant share of females who ask them, in practice, to endorse a personality they don’t like to be able to mate.

            As ugly as this game looks, it aims at people with an history of rejection for being nice and fair by some women. If there’s indeed truth in La Ruina’s take that what really works is treating those women in a soul crushing way is indeed at least partially true, then no solution can come on blaming just him or his followers. Because it will be empty talking while they would act and get what they biologically need. The discussion has to include those women as also having a part in such sick mechanic.

            Now I don’t know if that works. I wouldn’t live with a woman falling for such shitty behavior. It’s not about the many, it’s about the one. Worked for me!

          • LennyLeonardo says:

            Ugh, how many times? Clickbait is when an author puts something at the beginning of a piece of writing that makes people want to read the rest. For example: yesterday I was walking by my local Sue Ryder shop when I glimpsed the cover of a book entitled ‘The Very Hungry Caterpillar’. I have a healthy interest in Caterpillars, and was intrigued to learn what might arise were one to become ‘very hungry’. Consequently, I entered the shop and began to surreptitiously read the book behind a shelf of Father Ted DVD’s. Before I knew it, it had read the book in its entirety! Naturally I was shocked at having been so cynically manipulated, so I posted a comment expressing my hastily improvised point of view at the bottom of the acknowledgements page. Frustratingly enough, the community remains stubbornly silent and on subsequent visits to the shop I have found zero replies, even from the author, who remains old, and at large. Naturally I have found the whole situation to be outrageous. Clickbait is evil, I think. I think I think that. I have to think something, don’t I?

          • uniCurse says:

            This is much like my point.

            I come to RPS to read video game reviews but it’s increasingly getting more and more like VICE magazine.

            If you’re going to post opinion up on a website supposedly about video game reviews, don’t get upset when people call you out on that opinion. Opinions are like arseholes.

            Doesn’t matter whether you feel you have some kind of moral highground or not. You may well do, most people would agree with the sentiment, but it does come across as shrill, a bit whiny and a bit pathetic, like you’re insulting your readers intelligence? Not a smart move for a journalist.

          • Kitsunin says:

            These types of articles, expressing a well-thought-out viewpoint without shying away from controvercial viewpoints are exactly the reason I like RPS far more than other news sites.

            It helps that I typically agree with them. I know it’s a bit conceited to say, but I think I usually agree because RPS writers are pretty good at getting the “correct” opinion, insomuch as opinions can be correct.

  5. Zorgulon says:

    Nothing sums up the absurd childishness of his worldview better than the line “Don’t be a wussy!”

  6. Phantom_Renegade says:

    I just watched ProJared’s Youtube clip of him playing through the game. I never watch any youtube let’s play stuff usually, but this was pretty great. Best part? The woman who edits his videos, who he refers to as Miss Editor (presumably for her anonymity, since, well, the internet is vile) leaves little notes over the screen about how much she despises Richard’s tactics. At one point she calls him a Vile Washcloth of a human being and I think that’s the best possible description of this cretin.

    Everything about him screams creep. Ugh, and then when you get a ‘right’ answer, suddenly two hookers are sitting next to him. Like what? “well done, you’ve said something ‘good’ here is a reward in the form of barely dressed women”. And they don’t do anything! They just sit there, literally like furniture for his video. That’s how this man sees women and that’s how he’s trying to convince other men to see women.

    It’s disgusting.

    • gwop_the_derailer says:

      I tried to watch a bit of it for laughs, and… I just couldn’t. The cringe factor was too high.

    • warjayy says:

      I agree. Too many people seem to be defending the game, when they’re missing the point. The intentions behind the game are pure manipulation and seeing women as objects. How is this acceptable? Like, why is the game even a thing? I couldn’t watch much, because it made me feel dirty inside. Also, I’m glad you mentioned ProJared. I noticed that he’d often get pissed at things the game was saying/implying. I feel like he should have stopped, but it’s his choice.

  7. JustAPigeon says:

    Uh oh, don’t go saying it’s a hotel room, La Ruina will get mad at you! (Hopefully this is intentional).

    link to

    He’s not very bright. Besides being a scumbag.

  8. Seafoam says:

    Horrid stuff.

  9. waltC says:

    Do people have a sense of humor any more? Do they recognize *satire* when they see it? I am amazed right down to my skivvies that anyone would take this “seriously”…;) Looks like to me the software is throwing off on the “PUA” with some fairly funny satire…lol! Guess people don’t read Mad magazine or the Onion anymore. It’s the dumbing-down of planet Earth, I guess.

    • Asrahn says:

      That, or, you know, PUA and their peers have really, really bad humor. Just objectively bad.

      • Kelrash says:

        Tbh I was told to google the dude by a guy on facebook and it appears the dude is a serious creepy dude. It still comes off as way too over the top to be taken seriously imo.

        • tacogodboomdogg says:

          I’ve never had a game that made me laugh so much and so hard before. I don’t care that it’s vulgar. The funniest things in comedy are vulgar. I say watch it on youtube because it’s hella worth it for me.

