Just imagine the butthurt of conservatives when they pull the usual "think of the children" -crap. Maybe fox new will interview some worried parents how their 10 -year old daughter is exposed to this.
On a more serious note. It looks kinda bad. Lighting inside the car is pretty flat, sound design doesn't really mesh with the animation and the lip sync is down right creepy. I wonder if gtav will support oculus rift (and whatever japanese are currently working on)?
What really horrified me was how the female entrepreneur didn't use a seat belt.
Na. It's something of an artifact mechanic in the new games. It hasn't healed you since vice city. It's still included, but it has been pushed out farther and farther away from the main game. I think at this point, they have it just to have it. It doesn't even fill the titillation role anymore. That is more the job of the strip club. (The club was all ready first person too.)
I get that sex entering video games is in, some ways, important. But does anyone else get the feeling that when companies make these scenes they're going all half-assed?
I mean, I don't want porn or anything, but seriously...this some goofy-looking stuff.
Also to note this sex "mechanic" is one the few scenes where the player has a choice how things proceed.
What really sucks is that whole thing is pretty poorly excuted. Considering that skyrim modders have managed to do it much better I would have hoped that AAA dev could atleast be decent.
illuknisaa wrote: Also to note this sex "mechanic" is one the few scenes where the player has a choice how things proceed.
It seems the opposite in the video. You have the choice between 4 different sexual acts with different costs, and that is all. Would like the fellatio to feel less forceful? You are out of luck. On the other hand, when the prostitute gets out of the char, it is entirely your choice if you want to beat the crap out of her or not.
illuknisaa wrote: Also to note this sex "mechanic" is one the few scenes where the player has a choice how things proceed.
It seems the opposite in the video. You have the choice between 4 different sexual acts with different costs, and that is all. Would like the fellatio to feel less forceful? You are out of luck.
On the other hand, when the prostitute gets out of the char, it is entirely your choice if you want to beat the crap out of her or not.
Has anyone stopped to think about that last part? I mean it's so common to practically be a ritual by now and I am starting to think what the buck?
illuknisaa wrote: Also to note this sex "mechanic" is one the few scenes where the player has a choice how things proceed.
It seems the opposite in the video. You have the choice between 4 different sexual acts with different costs, and that is all. Would like the fellatio to feel less forceful? You are out of luck.
On the other hand, when the prostitute gets out of the char, it is entirely your choice if you want to beat the crap out of her or not.
Has anyone stopped to think about that last part? I mean it's so common to practically be a ritual by now and I am starting to think what the buck?
I don't see the problem with this. You can beat up anyone in the entire game just because. Don't see why a prostitute would be different. If anything, using in-game logic, it's a more logical choice as you get money. Then again, you might also get money for beating up strangers. Idk.
I think it is safe to say now that this will not happen.
Sigvatr wrote: You can beat up anyone in the entire game just because. Don't see why a prostitute would be different.
You can beat up anyone in the entire game, but people have taken an habit to systematically beat up prostitutes just after paying them. While they do not systematically beat up, say, the taxi client when taking taxi missions (are those still a thing?).
Sigvatr wrote: If anything, using in-game logic, it's a more logical choice as you get money. Then again, you might also get money for beating up strangers. Idk.
In the earlier incarnation, anyone gives you money iirc. Do not know about the recent one, but on the trailer, he pays 150$ and only get back 80$, so I think it is still the same.
Also, nice real life tip: actually beating up a rich white male like you is a more logical choice since he likely has a lot of money and expensive gadgets (phone, watch, …) on him, and he does not have a pimp ready to tear a new one to anyone damaging his property nearby .
I think it is safe to say now that this will not happen.
Sigvatr wrote: You can beat up anyone in the entire game just because. Don't see why a prostitute would be different.
You can beat up anyone in the entire game, but people have taken an habit to systematically beat up prostitutes just after paying them. While they do not systematically beat up, say, the taxi client when taking taxi missions (are those still a thing?).
Sigvatr wrote: If anything, using in-game logic, it's a more logical choice as you get money. Then again, you might also get money for beating up strangers. Idk.
In the earlier incarnation, anyone gives you money iirc. Do not know about the recent one, but on the trailer, he pays 150$ and only get back 80$, so I think it is still the same.
Also, nice real life tip: actually beating up a rich white male like you is a more logical choice since he likely has a lot of money and expensive gadgets (phone, watch, …) on him, and he does not have a pimp ready to tear a new one to anyone damaging his property nearby .
What makes you assume he is white? Odd thing to specify.
