How to make a better corruption game: open letter to Kingdom of Deception and others

[Nexano]

Re: How to make a better corruption game: open letter to Kingdom of Deception and oth

Ninja_Named_Bob

Who she will kill without proper equipment weapon/followers brutal orc? Well you know that's in reality even 2 vs 1 (both side armed) ppls is critical advantage. Basically fighter that kill dozens of fighters exist only in fairy tales(well you can ask any really experienced martial artist). But well if you see general like mystical meatgrinded well i can't oppese that.. I just remind you that general is not great warroir and great martial specialist mostly never become general - cause "commanding class military" are commonly must be good leader, good tactitian and strategist etc. Swords man skill is not what often expected from general, that will be in frontline only if battle went terribly wrong, and have dozens of bodyguards.

And now we have general that have been set up and find herself in orc camp. No one is giving a shit about her, she half naked, weaponless and don't have any connection to anyone. She. Is. Lonely. Noone. Yes ofcourse she will use any way to climp up from pit she currenly exist. She will climb cause she noble. She will use any tool(her body included) for it cause she military.

Orgams... well you know... women just got broken inside her mind cause she violated both mentally and physically. In our current world women can get heavy mental trauma just from one rape. Some of them carry scars all their life.

"Historically, you didn't rape another noble unless you either dominated their province and took them prisoner."
Wow.. that pretty historical fact. You have includes so much historical examples. You have my best regards.

I'm gonna say reading is a skill you haven't invested a lot of practice in.

Umm... sorry i got this wrong... i just noticed that main topic was wrong from start in my opinion and most post here was offside from main discussion(still much more interesting that starting topic itself).

Still you have you bright vision, so i won't try break it anymore. Wish you best.

Sorry my bad english etc...

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

Re: How to make a better corruption game: open letter to Kingdom of Deception and oth

Hey, I'll have you know the orcs in this game are very attractive. Sexiest, handsomest orcs I've ever seen. Can't blame Sabia for wanting some of that orc D. Especially Lutvrog's. Oh, Lutvrog. I just want you to hold me in your strong arms. Let me feel safe within your warm embrace.

Yeah! Justice for Orcs! They way they are portrayed in some games is simply ridiculous and couldn't be further from truth. We are quite smart and can develop good war strategies! Orcs deserve to have proper representation in all H-games!

You must be registered to see the links

Ninja_Named_Bob

Who she will kill without proper equipment weapon/followers brutal orc? Well you know that's in reality even 2 vs 1 (both side armed) ppls is critical advantage. Basically fighter that kill dozens of fighters exist only in fairy tales(well you can ask any really experienced martial artist).

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Martial arts isn't about murder-frenzies, but self-defense. Also, 1 person vs 2 armed persons isn't all that hard. People who are trained martial artists are taught not just how to disarm one opponent, but how to handle multiple armed opponents. Hell, the military makes that shit part of basic training from day one.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Also, being that this is a porn game set in a fantasy realm, gonna say your own argument beats itself.

But well if you see general like mystical meatgrinded well i can't oppese that.. I just remind you that general is not great warroir and great martial specialist mostly never become general - cause "commanding class military" are commonly must be good leader, good tactitian and strategist etc. Swords man skill is not what often expected from general, that will be in frontline only if battle went terribly wrong, and have dozens of bodyguards.

Holy fuck, you truly are a special case, aren't you? Historically, you didn't become a soldier on the front by being a noble. You lived by the sword 24/7, honing your skills each day. To become a general was proof not just of your ability to command, but to fight alongside your fellow soldiers and win battles. Hell, even today a general isn't just dropped into the position willy-nilly. You gotta earn that shit through being the best of the best of the best. If you don't stand out, you stay a shit-stain for life, or until you're discharged.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Basically, being a noble in the Medieval era was a bitch if you were allergic to hard work.

And now we have general that have been set up and find herself in orc camp. No one is giving a shit about her, she half naked, weaponless and don't have any connection to anyone. She. Is. Lonely. Noone. Yes ofcourse she will use any way to climp up from pit she currenly exist. She will climb cause she noble. She will use any tool(her body included) for it cause she military.

Actually, no. That is the exact opposite of a noble. Nobles were proud, educated, and taught to avoid being spoiled by "lesser" persons. Hell, it was considered a faux pas for a noble to befriend a commoner, let alone be seen in the same vicinity. It was considered akin to treason to continue living while in the enemy's midst and yourself unrestrained. You're assuming "pride" is the same as "debauchery", which it is not. Before a noble would willingly devalue themselves, suicide and several other options were higher-up on the list.

Orgams... well you know... women just got broken inside her mind cause she violated both mentally and physically. In our current world women can get heavy mental trauma just from one rape. Some of them carry scars all their life.

Yes, from being raped. I.e., they are an unwilling party to sexual intercourse. And a rapist commonly uses the victim's body against them, i.e., forcing them to have an orgasm. The body, contrary to what you might believe, is highly sensitive. Forcing someone to orgasm with enough stimulation isn't difficult. Imagine the experience of not just being forcefully violated despite your protestations and best efforts to fight back, but that your body is feeling good and actually reacting positively? How goddamn traumatic would that be, that your own body is essentially betraying you because it's reacting naturally to stimulation?