    • gwop_the_derailer says:

      So I guess issuing fradulant DMCA takedowns against his critics are part of La Runia’s performance art?


    • John Walker says:

      You are simply incorrect. While La Ruina attempts to put in what he calls “cheeky” elements into this, he is sincere in this project, as woefully inept and ludicrous as it is. Do some research into the guy, watch the video I link, because unless you believe his entire life is a piece of performance art, then you are sorely mistaken about this game.

      • Kelrash says:

        I kind of feel bad for the guy now, he doesn’t live in reality.

        • Stevostin says:

          Nobody lives in your reality, as no one does in mine. Evolution doesn’t care if you understand facts, only if you mate and have kids. If his ways allows for him to have more kids than you, he’ll have totally beaten you (and me) at the evolution game.

          If he does. I suspect he may throw babies onto walls in confusion, so all isn’t lost.

          • LennyLeonardo says:

            I don’t think that an individual can beat another individual at evolution.

          • Stevostin says:

            Actually the opposite. No two persons spread their genes exactly as much as each other. You can forget this competition happens no matter what, most does. Yet… Always a thing.

      • All is Well says:

        No but John, don’t you recognize *satire* when you see it? I am amazed right down to my skivvies that anyone would take waltC “seriously”. Looks to me like they’re, uh, throwing off (?) on the “being loudly, manifestly and publicly wrong while claiming that everyone else is stupid” with some fairly funny satire…lol! Guess people don’t read Mad magazine or the Onion anymore. It’s the dumbing-down of planet RPS, I guess.

    • Beefenstein says:

      Yeah bro when I demean you and treat you as less than human it’s a joke bro just a locker room joke bro why so salty bro?

  10. Kelrash says:

    Come on guys, how over the top must it be for you to understand this is borat style satire.

    « You off to the park to feed squirrels? What do you feed them? Hot dogs? »

    Who would take this game seriously enough to be offended by it. Is Ali-G something to criticize next for how rude he is?

    link to

  11. KidWithKnife says:

    Good god, these people have a video game? Fuck. Once upon a time I bought into the less gross, more PR-friendly side of the PUA scene as depicted in The Game, and it is true that you can learn a lot about self confidence, improving yourself and not beating yourself up over it when things don’t go your way… but you can learn those things in a lot of other, more healthy ways that don’t involve also taking in the other awful ideas that PUAs put out there. It’s a bad scene that’ll teach you things that fuck up your relationships with women far worse than just being a little socially awkward ever could.

  12. ShinyZealot says:

    This is truly a horrible piece of software. However the ‘game’ is so blatantly ridiculous that it’s very very funny to watch. It’s been a while since I’ve laughed so much watching someone play this on Twitch. But please do yourself a favour and don’t spend money on this.

  13. uniCurse says:

    Rock, Paper, Virtue-Signal.

    Have we got to the point where people are too young to remember Brass Eye, I wonder?

    • Premium User Badge

      subdog says:

      What “virtue” is being “signaled” here?

      • X_kot says:

        I wonder if those who complain about “virtue signaling” are proponents of “vice signaling” instead.

        • Shuck says:

          Accusing others of “virtue signaling” is basically shorthand for “I am a terrible human being and refuse to believe that everyone else isn’t one as well. Therefore any time someone criticizes something terrible, they must have some ulterior motive.” It’s a really self-damning thing to say.

          • Stevostin says:

            I am not sure confirming 100% his “virtue signaling” call is an efficient way to deny it though.

            There are ways to criticize his approach that doesn’t involve taking the “I’m better than thou” road, but you completely failed to go that way. He does have a point.

          • Troubletcat says:

            Ehhh I don’t think so… The conservatives virtue signal too (different virtues, obviously) and I’ve seen people call them out on it. It’s just a phrase that describes a certain kind of behaviour.

    • John Walker says:

      I’m sure you think you’ve been very clever, but as the guy who ran Glebe’s Thrift Funnel in the late 90s, I’d say I’ve not forgotten Brass Eye. And, as someone relatively expert in satire as a form, you can trust me when I tell you that you’re making an idiot of yourself.

      (Of course the inherent tragedy of comments like this is the implication that the commenter must have SO badly misunderstood Brass Eye at the time.)

      • Premium User Badge

        Drib says:

        But what if unicurse’s comment was satire itself? How far does the rabbit hole go?

      • uniCurse says:

        I remember your site, it was ace!

        This “game” looks absolute bollocks, but doesn’t “absolute bollocks” speak for itself without having to wave a flag about it? I don’t often use these horrid web memes often but I think it’s justified in certain cases.

        This ain’t the first time RPS has published articles that with a political motivation that assumes everybody is on board with them.

        I fundamentally support freedom of expression. This game can teach people “picking up girls” and it can equally teach about the state of society, the state of the mind of the person who came up with it, and so on.

        Good on you for pointing out something that’s socially retarded. But really, do mature people need someone like you telling us how to think and feel about something so obviously socially retarded? Really?