I was teasing him because of how he complained (in another thread) that because he is a white rich male, he is an acceptable target and suffer from discrimination.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I was teasing him because of how he complained (in another thread) that because he is a white rich male, he is an acceptable target and suffer from discrimination.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:What makes you assume he is white? Odd thing to specify.
He's from Germany, and it fits to the posts he makes. Likewise, statistically white people do have more cash, which at least San Andreas reflected correctly in the amount of $$$ they'd drop, if I'm not mistaken.
nomotog wrote:Has anyone stopped to think about that last part? I mean it's so common to practically be a ritual by now and I am starting to think what the buck?
I don't have a degree in psychology, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is connected to an underlying latent hatred or at least a lack of empathy for certain groups of people. I would not be surprised if there was a statistic that shows homeless people in such games are popular targets, too. A case of art imitates life, by players' actions reflecting social tendencies.
Lynata wrote: I don't have a degree in psychology, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is connected to an underlying latent hatred or at least a lack of empathy for certain groups of people. I would not be surprised if there was a statistic that shows homeless people in such games are popular targets, too. A case of art imitates life, by players' actions reflecting social tendencies.
It's much simpler. In an older GTA title, if you had sex with a sex worker (PC TERM 101, SON!) and then beat her up, you would get your money back.
IIRC that was not the case in GTA3. See, if you are old, I am too. I do not even think the earlier GTA had prostitutes, but then again I played them for, like, a quarter of an hour at most.
Yes, it was a thing in GTA3, one of the things the media ran with at the time. You may not have gotten all your money back, but it was still enough to encourage people to do it.
illuknisaa wrote: Also to note this sex "mechanic" is one the few scenes where the player has a choice how things proceed.
It seems the opposite in the video. You have the choice between 4 different sexual acts with different costs, and that is all. Would like the fellatio to feel less forceful? You are out of luck.
On the other hand, when the prostitute gets out of the char, it is entirely your choice if you want to beat the crap out of her or not.
You get to choose from those 4 options. Eg. in bioware games you just get a cutscene and thats it.
Melissia wrote:Seems gimmicky and pointless, included for the sheer purpose of causing the game to have media coverage rather than for its own sake.
We live in an age of free porn, and free porn of a massively higher variety and quality than this game would deliver, at that.
The inclusion of the sex scene itself was pointless, however. In a game like Duke Nukem Forever, it helped establish the main character's personality, favoring setting tone over pure titillation (as surprising as it might be to hear from me, I actually kind of liked DNF). In a game like Mass Effect, it advanced a subplot, and revolved around interactions, however optional, with different characters in the game. A similar mechanic, for a game series like Metal Gear Solid where they showed Snake actually healing himself with splints and the like, set the survivalist mood for the game as the healing of the wounds that way was intrinsically tied to how the game was meant to feel.
This however... is just pointless titillation. Having the character healed by sex doesn't necessitate actually showing the sex; it doesn't really set a mood for the game (the greater game doesn't revolve around sex); it doesn't advance any subplot or involve interaction between established characters; and it is purely random optional sex without dialogue or context, and which doesn't really show anything about the main character's personality.
Melissia wrote: The inclusion of the sex scene itself was pointless, however. In a game like Duke Nukem Forever, it helped establish the main character's personality, favoring setting tone over pure titillation (as surprising as it might be to hear from me, I actually kind of liked DNF). In a game like Mass Effect, it advanced a subplot, and revolved around interactions, however optional, with different characters in the game. A similar mechanic, for a game series like Metal Gear Solid where they showed Snake actually healing himself with splints and the like, set the survivalist mood for the game as the healing of the wounds that way was intrinsically tied to how the game was meant to feel.
This however... is just pointless titillation. Having the character healed by sex doesn't necessitate actually showing the sex; it doesn't really set a mood for the game (the greater game doesn't revolve around sex); it doesn't advance any subplot or involve interaction between established characters; and it is purely random optional sex without dialogue or context, and which doesn't really show anything about the main character's personality.
It fits the theme of crime and doing bad things. Like I imagine the reason that prostitutes were included and performed a important function back in GTA 3 was to fit with the feeling of being a criminal and doing criminal things.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Yes, it was a thing in GTA3, one of the things the media ran with at the time. You may not have gotten all your money back, but it was still enough to encourage people to do it.
You got money from killing anyone in GTA3, like in GTA5 if my conclusion from this small video is correct.
Ashiraya wrote: I don't see how you praise that this is a thing, considering how gakky the scene is.
