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.

I don't know about anybody else but I've never noticed a hooker in GTA V, never mind sought one out.

Though I've probably mowed down countless hookers among other NPC's as I go on rampages. I don't discriminate when I'm running people over.

As far as I've seen, the sex scenes in GTAV are about as non-interactive as you can get. It's basically an animation that plays out, with some bad sound effects. In first person they appear to be even less explicit, as the camera is on your PoV and remains pretty locked. So really anyone worried about interactivity or how the 1st person view changes it, really it just makes it more awkward.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.

What if someone's avatar was a picture of their eyes? Would that do?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.

What if someone's avatar was a picture of their eyes? Would that do?

Somebody has a weird eye fetish . It's rather funny because i feel like i have really nice eyes myself. You wouldn't be keeping a picture of those would you? Sometimes i feel like this is what optometrists do for sexual arousal ;P.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.

That rules me out - these things are glued on


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As far as I've seen, the sex scenes in GTAV are about as non-interactive as you can get. It's basically an animation that plays out, with some bad sound effects. In first person they appear to be even less explicit, as the camera is on your PoV and remains pretty locked. So really anyone worried about interactivity or how the 1st person view changes it, really it just makes it more awkward.

Yeah, it seems less interactive than Hot Coffee was.

Which was itself less interesting than Hot Chocolate was in Steambot Chronicles. If you played your cards right, a female companion could clean your

 Melissia wrote:
[

 Azazelx wrote:
I have actually read it.

Then you shouldn't have come to this conclusion:

 Azazelx wrote:
And it is indeed in part an attempt to stir up some controversy.

Because it was a celebratory post. There was no indication at all of any intent to stir up controversy.

 Azazelx wrote:
It's not an explicit sex scene.

Yes it is. You're controlling the main character from first person view as you pork a hooker-- controlling them in the sex act itself. That is explicit. It's explicit enough that I really don't want to link to a vid as I think that'll violate Dakka's rules.

1) Thanks for telling me what conclusions I should or shouldn't come to as an (attempted) rebuttal. Your argumentative skills are appalling.

2) Nah, the carefully chosen wording, use of loaded terms and outright insults makes it clear that it was an attempt to stir up some controversy and attention - and it worked.

3) Methinks you need to look up the word "explicit". Perhaps we're splitting hairs, as it is explicitly a sex scene, but it's not an explicit sex scene. If you think it is, then your understanding of English terminology is right up there with your argumentative skills. Your flag says US, though I'll cut you some slack here if English isn't your native/first language - which is always possible, I suppose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The really amusing thing is that despite disagreeing vehemently with almost everything you post here, I just glanced at your blog, and seeing that it's entirely political, TLRed all the written stuff (that almost all seems to be reblogged anyway) but I do agree with the sentiments in the images.

Then again, I'm not one for people who just reblog what others produce, or those people who's facebook feed seems to be an endless string of other people's political/inspirational messages.

Mate I'm a native English speaker and that is absolutely explicit. Just because you don't see tits doesn't make it not explicit.

Jesus! The bloke grabs the back of her head while she chews him off! It's not like they could show it on the fething six o'clock news is it!

What type of sex scene would they show on the six o'clock news?

No. It's not an explicit sex scene. It's just the same animation that plays out from 3rd person, except now from first person, meaning you see even less.

 Azazelx wrote:
Nah, the carefully chosen wording

Such as? You seem to be assuming some kind of conspiracy to cause controversy, which I find laughable. I might have agreed with you if you said it was poorly worded and poorly thought out in how it said things, but you seem to be saying that it was intentionally put out this way in some sort of bizarre conspiracy, rather than just someone making a carelessly celebratory post that happened to insult a few loud and obnoxious people.

 Azazelx wrote:
3) Methinks you need to look up the word "explicit".

Explicit, adjective; "describing or representing sexual activity in a graphic fashion."

That is really damn graphic as far as representatives of sexual activity go. Just because she's still wearing a tube-top doesn't mean it's not explicit. About the only mainstream game that I've seen with more graphic sex in it is South Park: The Stick of Truth.

Isn't that how they portray sex in Hollywood films?
All clothes, no footage of the naughty bits?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Isn't that how they portray sex in Hollywood films?
All clothes, no footage of the naughty bits?

Depends on the film. I've seen a few Hollywood films where the actors gave the appearance of being nude (they may not have actually been nude, though).

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Isn't that how they portray sex in Hollywood films?
All clothes, no footage of the naughty bits?

Umm... no. Nudity is pretty common.

Melissia wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Isn't that how they portray sex in Hollywood films?
All clothes, no footage of the naughty bits?

Depends on the film. I've seen a few Hollywood films where the actors gave the appearance of being nude (they may not have actually been nude, though).

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Isn't that how they portray sex in Hollywood films?
All clothes, no footage of the naughty bits?

Umm... no. Nudity is pretty common.