        You’re virtue signalling mate. Well done.

        In all art, interpretation is up to the observer. But only if it’s allowed to hey? Sometimes someone loud gets in the way and goes “Hey! If you like this you’re a cunt!” which dumbs us all down to the same common denominator.

        • uniCurse says:

          If you’re such an expert in satire, you’re not displaying it with this piece. It reads like someone eager to convince people of a certain viewpoint with a straight face.

          That’s admirable from a certain perspective, but you have to expect that when you stand up on a soap-box, that people might throw tomatoes at you because they think you look a bit silly.

      • uniCurse says:

        “(Of course the inherent tragedy of comments like this is the implication that the commenter must have SO badly misunderstood Brass Eye at the time.)”

        Actually, Brass Eye was built on mocking people doing just what you’ve done with this article. I not sure I misunderstood it at all, I think I took it quite seriously, for what it was worth, because I do quite enjoy pointing out when someone is jumping on a bandwagon to make themselves look like a good and valid person.

        • FunkyB says:

          You’re vacillating so wildly here I can’t keep track. You do know that La Ruina is serious right? This ain’t a joke. Yes it has jokes in it, but it is not a joke in its core idea.

          RPS are perfectly allowed to say this is a bad game for this reason, and you don’t get to say “DONT SAY THIS” and “I’m all for freedom of expression” in the same comment.

          • uniCurse says:

            Actually, I “get” to say whatever I like. Pointing out that a games review site should be sticking to reviewing games and steering clear of politically oriented comment under the veneer of critique is also quite valid. Since the PC crowd love to bring their brand of mind control to every aspect of culture they can I think people are obligated to stand up and say something whenever it rears it’s ugly head.

    • gwop_the_derailer says:

      The ones who accuse others of virtue-signalling are usually the ones actually virtue-signalling. Using terms like ‘virtue-signalling’ and ‘Cultural Marxism’ is basically letting certain circles know that your opinions line up with theirs, context be damned.

      • Stevostin says:

        It’s an article that is based on the premise than the author (and readers) are better people than the one under scrutiny by the article. That is virtue signaling.

        Doesn’t mean it’s wrong – in that case, it seems a pretty much in your nose observation to make. But yup… virtue signaling it is. I can write you a review of that game with no morality beef if you want to see the difference (you’ll have to pay me oc. Not playing that for free…)

        • John Walker says:

          It never occurred to me that I might be “better” than these people. It occurred to me that their behaviour is revolting and dangerous and deserving of being called out. I didn’t profess to be a better person, or indicate the virtuous ways I treat women. This is why this misapplication of the silly insult is so annoying for people.

          And no, you couldn’t write about this with “no morality beef”. To ignore the subject matter of the game would be sheer incompetence, and to acknowledge it but not critique it would be a tacit moral endorsement.

          • Stevostin says:

            Yes. Yes you did. And it’s not a crazy thing to do, obviously, considering what those guys promote. Again, I could write you a review for this that isn’t judgemental in any way. (again, not for free :P). You say I couldn’t write but it’s rather that you wouldn’t like it. Reminds me of an old standup: “people say a violin can’t stand a poor player” said the guy before playing ear scratching violin. “False. The violin has no problem at all with a poor player. People do!”.

            This clarified, I do think it’s intellectually bankrupt to judge the intention in a review of anything. If you have opinions on intention, do games, don’t do critic. A critic is about saying “this product/piece of art pitch is to do this, how good does it do it?”. There are, after all, ppl buying for that awful approach who needs to compare products withing that angle. Should they buy this, a book, a seminar? Yeah, I know you’d rather have them shot themselves but that’s not your function in society to come up with that. Do politics, or do games to express that (highly respectable) view on actually respecting women. But critic don’t work if they’re not build on a common ground with the readers. Some readers don’t share your views on stuff. But they’re way more likely to agree that “the pitch of this is that” and then read your analysis about how good it follows up on that promise.

    • RobinOttens says:

      What is this weird ‘virtue signal’ term the defenders of this game keep using? The steam forums for this game are full of it as well. Time to google!

      • RobinOttens says:

        Oh well nevermind, they’re all misusing the term it looks like.

        • Premium User Badge

          subdog says:

          It’s the idea that any public expression of empathy or concern is rendered disingenuous by its publicity, as if it’s merely a performative act.

          I think most people have caught on by now that those who use the term “virtue signalling” are actually projecting their own lack of common decency onto others.

          • Eightball says:

            It’s been cheapened by overuse but there are definitely legitimate applications. Some corporate twitter account “celebrating diversity” or whatever is absolutely virtue signalling – it is literally a performative act to make more money (it’s a corporate PR account).

            Not applicable to Gentleman Johnny’s article, since this sort of boilerplate denunciation isn’t really doing him any favors.

          • gi_ty says:

            Ah thats the root of the term! It is absolutely appliccable in the instance you mention. This is why we can’t have nice things.