Yeah theres no way two people can move that smoothly in a car, wheres the cramping leg, elbow in the eye, putting the gear in neutral. #wheretherelismat
nomotog wrote: It fits the theme of crime and doing bad things.
Whether or not prostitution is inherently a bad thing is probably too serious a topic for people on this board, but I don't really think this applies in this case.
Melissia wrote: Seems gimmicky and pointless, included for the sheer purpose of causing the game to have media coverage rather than for its own sake.
We live in an age of free porn, and free porn of a massively higher variety and quality than this game would deliver, at that.
Pointless, yes. But so is the faux outrage over it. I've seen worse sex and violence in 12 - 15 rated films, and TV shows.
Plus, instead of bitching about the adult content of an adult rated game, concerned parents should probably consider...not buying the adult rated game for little Timmy in the first place.
You can beat up anyone in the entire game, but people have taken an habit to systematically beat up prostitutes just after paying them. While they do not systematically beat up, say, the taxi client when taking taxi missions (are those still a thing?).
I love this sentence. It shows how opinionated and clueless you are about what "people" do at the very same time.
How do you even "systematically" beat down prostitutes? Are you going to make a map with their usual positions and then drive from spot to spot to beat them up?
I'd be careful with generalisations. They are often used trying to make a point that cannot stand (the prostitute killing for example is a shining example). I mean...would people call Payday 2 a civilian shooting simulator? I don't think so.
Ahtman wrote: Why would I pay money for FPS sex when I can do that for free for real? Is there some appeal that I am missing?
So don't?
When I played GTA5 on 360 last year, I didn't even think to see if you could bang prostitutes. Yet, the game still functioned, so I guess it's possible to entirely ignore that mechanic of the game. True story.
Ahtman wrote:Why would I pay money for FPS sex when I can do that for free for real? Is there some appeal that I am missing?
You need a reason? Why play a truck driving simulator when you can be a truck driver for real?
Melissia wrote:The inclusion of the sex scene itself was pointless, however. In a game like Duke Nukem Forever, it helped establish the main character's personality, favoring setting tone over pure titillation (as surprising as it might be to hear from me, I actually kind of liked DNF). In a game like Mass Effect, it advanced a subplot, and revolved around interactions, however optional, with different characters in the game. A similar mechanic, for a game series like Metal Gear Solid where they showed Snake actually healing himself with splints and the like, set the survivalist mood for the game as the healing of the wounds that way was intrinsically tied to how the game was meant to feel.
This however... is just pointless titillation. Having the character healed by sex doesn't necessitate actually showing the sex; it doesn't really set a mood for the game (the greater game doesn't revolve around sex); it doesn't advance any subplot or involve interaction between established characters; and it is purely random optional sex without dialogue or context, and which doesn't really show anything about the main character's personality.
Could this be more wrong? The 3d GTAs have been about this real world satire. How can you have satire if you don't try to mimic real world? Being first person also gives this gritty personal feeling. With first person view you feel like you are in control and responsible of your actions.
Depends on what you mean by worse. If you mean more explicit, then yeah. But sex that feels more forceful, in 12-15 rated stuff? I doubt it.
Azazelx wrote: I love this sentence. It shows how opinionated and clueless you are about what "people" do at the very same time.
I think it mainly shows that you are reading way too much into what I wrote, actually.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why would you beat up the taxi client, when he has already given you his money? You don't know if he still has cash.
That is not how the game mechanics work. Beating down someone will earn you cash regardless of any such consideration.
I think the real reason people will not do that is that leaving the car will stop the taxi missions.
Sigvatr wrote: How do you even "systematically" beat down prostitutes? Are you going to make a map with their usual positions and then drive from spot to spot to beat them up?
Nah, not systematically going to find prostitutes to beat them. Just very often beating the prostitute after you have used her. Hence the comparison with the taxi client.
illuknisaa wrote: How can you have satire if you don't try to mimic real world?
But just reproducing the real world without introducing a spin is simulation, not satire. And here, I do not see the element of satire.
Why would I play a simulator of anything I actually can do in real life? Wouldn't I be better off just doing it?
well.. considering that if you do GTA actions in real life, you go to jail and or die ect...
yes.. you are much better off doing it in GTA despite being able to do it in real life.
Pretty sad that no one bats an eye at the crime/murder in the game, but heaven forbid sex becomes possible.
In the end, its an adult game, that no one has to buy or play, so if you dont like it, dont play it, or dont choose to indulge in fictional hookers.
may as well complain about porn or people who buy hookers in real life, at least that is complaining about real stuff as opposed to fictional situations that dont really exist.