So...mainstream films are more explicit then?
I don't see what's so shocking about the scene in GTA V then. It's badly done, but I wouldn't call it explicit.

 Melissia wrote:
Such as? You seem to be assuming some kind of conspiracy to cause controversy, which I find laughable. I might have agreed with you if you said it was poorly worded and poorly thought out in how it said things, but you seem to be saying that it was intentionally put out this way in some sort of bizarre conspiracy, rather than just someone making a carelessly celebratory post that happened to insult a few loud and obnoxious people.

Well, this is still on twitter if you check efighter3's tweets:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So...mainstream films are more explicit then?

Well... yeah.

A single snarky comment made on twitter doesn't indicate any kind of grand conspiracy

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So...mainstream films are more explicit then?

Nudity isn't sex.

Where's this conspiracy talking about? Leigh isn't part of some conspiracy (that's the "Patriarchy", remember?). She's just a witch.

She can do magic?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
She can do magic?

Well, she and others like her, do have gaming journalists under their spell.

Next you'll start talking about lizardpeople and chemtrails.

 Melissia wrote:
A single snarky comment made on twitter doesn't indicate any kind of grand conspiracy

It makes it harder to defend her as a voice for inclusiveness though. I admire your efforts

I'm not being snarky, by the by. Unlike Ms Alexander, you're actually conversing about this.

(Thanks to the GG autoblocker, she's blocked me on Twitter )

 Melissia wrote:
Next you'll start talking about lizardpeople and chemtrails.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well, she and others like her, do have gaming journalists under their spell.

How much mana does it cost her?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm not being snarky, by the by. Unlike Ms Alexander, you're actually conversing about this.

In her defense, you realize how many random people are trying to "converse" with her bout it, all of them wanting to have the same conversation and refusing to look at other conversations she's had in the past on the exact same topic?

I don't blame her for blocking #gamergate on twitter, given that. Let's face it, there's probably been thousands of people before you, and a good portion of them were not looking for any sort of honest conversation-- they were looking for gotchas and to pin insults on her and goad her in to things.

 Melissia wrote:
Next you'll start talking about lizardpeople and chemtrails.

if I do, it'll only be to tease you further for lacking a sense of humour.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
if I do, it'll only be to tease you further for lacking a sense of humour.

If you did, it would actually be funny, unlike your previous statement, which was either silly because it was serious (and yes, plenty of people have said that exact thing to me being quite serious about it), or so Poe it wasn't funny.

 Melissia wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm not being snarky, by the by. Unlike Ms Alexander, you're actually conversing about this.

In her defense, you realize how many random people are trying to "converse" with her bout it, all of them wanting to have the same conversation and refusing to look at other conversations she's had in the past on the exact same topic?

I don't blame her for blocking #gamergate on twitter, given that. Let's face it, there's probably been thousands of people before you, and a good portion of them were not looking for any sort of honest conversation-- they were looking for gotchas and to pin insults on her and goad her in to things.

They sound like Feminists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
if I do, it'll only be to tease you further for lacking a sense of humour.

If you did, it would actually be funny, unlike your previous statement, which was either silly because it was serious (and yes, plenty of people have said that exact thing to me being quite serious about it), or so Poe it wasn't funny.

Still lacking a sense of humour I see.

Hybrid made a joke (mocking HBMC)

I responded in kind and ran with it.

If you still can't detect the irony in my comments, then all I can say is...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well, she and others like her, do have gaming journalists under their spell.

How much mana does it cost her?

Depends on which perk points she's chosen. And her equipment.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well, she and others like her, do have gaming journalists under their spell.

How much mana does it cost her?

They got bored of mana so they swapped over to drain cooldown from Shadowrun before mixing it up with some good old fashion chaos roll and hope you don't roll bad enough for the warp to flip out

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Hybrid made a joke (mocking HBMC)

Ocam's Razor. It is far more likely, given Hybrid's track record with "jokes" and "humour", that Hybrid is simply unaware of how Dakka's word filter works.

 Melissia wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
if I do, it'll only be to tease you further for lacking a sense of humour.

If you did, it would actually be funny, unlike your previous statement, which was either silly because it was serious (and yes, plenty of people have said that exact thing to me being quite serious about it), or so Poe it wasn't funny.

Anyways...

I'm off to do a search for Anita Sarkeesian on InfoWars. I bet Alex Jones has a lot to say about her.

 Melissia wrote:
In her defense, you realize how many random people are trying to "converse" with her bout it, all of them wanting to have the same conversation and refusing to look at other conversations she's had in the past on the exact same topic?

I don't blame her for blocking #gamergate on twitter, given that. Let's face it, there's probably been thousands of people before you, and a good portion of them were not looking for any sort of honest conversation-- they were looking for gotchas and to pin insults on her and goad her in to things.

Oh, I can understand that. I wouldn't be surprised if her tweets following the article might have been born of frustration.

However, unless I've missed it, she hasn't clarified her article since publishing it. Which would be nice considering an argument can be made about its intent in either direction.