          • Stevostin says:

            Nowadays virtue signaling is anything that sets a line between good and bad, sets itselfs firmly on the good side and something else firmly on the bad side. I find this definition reliable and accurate about what this stance aims to accomplice at its core – most often not to the conscious understanding of the ones embracing it. But hey, psychology, social science, we do know one thing or two on the topic if we care to read a bit.

          • ADorante says:

            The function of “virtue signalling” is first and foremost to give a public declaration of your membership to a specific group/social construct! It doesn’t matter if you’re a liberal SJW or a rightwing extremist, you still announce your allegiance to your fellows by virtue signalling and all what it implies (public expression of thought and theories; believing only in the supported common agenda of your group – no matter if external evidence points in other direction; staying in your filter bubble).
            You virtue signal to your group, not the outsiders.
            Therefore it can’t be said that virtue signalling supports “good” or “bad” or “right” or “wrong” viewpoints. It just hinders the exchange of arguments between different groups, because everyone is preaching to themselves.

  14. Premium User Badge

    Drib says:

    My thing with this sort of idea is that it basically treats women as robots, or game AI. Like there’s an easy walkthrough or FAQ for getting into people’s pants.

    I mean I get it, psychological manipulation can work, but it’s so oversimplified here that it’s beyond demeaning. And that’s of course ignoring how completely fucked it is to go out with the intent of manipulating your way into bed to start with.


    Anyway at least it won’t actually help anyone do anything. At most they’ll stutter and mumble their way through a few words before shuffling off, embarrassed.

    • Koozer says:

      There’s a Black Mirror episode in the making there; a personal AI that analyses social situations and feeds you the actions you should take and words you must say to optimise the outcome for your personal goal.

      • gi_ty says:

        There was a similar one right?


        It is where the guy can see through the other guys eyes and hear what he hears all while giving him advice to pickup some girl. Then she murders him with poison while the group watches. That is black mirror right?

  15. genoforprez says:

    And naturally the Steam reviews are full of “funny guys” giving it positive reviews. Try as they might to improve their review system, what can steam possibly do to save it from the years of rot in the form of puerile “funny guys”?

    Nintendo’s apparent hesitation about rolling out their own review system makes a lot of sense when you look at Steam.

  16. Kamestos says:

    I wasn’t aware this product existed just a few hours ago.
    Now I wish it stayed that way.

  17. Zorgulon says:

    It’s interesting that the ready supply of negative commenters here, who are obliged to rear their heads whenever anything vaguely progressive is published on the site, seem unable to muster any defence more spirited than “this is clearly a funny satire lol silly sjws have no sense of humour”.

    It really isn’t satire, as any cursory search of this guy will tell you.

    • X_kot says:

      It would seem that satire = “stuff I believe but don’t want to suffer the social consequences for supporting openly”

      • Kelrash says:

        Come on now X_kot, I was one of the ones who thought it was satire, wouldn’t that suggest its way outside of what I think possible? Much less acceptable? I love the movie Borat, that would make me a monster according to you lol

        • Banks says:

          No, no. You see, you can’t have an honest laugh at things that would be considered wrong in real life without any attachment to those ideas, because that would make you a decent person.

          As you oppose his views and he can’t face that people that are not him have multiple sides, you must clearly be a horrible man that hides behind this “satire”.

          That makes much more sense.

        • gi_ty says:

          I was also under the impression (after watching a let’s play of this “game”) that it was indeed satire. After watching the jimquisition episode I realized I was sadly mistaken. However that doesn’t mean its not ok to laugh at it, just dont give him any money lol.

  18. hungrym says:

    Please don’t besmirch the good name of Dick The Ruiner.

  19. yhancik says:

    On the topic of “games related to PUA”, artist Angela Washko has been working on something called The Game : The Game. link to

    It’s a kind of dating simulator that puts you in the shoes of a woman that (notorious) PUAs try to “”seduce””.

    Also see her talk here for more details

  20. Eightball says:

    >And that’s of course ignoring how completely fucked it is to go out with the intent of manipulating your way into bed to start with.

    Isn’t that what the sexual revolution was all about?

    • Premium User Badge

      Drib says:

      You seem to have missed the reply button.

      Also no, it’s so unrelated as to make your comment a nonsequitor.

      • Eightball says:

        Looks like I did miss it.

        I don’t see how the PUA stuff (usually just weird or sad, really) is all that different from “normal” casual sex as a product of the sexual revolution. If you walk up to a girl ad ask her if she wants to bang, she’ll say no (unless you’re rich, famous, and physically attractive). So if you want to achieve the casual sex that is the end goal of the sexual revolution, you have to be more creative. Isn’t that manipulation? The PUA are mostly reviled for being direct/crude/cringy, as opposed to everybody else who still tries to get laid by strangers at a bar.

        • bramble says:

          You’re very confused. The ‘sexual revolution’ was a social acceptance of the idea that women should have more autonomy in when and with whom they chose to have sex with, as well as disengaging the ideas of sexuality and pregnancy/parenthood from each other thanks to the advent of the birth control pill. Saying PUA is a natural consequence of the sexual revolution is like saying bride-kidnapping is the natural result of letting people get married.