Melissia wrote: Satire requires humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule. This has all but four of these things.
I will just rip someone else's option. GTA isn't satire because satire requires a point/message/reason and GTA doesn't have that. There isn't a message in the madness.
-----
You know, All this talk about GTA is making me long for the early days of GTA when it was more of a game. You know how you had health and weapons pickups just placed around the map.
Why would I play a simulator of anything I actually can do in real life? Wouldn't I be better off just doing it?
well.. considering that if you do GTA actions in real life, you go to jail and or die ect...
yes.. you are much better off doing it in GTA despite being able to do it in real life.
Pretty sad that no one bats an eye at the crime/murder in the game, but heaven forbid sex becomes possible.
In the end, its an adult game, that no one has to buy or play, so if you dont like it, dont play it, or dont choose to indulge in fictional hookers.
may as well complain about porn or people who buy hookers in real life, at least that is complaining about real stuff as opposed to fictional situations that dont really exist.
easysauce wrote: may as well complain about porn or people who buy hookers in real life
I have complaints about both, but they have nothing to do with there being sex involved (they have to do with abuses of pornstars and prostitutes, respectively, by their employers).
easysauce wrote: well.. considering that if you do GTA actions in real life, you go to jail and or die ect...
But people actually do do those things in real life. I could be a criminal if I want to, but just because I have the option doesn't mean I have to take it. Of course really this was about being excited by the idea of virtual first person sex, which seems a bit silly to me.
easysauce wrote: yes.. you are much better off doing it in GTA despite being able to do it in real life.
Pretty sure having sex in real life is better than doing it in a video game, which is what this whole thread was about.
easysauce wrote: Pretty sad that no one bats an eye at the crime/murder in the game, but heaven forbid sex becomes possible.
Forgoing the fact that simulating something most will never do for a great many good reasons (shooting at civilians and cops) games tend to do some things better than others, and creating a fake sex life isn't something they are good at. Noting that doesn't mean the idiotic violence of the game is excused either. How you made that leap is somewhat perplexing. It would probably be less problematic if it had the courage of it's convictions and the sex was as graphic as it's violence, but it really isn't and that is the developer that makes that call.
easysauce wrote: In the end, its an adult game, that no one has to buy or play, so if you dont like it, dont play it, or dont choose to indulge in fictional hookers.
Out of curiosity, who do you imagine is saying something different? Who is calling for a ban or telling others not to buy it? For that matter who is telling people they have to buy it? It just seems like, besides pointing out the obvious that people have a choice, you are upset people don't feel the same way you do which has nothing to do with the game.
easysauce wrote: may as well complain about porn or people who buy hookers in real life, at least that is complaining about real stuff as opposed to fictional situations that dont really exist.
Again, not sure how you are getting there without making up a bunch of stuff. In your mind how does one go from FPS virtual sex not really being a selling point for someone to them being against porn and prostitution? Just off the top off my head I would think having sex with a prostitute would entail actually having sex as opposed to, you know, not actually having sex. Porn is such a huge and varied thing that treating it in such a monolothic way is problematic tbh.
illuknisaa wrote: Why play a truck driving simulator when you can be a truck driver for real?
Why would I play a simulator of anything I actually can do in real life? Wouldn't I be better off just doing it?
I take it then, that you'd prefer to sign up to the Army rather than play a game like ARMA or Battlefield?
That you feel confident in your job prospects as a Formula 1 racer or a Premier League footballer?
Or you'd rather be a psychopathic goat, than play Goat Simulator?
That really is a strajnge question. "Why play a simulator when I can do it in real life?"
What if its something you can't do it in real life? Or something you enjoy playing as a video game, but have absolutely no desire to do in real life?
I quite enjoy first person shooters like Battlefield, Red Orchestra and Planetside 2, and I occasionally play GTA V but I have absolutely no desire to sign up with the army or join a gang and kill people in real life.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I take it then, that you'd prefer to sign up to the Army rather than play a game like ARMA or Battlefield?
That you feel confident in your job prospects as a Formula 1 racer or a Premier League footballer?
Or you'd rather be a psychopathic goat, than play Goat Simulator?
Actually the key here is 'things I can do in real life' and not any possible thing. ARMA is a simulator but I won't be going to war with China anytime soon. Battlefield isn't a simulator by any stretch of the imagination. I couldn't be an F-1 driver nor could I be a professional footballer, what with age, injuries, and all that.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: That really is a strajnge question. "Why play a simulator when I can do it in real life?"
