Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:
You need a reason?

Since we all need reasons for why we do things I will say yes.

 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?

This exchange sounds suspiciously like the dialogue of a spoken word Nike commercial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
why is that tooltip existing for that word, btw?

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:
You need a reason?

Since we all need reasons for why we do things I will say yes.

Entertainment is the only reason anyone needs to play a game, or a simulator, or a simulator game.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:
You need a reason?

Since we all need reasons for why we do things I will say yes.

 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?

This exchange sounds suspiciously like the dialogue of a spoken word Nike commercial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
why is that tooltip existing for that word, btw?

Charm of the Jaguar was an item from the 7th edition Lizardmen Army book.
It makes the bearer move very fast.

 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.

 easysauce wrote:
so, your issue is not that sex with prostitutes *exists* in the game, but that its done abusively?

Sex in video games is always rape because the developer allows the NPC to have sex without asking for the NPC's consent first.

#toodeep, I'm off to tumblr!

This is just sad.

 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.

I'd say as long as developers feel the need to put "Bewbs...(snigger)" into their games, that perception isn't going away.

its a bit silly to act like sex doesnt sell too....

leisure suit larry was a thing even though the graphics were horrible...

and you couldnt even steal cars and kill people in that game...

 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.

Sigvatr wrote:inb4 "feminist" poostorm

Sigvatr wrote:#toodeep, I'm off to tumblr!

The "Men's Rights" club is thataway --->

We keep getting close. Do we want to have a talk about sex games, sex in games and all of that? Or are we just posturing?

nomotog wrote:
We keep getting close. Do we want to have a talk about sex games, sex in games and all of that? Or are we just posturing?

The latter I think.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

nomotog wrote:
We keep getting close. Do we want to have a talk about sex games, sex in games and all of that? Or are we just posturing?

The latter I think.

Aww. Because it could actually be a interesting thing to talk about... You know if we could get through the uncomfortableness of the topic.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

why is that tooltip existing for that word, btw?

Charm of the Jaguar was an item from the 7th edition Lizardmen Army book.
It makes the bearer move very fast.

Thank you.

 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

Gaming != real life.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

 easysauce wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Gaming != real life.

I assume you meant gaming =/= RL??

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Gaming != real life.

I assume you meant gaming =/= RL??

That is literally what she wrote.
I assume you meant “I assume you meant gaming =/= RL??”.
.

No, literally she wrote "Gaming != real life" not "gaming =/= RL"

Well, I guess that only shows Melissia do code .

 easysauce wrote:
I assume you meant gaming =/= RL??

The symbol != in formal logic (as well as programming logic) translates to "not equal".

The rest of your post works off of a bizarre set of assumptions, which I don't really give a damn about enough to tackle right now.

I'm sure 14-year-olds everywhere are giddy with anticipation

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Gaming != real life.

I assume you meant gaming =/= RL??

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"

 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.

Well darn gosh its simply to hard to simulate sugar addiction in games...

This thread is a perfect example of why Dakka OT is absolutely insane.