          • Eightball says:

            Right, the goal was to let women have sex with whoever now that they wouldn’t get pregnant any more. To do that you had to normalize casual sex (or at least destroy the idea that sex had anything to do with reproduction and therefore marriage).

            The problem with saying that the sexual revolution was just for women is that most women are heterosexual, so at least one man would also need to start having casual sex with all these liberated women. Ultimately this is a raw deal for women – hooking up until you’re 40 drastically reduces the likelihood of marrying one of those increasingly rare “good men”. At the same time, a certain chunk of the male population (the handsome, charming, and/or rich segment) gets to enjoy consequence-free sex with as many women as they fancy.

            PUA are mostly snake oil salesmen selling books to men who want to be in that small segment of men who can screw pretty much whoever they want.

          • Dewal says:

            If your only way to have sex with women is by lying, manipulating and harassing them, then I think you don’t really deserve to have sex anyway.

            And yes, harassing. In PUA guides, one of the main points is to try and try again. So you may get laid at the 20th woman you approached (yey!), but the other 19 will have the bad experience of having to bear a creepy and pestering guy that probably bothered them while they were busy with other matters.

          • Asrahn says:

            “Ultimately this is a raw deal for women – hooking up until you’re 40 drastically reduces the likelihood of marrying one of those increasingly rare “good men”.”


        • Premium User Badge

          kagechikara says:

          I’m actually impressed this comment reached us all the way from the 1950s.

          Got to say, as a woman, I feel the sexual revolution was actually pretty swell. But then again, I’m probably too busy desperately seeking a “good man” to know how ripped off I was.

          (This referencing Eightball’s response to bramble, just in case RPS’ comment section messes it up.).

  21. RobinOttens says:

    These women all look either bored to death or sadly pitying. I hope no one takes this shit seriously, those actresses sure didn’t.

    Plot twist: women are people, and just treating them just like you would any other person actually works wonders! They’re not some strange alien creature that you need a handbook to learn how to talk to. Also there’s no magic psychology shortcut to getting someone to sleep with you…

  22. LennyLeonardo says:

    Is this the new Mass Effect? Hahaha no. This is disgusting.

  23. biggergun says:

    La Ruina is very obviously an idiot and a creep.

    That said, I don’t get the outrage. I mean, you’re offended by this, but not by cringey Bioware stuff where you give stuff to women until they reward you with sex?

    • Premium User Badge

      kagechikara says:

      I don’t get people who show up to yell HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW THIS DOESN’T BOTHER ME? on every article like this, so I guess we’re both equally mystified.

    • John Walker says:

      I mean, even leaving aside that – oh, I don’t know – BioWare games are pretend, your comparison is false.

      Yes, BioWare’s approach to romance is dreadful – just listen to this week’s podcast to hear Brendy and I calling it out for exactly this reason! But it’s dreadful storytelling, not a man selling an instructional interactive video for how to lie to women and treat them without agency. Nor indeed is it a flower pot, nor a bus to Brighton.

      It’s also the case that BioWare’s “give them presents until they love you” mechanic applies equally to male characters, gay relationships, etc, rather than being a specifically misogynistic notion in their games, which would, you’d think, have given you hesitation here.

      But yes, I’m going to go all in and go ahead and say: people who advocate the sexual molestation of women are an outrage. There, I’ve gone all controversial and said it. Meanwhile, on another planet, BioWare has a shitty mechanic for loving relationships in its games.

    • Urthman says:

      Yeah, why would a video games website run an article about a bad video game telling you why it is bad? WHY ARE VIDEO GAME SITES TELLING US THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT VIDEO GAMES?! WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA?!

  24. nailertn says:

    Using manipulation to get sex is wrong, using sex to manipulate others is… not a subject we will ever see addressed in a similar fashion on RPS. And people act surprised when virtue signaling gets mentioned even though it’s not long ago we had an article that was literally about digging into game code to see if it was PC enough… because that’s perfectly sane and normal. I take my gaming without politics, with or without RPS.

    • John Walker says:

      I can’t tell if you’re just being silly, or if you actually have an example of a game that’s advocated using real-world sex to manipulate people, that we’ve failed to notice. I’m sincerely interested to know what we’ve missed if you do.

      And to be clear, you take your gaming with a *different* politics than you’re perceiving here, not without. You don’t get to opt out, I’m afraid, you just pick a politic that means you don’t care about the subjects represented, or not understand how they affect your perception of the game.

    • Premium User Badge

      Graham Smith says:

      “literally about digging into game code to see if it was PC enough… because that’s perfectly sane and normal”

      Actually it was about how behaviours of NPCs even in non-linear, non-scripted games could express prejudices, and how those prejudices can be present in game code.

      If it’s in the game, as those NPC behaviours are, it’s valid to criticise. If it is not traditionally scripted through narrative by a writer, as in a BioWare game, that does not mean it is not authored. It’s authored through the code which defines the underpinning systems.