But that isn't really what was said was it? It was more of "why would I simulate a thing I can actually do?" There is a huge distinction between something being done and one actually being able to do it. I can drive real cars, and have driven sports cars, so games like Gran Tarino hold no interest to me. On the other hand I'm not going to fly through a city at breakneck speed and wreck everything along the way so I find joy in Burnout Paradise. I'm not going to pilot a futuristic racing vehicle so Wipeout HD is fun, as is F-Zero.
Ahtman wrote:But that isn't really what was said was it? It was more of "why would I simulate a thing I can actually do?"
I'm gonna call upon Captain Obvious here and point out that the main target demographic of this product may not be exactly known to be either old, rich, and/or extroverted enough to be "getting any" - plus the fact that this is one of these things where our society is quite hypocritical about, in that western culture as a whole, but (from what I've heard) in the US in particular, publicly disdains the concept of sexual service for money, often shaming those who get caught red-handed. And this is before we're getting into individual cases such as married men who want to feel adventurous but don't dare to really cheat on their wives, or female gamers who like to play male characters and may have sexual fantasies about it, too (and yes, these do exist).
In short, a question like "why is there such a thing as virtual sex if you can get it IRL too" is akin to asking why there is such a thing like porn.
Lynata wrote: ]I'm gonna call upon Captain Obvious here and point out that the main target demographic of this product may not be exactly known to be either old, rich, and/or extroverted enough to be "getting any".
...really. Thought we were over the "lol gamers are nerd" stereotype already.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: I'd say as long as developers feel the need to put "Bewbs...(snigger)" into their games, that perception isn't going away.
You would think despite gamers being turbo rapists there would be plethora of sex scenes in games but this is not the case. Even when devs have a hard on for "cinematics" cutscenes with sex are few and far between.
How many games have sex scenes where the player can actually do something (eg like moving the camera)? Then contrast this to how many femist approved video game characters there.
Sigvatr wrote:...really. Thought we were over the "lol gamers are nerd" stereotype already.
What makes you think that?
Sex sells - and there's a rather obvious reason for it. Also, in this thread we're talking about the target demographic of GTAV, not gamers in general.
easysauce wrote: so, your issue is not that sex with prostitutes *exists* in the game, but that its done abusively?
As far as I can tell, you are projecting too much. She does not find it adds anything worthwhile to the game. She is not however frothing-at-the-mouth outraged.
Also, since this has been discussed quite a lot:
Ahtman wrote: Why would I pay money for FPS sex when I can do that for free for real?
It is not that easy for everyone. I know firsthand. Though actually, for reasons I explained above in the thread, I would not be interested in this kind of sex, neither for real nor in a video game.
easysauce wrote: so, your issue is not that sex with prostitutes *exists* in the game, but that its done abusively?
As far as I can tell, you are projecting too much. She does not find it adds anything worthwhile to the game. She is not however frothing-at-the-mouth outraged.
I never said she was frothing, nor did I project anything, I asked a simple question.
while you, and melissa may find it doesnt add anything to the game, thats just your opinion.
I could say the exact same thing about having blue cars in game, being able to kill people, going to jail, delivering pizza, and on and on.....
saying it adds nothing to the game is no more or less valid then people saying it adds something, even if its something as small as simply having the option.
In fact, its less valid because technically speaking, adding any option to the game, adds something to the game.
So its not that you two think it adds nothing, its that you think what it adds isnt appealing to you.
plenty of games are made that only deal with sex (japanese "dating games" leisure suit larry ect) so obviously there are enough people that this kind of thing appeals to for it to add something to the game.
easysauce wrote: so, your issue is not that sex with prostitutes *exists* in the game
Gaming != real life.
I assume you meant gaming =/= RL??
so hookers in GTA adds nothing for you, and the issue is again?
it adds something for someone, somewhere,
being able to deliver pizza in GTA adds nothing for me, doesnt mean the developers should cater the game to only deliver content I want and omit content I dont want, especially when I can control what stuff I do myself and just choose not to.
That is literally what she wrote.
I assume you meant “I assume you meant gaming =/= RL??”.
easysauce wrote: so hookers in GTA adds nothing for you, and the issue is again?
As far as I can tell, you are the one seeing an issue here.
dude, she literally wrote !=, not =/=,
I know english is a 2nd language to us both, but your statement makes 0 sense... you tell me I misquoted when I didnt, then "correct" my sentence by phrasing it exactly letter for letter as I wrote it.