      By extension, game code is therefore part of what forms the “text” of a game, and therefore excavating it is a valid method of critique.

    • TheBetterStory says:

      “Using manipulation to get sex is wrong…” And stop. You can stop there. If you genuinely agree that it’s wrong, then there’s no reason for you to get upset when other people say so.

    • Asrahn says:

      “. . . digging into game code to see if it was PC enough”

      Hey, have you heard that bisexual men don’t exist?

      Look, I love Rimworld to bits, but the creator is a bit of a tosser. He made that utterly clear when he came rolling into the comment section back on that article, like a social bulldozer, in order to vehemently defend the stuff that his fans insisted was just remnant/unfinished code as being conscious choices.

  25. mpk says:

    Someone, somewhere, is writing a completely objective review of this game* that will completely fail to report the look on the face of the young lady facing towards the camera that says she quite clearly wants to ram her high heel in that arsehole’s ear.

    *totally ethical games journalisming

  26. aircool says:

    No-one would have heard of this game if it hadn’t been mentioned here. Perhaps it should have stayed that way.

    However, I guess it’s Women’s Day, so someone has to poke the hornets nest for no good reason.

    • John Walker says:

      Well, no, none of that is true. The game’s on sale on Steam, is receiving broad coverage as a result of its banning on PS4, has been reviewed by a number of outlets, and has spent today on the front page of the BBC’s tech news pages: link to

      So no, sorry, your claim is wildly wrong.

      This review was written on Monday, but went through a thorough editorial process before publication, and it’s by coincidence that it was ready on today of all days. So no, swing and a miss there too. And we’re perfectly entitled to review games that are on sale.

      Keep trying! You’ll get us eventually.

    • pistachio says:

      Not sure it’s their job to pick and choose what we should see. This is a game that is interesting because of its charged subject matter. As such, it’s worth reporting on. I would never have known this stuff existed and now I do. Job well done i’d say.

    • mitrovarr says:

      I had heard of it through multiple other sources before now. It is making the rounds of the gaming news a bit, and I’m not sure why you hadn’t seen it.

  27. TheBetterStory says:

    “Super Seducer is a game made by self-described ‘pick-up artist’ (PUA) Richard La Ruina, aimed at teaching straight men so-called seduction techniques for attracting women.”

    I’m already screaming inside.

  28. Urthman says:

    So basically this video game sucks because it’s trying to teach men how to treat women like they are characters in video games?


  29. OttoVonFoo says:

    This game is not satire. I see here a misunderstanding that occurs in a lot of similar conversations (mostly online) about what satire actually is. The salient feature of satire isn’t that it’s funny, over-the-top, exaggerated, rude, startling or that it pokes fun at something. Those elements can be involved (or not), but for it to truly be satire, you need to expose something’s inherent flaws in order to criticize it. Parody (even self-parody, as this would have to be), can rise to the level of satire… but, again, only if it highlights flaws in a way that expose their internal inconsistencies.

    For example, if this game had only had bad endings. If, no matter which answer you tried, you always ended up alone and sad… that could be considered satire. Or even if you “got the girl,” but then ended up having to play again immediately because she leaves you as soon as you click on the “I win” button.

    Just being bad to the point of possible self-parody doesn’t qualify as satire.

    • Person of Interest says:

      Thanks for explaining this so well. It’s not something I understood clearly from dictionaries, Wikipedia, or style guides. Or even from reading famous works of satire.

  30. nocarrier says:

    Satire becomes reality pretty fast these days

  31. Landiss says:

    I cannot believe that:
    a) this game exists
    b) there are so many people that try to defend it or attack this review.

  32. Railway Rifle says:

    When I read the review of Farmer’s Dynasty, I thought it would be fun to see a depiction of people by someone who has heard of human behaviour but has no experience with it. It turns out I was wrong.

  33. int says:

    Looks like a great game… FOR ME TO POOP ON!

  34. maega says:

    A heartfelt thanks John. As a female gamer also working in the game industry, it’s reassuring to read articles like these and see journalists standing up to these things. I’m always looking forward to your reviews !

    • warjayy says:

      Even as a male, this game disgusted me. The intentions behind the game are pure manipulation and seeing women as objects. How is this acceptable? I couldn’t watch much, because it made me feel dirty inside.
      I know a guy who streams on, who felt the same way as me. He played the game for about 20 minutes, turned the game off, and he genuinely felt disgusted with himself. Fortunately, me and other guys in chat cheered him up, saying we all make mistakes. While I don’t like seeing people upset or bothered, I was glad to see someone shut the game off and have low tolerance for that stuff.

  35. satan says:

    Noticed the alt-right predictably rallying to defend this game all over the place, saw a great quote about said movement yesterday.

    ‘A movement that exists only as a mob lurching from one artificially created common enemy to the next while giving money to grifters who make them feel legitimised and important.’

  36. Xelias says:

    i think john, that you are simply jealous of La ruina’s incredible chemistry with women. maybe you should give a try to his technique and you might also find yourself in an hotel room with two gorgeous models in lingerie trying not to look bored to death.