I see no issue with sex being depicted in GTAV, not sure why you think I have an issue with it, Im ok with it being in there and will just ignore it like I ignore pizza delivery.
So if no one has issues with it, why is this even a thread?
sounds alot like people dont like things being in games, and dont like that somewhere, someone does like that in their games.
I wasn't the one to make the thread. Doesn't mean I'm not allowed to comment on the pointless stupidity of the topic. If you have an objection to something I actually said, instead of something a strawman of your devising said, please, raise that.
Melissia wrote: I wasn't the one to make the thread. Doesn't mean I'm not allowed to comment on the pointless stupidity of the topic. If you have an objection to something I actually said, instead of something a strawman of your devising said, please, raise that.
who is objecting? there is no strawmanning either, other then your strawman that I am strawmanning of course....
i have no objection to you saying you think hooker sex in GTAV is stupid and pointless.
It seems you have objections to me saying "hooker sex in GTAV is fun to other people, has a point to someone somewhere"
The symbol != in formal logic (as well as programming logic) translates to "not equal".
Then please kindly refrain from using formal and programming logic codes as the average person does not understand it. =/= Is the more common version, no? You confused at least 3 people, myself included and started a silly argument over who assumed what someone else assumed someone else meant.
You asserted that I held equivalent prostitution in video games and prostitution in real life.
except I did not make that assertation, I asked you a question namely
"so, your issue is not that sex with prostitutes *exists* in the game, but that its done abusively?"
and no where did I make it about real life... then you reply with esoteric code symbols that only apply to however you code (! generally just means factoral function, code symbols are not universal either, I assumed you meant =/= and I was right, why hybrid sees fit to correct me when I assumed correctly is bewildering.)
talk about straw manning...
You said it was pointless and silly to include this feature in the game, all I did was ask you a question about why, no need to be so hostile.
all games are pointless and silly, that can even be considered "the point" of games in some respects.
easysauce wrote: I know english is a 2nd language to us both, but your statement makes 0 sense... you tell me I misquoted when I didnt, then "correct" my sentence by phrasing it exactly letter for letter as I wrote it.
Your sarcasm meter is obviously broken. This was a joke. I was repeating exactly what you said, in the same fashion you did with Melissia.
easysauce wrote: I see no issue with sex being depicted in GTAV, not sure why you think I have an issue with it
I am not sure why you think others have an issue with it.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Then please kindly refrain from using formal and programming logic codes as the average person does not understand it.
Three words: fake geek boys .
(Am I using this right ?)
Seriously, is that not some basics everyone know? I am not sure =/= is more well-known. If you really want something else than !=, just use ≠. Everyone understand ≠, unless they have only gakky fonts installed on their machine.
easysauce wrote: I know english is a 2nd language to us both, but your statement makes 0 sense... you tell me I misquoted when I didnt, then "correct" my sentence by phrasing it exactly letter for letter as I wrote it.
Your sarcasm meter is obviously broken. This was a joke. I was repeating exactly what you said, in the same fashion you did with Melissia.
this is text on the internet, I cannot see you winking or hear your tone of voice.
so yes, the sarcasm meter is broken by default... thats a basic thing that you should understand about text only communication.
I asked her what she meant because it was confusing what she meant, google doesnt say != means not equal, ive programmed in several languages that also do not use that as meaning not equal.
You really shouldnt feel the need to be sarcastic towards someone merely asking for clarification on the meaning of a very unclear statement. its not the same fashion as I asked the question, I asked for clarification in good faith, you made a sarcastic comment, then accuse me of being just as sarcastic as you...
which is hilariously ironic since you also accused me of projecting earlier as well.
easysauce wrote: then you reply with esoteric code symbols that only apply to however you code (! generally just means factoral function
It is used in C (and everyone knows C, right?), C++, C#, Java, php, Javascript, Python, Ocaml, Haskel, … Actually, I have a hard time thinking of a language that does not use this. In which language did you program?
Well, we likely have basically the same keyboard. French azerty, right? With my layout, the ≠ is AltGr+Maj+). If you are on Windows or MacOsX, is it going to be different. On Windows, you can hold Alt, press on Keypad+, then type a unicode number (2260 for ≠) and then release Alt to type any unicode character. Also, Wikipedia says Alt+x works directly for ≠ on Windows. I can find for OSX too, I am pretty sure there is a shortcut for it .
easysauce wrote: its not the same fashion as I asked the question, I asked for clarification in good faith, you made a sarcastic comment, then accuse me of being just as sarcastic as you...
For the record, I genuinely thought you were sarcastic. Because that felt like common knowledge to me. But apparently, it is not, so, okay, fair enough. I guess I spend too much time with nerds .
I will never understand the controversy that sex in media causes when people seem to take no issue with violence. How is sex worse than mowing down innocents with gunfire?
carlos13th wrote: I will never understand the controversy that sex in media causes when people seem to take no issue with violence.
What I do not understand currently is why people think there is a controversy.
And some seems dying to see a controversy, but fail to find anyone to be offended by it, to their despair .
Which language uses this? According to Wikipedia, there are two very, very old languages whose conception belongs to the prehistory of programming: Algol, and Fortran. They are still used, and still useful, but it is extremely rare to start to learn programming with those language nowadays. Are you a coding elder god/old one?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: no, its really not, I asked if your issue was with the simple inclusion of hooker sex, or HOW hooker sex was included.
If she has no issue and you are asking her what her issue is, what is she supposed to answer?
You are, again, assuming outrage where there is just disinterest.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Then please kindly refrain from using formal and programming logic codes as the average person does not understand it.
Three words: fake geek boys .(Am I using this right ?)
You say that, as though you think it will offend me? Unlike some here, I'm not obsessed with labels. Being called a "fake geek" offends me no more than being called a "geek".
Seriously, is that not some basics everyone know?
Oh sure, because everybody's a programmer.
I could go dropping technical terms relating to Forensic science (as I hold a Bsc degree in Crime Scene Science) and you probably wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about either.
Please do everyone reading this thread a favour, and not assume that they can all understand programming codes. Its basic manners.
I am not sure =/= is more well-known. If you really want something else than !=, just use ≠. Everyone understand ≠, unless they have only gakky fonts installed on their machine.
≠ is exactly what I meant. =/= is just an alternate, longer form of writing it, yes? I don't know how to type ≠ on a keyboard.
I explained what the symbol meant, to the point that it is now abundantly clear to all involved. If you are dissatisfied with my explanation, I don't care. Back on topic.
Melissia wrote: I explained what the symbol meant, to the point that it is now abundantly clear to all involved. If you are dissatisfied with my explanation, I don't care. Back on topic.
Fine. I wasn't talking to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
carlos13th wrote: I will never understand the controversy that sex in media causes when people seem to take no issue with violence. How is sex worse than mowing down innocents with gunfire?
Its not. But try telling extremist Feminists that.
carlos13th wrote: I will never understand the controversy that sex in media causes when people seem to take no issue with violence. How is sex worse than mowing down innocents with gunfire?
Its not. But try telling extremist Feminists that.
Yeah, they are causing this big controversy that is controversing right now. Can you see how controversied we all are? So much controversy!
!= is another alternate form, just shorter. That is why it was chosen by C, and then almost every ulterior programming language.
Which is fine. Except that not everyone is a programmer.
And you didn't answer the question. =/= is the same thing as ≠ ? When I'm handwriting, I use ≠. When I'm typing, I use =/=, because I don't know actually how to type ≠.
carlos13th wrote: I will never understand the controversy that sex in media causes when people seem to take no issue with violence. How is sex worse than mowing down innocents with gunfire?
Its not. But try telling extremist Feminists that.
Yeah, they are causing this big controversy that is controversing right now. Can you see how controversied we all are? So much controversy!
Chongara wrote: I'm sure 14-year-olds everywhere are giddy with anticipation
They have free, high quality porn on the internet. Why would they resort to poorly done clothed awkward sex?
Because it's interactive and involves a character they know? They're not going to be happy because it's beat-off material, they're gonna be happy because they get to be in (some) control of the virtual fething of their virtual badass crimeman.
being able to deliver pizza in GTA adds nothing for me, doesnt mean the developers should cater the game to only deliver content I want and omit content I dont want, especially when I can control what stuff I do myself and just choose not to.
Azazelx wrote: I love this sentence. It shows how opinionated and clueless you are about what "people" do at the very same time.
I think it mainly shows that you are reading way too much into what I wrote, actually.
No "reading into" required. Just your own literal verbiage.
Seeing as Azazelx brought this up again..
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: You can beat up anyone in the entire game, but people have taken an habit to systematically beat up prostitutes just after paying them. While they do not systematically beat up, say, the taxi client when taking taxi missions (are those still a thing?).
Prove it.
Who are these "people"?
Can you point them out?
Can you show us evidence that they are "systematically beating up prostitutes but ignoring taxi clients" ?
Can you prove, assuming these "people" are guilty of what you accuse them of, that they are in fact the majority?