    More seriously, and baring the vile disgustingly creepy attitude of the game, I do hope that every single one of those actress was well paid. Because I do not now a single woman that would be capable of neither laughing at his face, rolling her eyes or kneeing his genitals.

  37. JohnnyG says:

    He may be a twat, but the sad fact is he has probably got laid 100 times more than I ever will. For some reason arrogant plonkers like him always seem popular with the ladies. I’m pretty sure I’m going to die alone. Ah well, no loss to humanity.

    • satan says:

      If you’re at all familiar with the pick up artist BS, they train guys to prey on vulnerable females, and further train the individual to ignore or disregard negative feedback.

      I’m sure you can see where this is going, and I don’t want to repeat any horror stories I’m familiar with from the poor idiots who get sucked into pick up artistry, but to summarise, most of them involved sexual assault and the police.

      • Premium User Badge

        MajorLag says:

        I find it interesting that if a guy gets a lot sex it must be because he’s targeting “vulnerable” women, like they’re crashing funerals or something, or even worse as though all women were inherently vulnerable. I get it, guy is a prick and a creeper, but pricks and creepers get into relatively normal consenting relationships all the time.

        • satan says:

          Ok then. Perhaps you’ve never had one of these nutjobs (PUAs) come to you for counseling, after their ‘advances’ (at the shops, trying to finger a girl in broad daylight) resulted in the police visiting said PUA, and then PUA having the gall to declare that he is the real victim, because she was ‘sending him mixed messages’ (she briefly froze in terror before she regained her wits and fled).

          I wasn’t alluding to anything when I said vulnerable women and sexual assault. I mean what I said. PUAs. Forcing themselves on women they can overpower. To sexually assault them. Because some snake oil salesman selling PUA bullshit, convinced them it would be a good idea.

          • Premium User Badge

            MajorLag says:

            Don’t you think you’re being a little silly by judging the entire group by a single individual? No? Ok then, you go on doing that.

          • satan says:

            Silly was giving you the benefit of the doubt, good luck.

    • datreus says:

      Yes, he’s probably had sex with quite a few vulnerable women, most of whom are trauma victims he exploits and then makes feel worse. He will finally settle down with another abuse victim once his ‘charms’ wear off, further abusing her for many years before having a close-to-deathbed realisation that he’s a vile sack of human flesh and then probably joining a Baptist or Catholic church to have his ‘sins’ expiated before he shuffles off.

      He won’t ever actually be happy, but he’ll never admit it.

      So my advice to you is don’t be that miserable and don’t feel that sex with multiple women is some kind of end goal in life. It really isn’t.

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      A hypothesis: getting laid as much as possible isn’t all that important. Certainly not moreso than being good.

    • Megatron says:

      What you meant to say is he’s probably had loads more crap, guilt-inducing intercourse rather than enjoying the kind of superlative, transcendent lovemaking that can be had within a mutually-respectful and loving relationship. He’s using women’s bodies as a masturbation aid, not having sex.

      He deserves your pity, not your envy.

      • Silverbyte says:

        Dude, he has been happily married for a couple years now, and his wife is one of the actresses in the game.
        I’m not defending his methods but saying that he will never know the joy of a happy-mutually loving relationship is pretty much denying the facts.

    • Ragnar says:

      If you want to follow his example and pay women to pretend to like you, I’m sure you could get laid 100 times too (though it is illegal in most areas).

      On the serious side, your attitude about you dying alone and being worthless is very unattractive. Why would someone date you if you don’t think you’re worth dating?

      Confidence and happiness are attractive, and you can be confident and happy with yourself without being a predatory creep. But you’re going to have to put in the work to get yourself to that state. It may mean getting in better shape, or a better wardrobe, or just making yourself go out and talk to people and not care if it leads to something or not. And it’s going to be hard, but you can do it.

      And, for what it’s worth, the people that I know that do this PUA crap are all still single or soon to be single. And while it may sound great to be able to say that you’ve had lots of casual sex, I’ll take a meaningful relationship (and meaningful sex) over it any day. PUA doesn’t seem to be the way to achieve that (on top of being repulsive).

  38. Stickman says:

    As much as it’s unlikely to sway the Valve garbage purveyors, there’s a petition to have Super Seducer taken down.

    link to

    • Stickman says:

      Also, small quibble but lying and manipulation with the intention of sleeping with someone *absolutely is* sexual harassment.

      • Silverbyte says:

        “harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of UNWANTED SEXUAL ADVANCES or obscene remarks.”
        What part of lying and manipulation seem like unwanted sexual advances to you? Sure it’s unethical and morally wrong but I wouldn’t classify it as sexual advances in a million years, even if the intention is sexual in nature.
        You’re taking sexual harassment way way way waaaaay too broad there.

      • Ragnar says:

        I would say that lying and manipulation, by themselves, are not sexual harassment. Morally reprehensible yes, but not harassment. And calling them harassment detracts from the actual cases of sexual harassment.