The above quote is little more than a baseless assertion masquerading as fact. Its the Sarkeesian style of argument:
1. Present opinion as fact.
2. Pretend that your baseless assertions are self evidently true.
3. Skip the step where you prove your assertion, go straight to 4.
4. Talk about how horrible this so far unproven situation is.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: 1. Present opinion as fact.
2. Pretend that your baseless assertions are self evidently true.
3. Skip the step where you prove your assertion, go straight to 4.
4. Profit.
Ok, lets try and rescue this trainwreck of a thread. Enough with the petty back and forth, the ftfy, the discussions about what coding language includes what symbol, and the general OT and rude posting that is going on in this thread. Keep it calm or the thread dies a horrible burning death
Wahoo.. First Person sex scenes. *yawn* not buying it for that Rockstar. If I want First Person sex scenes, I'll have real life sex thank you very much lol.
I've actually gotten kinda bored with GTA games. There's no really engaging plot for me.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: 1. Present opinion as fact.
2. Pretend that your baseless assertions are self evidently true.
3. Skip the step where you prove your assertion, go straight to 4.
4. Profit.
2. In my opinion anything that pushes the "non-gameplay" part also pushes diversity in gameplay mechanics. When the player is presented new situations, it is expected that mechanics also change. eg. Chivalry uses diffrent mechanics than your average fps. If it used similiar mechanics the whole melee would feel "off" (see. Skyrim)
3. Sex scenes with even minimal interaction (player chooses what he wants to do, he can move camera) are new. How often you see something mechanically new things in games? Latest ubi games are basically copy pastes of previous titles and latest cod adds mechanics that are over 10 years old.
Not wanting to play gta v because it has first person sex scenes+ hooker killing is like not wanting to play gta:sa because you play as a black person.
Why would I want this when I can do it for real?
Do you play games because they try to imitate something or play because it's mechanically fun? I like euro truck simulator because it is something different from other games. I have to switch gears, look incoming traffic, navigate through europe, pay attention to various resources (being sleepy while driving in rain with a 20 ton volvo truck= not a good idea).
3. Sex scenes with even minimal interaction (player chooses what he wants to do, he can move camera) are new.
In GTA? Yes. In general? No. Sex games have been around for ages, especially when looking at (surprise!) Japanese games, featuring themes such as underage sex, rape or bestiality. Or all of those.
illuknisaa wrote:Sex scenes with even minimal interaction are new.
General Custer's Revenge begs to differ.
Really, argueing that sex scenes is anything other than catering to certain desires of the target demographic - much like booth babes at conventions or certain character designs - is both unnecessary and naive. Though I suppose you could count this as "adding diversity", in the same way like hentai games are adding diversity to the market as a whole. But in terms of game mechanics this is no more "diverse" than, say, requiring a player in GTA to perform an eating quicktime event everytime their character wants to eat a snack. The obvious difference is that this won't be as popular as virtual sex, and I think we all know the reason for that.
The part about San Andreas is true, though. In fact, I'd argue that the protagonist's ethnicity made it a more interesting game.
Also, I don't want to play this GTA because it's going to suck just like the last few GTAs did. Them adding in a cheap, poorly done sex scene won't change this. You're making nonsense assumptions and strawman arguments again.
Lynata wrote: But in terms of game mechanics this is no more "diverse" than, say, requiring a player in GTA to perform an eating quicktime event everytime their character wants to eat a snack..
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: 1. Present opinion as fact.
2. Pretend that your baseless assertions are self evidently true.
3. Skip the step where you prove your assertion, go straight to 4.
4. Profit.
Fixed that for you, buddy .
Touche
My point was that where did I do anything anywhere close to your original point 4?
If I am saying people do not beat up taxi clients because that would interrupt the taxi mission, does that seems like I mean they target the prostitutes because they are prostitutes?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: 1. Present opinion as fact.
2. Pretend that your baseless assertions are self evidently true.
3. Skip the step where you prove your assertion, go straight to 4.
4. Profit.
Fixed that for you, buddy .
Touche
My point was that where did I do anything anywhere close to your original point 4?
If I am saying people do not beat up taxi clients because that would interrupt the taxi mission, does that seems like I mean they target the prostitutes because they are prostitutes?
You didn't make a point, you just made a joke. I can't mind read, I just assumed you were deflecting my remark with humour.
I was taking issue with you making an assertion and acting as though it was self evidently true without elaborating on who these "people" were or why you think they're "systemically" killing prostitutes.
.
?)
.
fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=