  39. Be_reasonable says:

    Legitimate question, what does this guy do when a potential partner googles and sees this body of work?

    • Silverbyte says:

      He is married and his wife helped creating the game, even playing one of the actresses in two of the scenes(she is also the scantily clad one on the right that is your reward when you give a good answer).
      So I think she approves, needless to say.

  40. Dances to Podcasts says:

    You say no, John, but you mean yes.

    /knew someone who used that phrase
    //without the John, of course

  41. LennyLeonardo says:

    If a lion has to be mean to a gazelle in order to eat it, then surely the gazelle is equally to blame for being a part of this process?

  42. Templar says:

    Being yourself will attract long term similar value oriented people and give you a real shot at a relationship, friendship, family and connection with a like-minded person. Using smoke and mirrors to hide who you are and engage in deceptive practices is only going to gain you short term shallow experiences that ultimately are going to be a passage of flesh that is potentially dangerous for your health and have life long consequences. Sex for the sake of sex is a animal instinct that as a human you need to control with discipline and logic. Develop a special connection with someone and casual sex will drop out of your life and you will start to learn that love is very real and superior in every way. If you need to satisfy sexual urges you can always masterbate. You are not a wild animal. Have some self respect.

  43. dethtoll says:

    Why does he look like an Italian Roosh V, and why am I not surprised?

  44. dskzero says:

    Are we sure this isn’t satire? It looks extraordinarely pathetic.

  45. AbyssUK says:

    The only good thing to come of this is that this idiots “techniques” get aired more, that way more women can tell when idiots are trying to pick them up with techniques they learnt from a computer game…

  46. Cederic says:

    Misogyny? Really? Please, learn the meaning of the word. The guy doesn’t hate women, he wants to spend more time with them. And in them.

    It’s interesting that RPS loves that dad dating simulator in which you roleplay a woman trying to manipulate men into sleeping with her, but not a game that meets a male demand for help in getting through the awkwardness of dating.

    Tell you what, lets ban all PUAs and all help for men, and let women make all the moves. I predict rapid increases in cat sales.

    Disclosure: I can dance, and it does work on women. I have to reject the cougars though, they’re predatory.

    • Stickman says:

      You might want to take another look at Dream Daddy. You may find that it meets a male demand for help in getting through the awkwardness of dating.

    • Wolsto says:

      I’ve been reading this site for years, but have just registered an account for the first time (an unusually torturous process) in order to laugh at your comment.

      Here we go.


  47. Helixagon says:

    I just don’t see how anyone can get so outraged at something so ridiculously silly.

    I’m not saying “this is clearly satire”. It’s probably not. But it’s so silly, and any woman would have to be so stupid to fall for this, that you frankly have to laugh at anyone who takes it seriously.

    It’s like getting mad at Trump tweets. It’s a chimp with an iPhone, for fuck’s sake.

    • ande8502 says:

      And pretending that all women are these weak “victims of abuse” is equally as distasteful.
      This guy is a joker and a loser and frankly portraying him as “dangerous” is foolish and hyperbolic.

      • Stickman says:

        It’s perpetuating a culture of harassment of women and targeted at men who are unsure how to talk to women. Many of who will then blame women when they are rightfully rebuffed for being assholes. This is already a huge problem in the gaming community, and the last thing the community needs is guides to sexually harassing women being published on steam.

        It doesn’t excuse anything if people who try this method are laughed off – it’s making everyone’s lives worse in the process. If you don’t think that this sort of advice is taken seriously, you clearly haven’t been paying attention to recent history.

  48. Premium User Badge

    MajorLag says:

    “Super Seducer is clearly intended to be part of the PR exercise, an attempt to portray PUAs as just guys looking for ways to convince girls to like them, albeit through techniques that are primarily focused around lying and manipulation.”

    Social interaction is all about projecting an identity that is, at least part, illusion. If you doubt this, spend 10 minutes on Facebook.

    I’m not saying this guy isn’t a creeper and misogynist, certainly there are many people who fit that description trying to sell ways to get sex, but I am saying that if you’re going to criticize people for being “fake” in social situations you really need to take a step back and look at how social interactions actually work.

    • Stickman says:

      It’s literally intentional targeted lying and emotional manipulation for sexual gratification. A far step beyond the faces we put on in public.

      • Premium User Badge

        MajorLag says:

        Some people treat it that way yes, but there really is a lot more to the PUA community than a bunch of douche-bag sociopaths. I know this might be hard to wrap your head around, but the examples you love to hate are only even noticed because they’re such assholes they stand out.

        But hey, hate is easy right? Especially when you can just slap a label on it.

  49. fish99 says:

    I watched a married couple play this on twitch the other night and I’ve never seen two people laugh so much, so I suspect it has tremendous potential for unintended humour*.

    (*especially when drunk)

    • Silverbyte says:

      I thought it was one of the most comedic games of this year so far, I can’t believe people are acually getting serious and offended over the things portrayed in this game.

Comment on this story

HTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>