Not to mention the psychological abuse endured during a majority of rapes, etc.

Wow.. that pretty historical fact. You have includes so much historical examples. You have my best regards.

Oh, yeah. Just like you presented so much evidence for your position. How about you grab me all those examples of nobles being raped by their countrymen without serious provocation? We're talking outside of revolutions or violent revolts, sir. We're talking balmy Tuesday morning, and Joe Everyman decided Queen Bitch needed a good dicking. I'm sure he's walking his jolly ass into the castle and doing his business uninterrupted. Hell, the guards are sure to take him for a beer afterwards, right?

Umm... sorry i got this wrong... i just noticed that main topic was wrong from start in my opinion and most post here was offside from main discussion(still much more interesting that starting topic itself).

We have a section on this board for people like you. It's called "Everything Else" and is where people generally go to shit-post. Or make jackasses of themselves, which you're clearly an expert at. Also, an opinion can't be more valid than another. It's having a different perspective, not the right one. Your opinion that the topic is somehow "not valid" isn't a fact. It's just your view on something that you've now admitted didn't interest you to begin with.

Still you have you bright vision, so i won't try break it anymore. Wish you best.

Sorry my bad english etc...

I don't have a "bright vision." I just tend to do my research and not make a jackass of myself. If I do, I admit I'm wrong and move on. I also don't care about your bad English so long as your point is legitimate and not the pants-on-head stupid you've clearly displayed.

Let me break down your current status:

[ ] Not rekt
[x] REKT
[x] SHREKT
[X] SOMEBODY ONCE TOLD THE WORLD IS GONNA ROLL ME I AIN'T THE SHARPEST TOOL IN THE SHED

 

[habisain]

Re: How to make a better corruption game: open letter to Kingdom of Deception and oth

To try and calm things down a bit, some literature:

You must be registered to see the links

. Use the book preview, but a summary: there is documented evidence of nobles raping commoners in Medieval England. There's also a fair amount of evidence suggesting that medieval times weren't as bad as some people here are saying as well, so reality is somewhere in the middle.

Also Ninja_Named_Bob - I fear you may have confused the nobility with Chivalric Knights. True, if you were a noble it was easier to become a Knight, but they are most certainly not the same. Also looking at the literature for what Knight's did during say, crusades, would probably dispel any notions you have of Knights being honourable above all else. The problem with many perceptions of Knights is that many of the texts that shape how we see Knights were written well after Knights ceased to exist. For example, Gautier's "Ten Commandments of Chivalry" were written in the 1800's, and there is a strong argument that there was no formal chivalric code which medieval Knights actually used - i.e. Knighthood being more of an extension of the feudal system rather than to do with moral codes, although that is a topic of debate for historians.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

Re: How to make a better corruption game: open letter to Kingdom of Deception and oth

To try and calm things down a bit, some literature:

You must be registered to see the links

. Use the book preview, but a summary: there is documented evidence of nobles raping commoners in Medieval England. There's also a fair amount of evidence suggesting that medieval times weren't as bad as some people here are saying as well, so reality is somewhere in the middle.

I never said a noble wouldn't rape a commoner, though. My point was that a commoner wouldn't get the chance to do the same, and if a noble didn't have a ton of favor already, their sexual misdeeds against another noble would likely end in a beheading.

Also Ninja_Named_Bob - I fear you may have confused the nobility with Chivalric Knights. True, if you were a noble it was easier to become a Knight, but they are most certainly not the same. Also looking at the literature for what Knight's did during say, crusades, would probably dispel any notions you have of Knights being honourable above all else. The problem with many perceptions of Knights is that many of the texts that shape how we see Knights were written well after Knights ceased to exist. For example, Gautier's "Ten Commandments of Chivalry" were written in the 1800's, and there is a strong argument that there was no formal chivalric code which medieval Knights actually used - i.e. Knighthood being more of an extension of the feudal system rather than to do with moral codes, although that is a topic of debate for historians.

Links I provided state that Knights were exclusively nobility. In the Medieval Era, you didn't ascend to knighthood by being a common-born with a dream. Your lot was being whatever class you were born into, regardless of drive or determination. You could sell yourself to an opposing nation if so inclined and curry favor there, but it's more likely they would just end your life instead and save themselves the risk of harboring a traitor who might act as a double-agent given the opportunity. "Chivalry" also wasn't invented in the 1800's.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Knighthood was exclusive to nobility while the commoner's were riff-raff dressed in the most shoddy armor. The average soldier actually didn't have any formal training and acted as fodder while the Knight's were generally mounted and seldom joined the fray as part of the larger bulk force. Being a "Knight" was also conceptualized in various forms across cultures, but functioned similarly. You were in service to a lord, received education and formal training from a very young age, only married into noble blood and seldom as a result of love, and you followed the code you were taught. Japan had samurai, etc.

Also, the crusades were the Christian nations repelling enemies from within and without. The first one was a Byzantine Emperor calling for aid to re-acquire territory that was taken by Muslim Turks.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

I mean, yeah, war will bring out the worst in men and you even hear stories today of WWII soldiers on both sides doing some pretty shitty things to non-combatants. It's a messy business, regardless of how you look at it. What relevance that has to my point about a noble favoring their value over surviving in a non-life-threatening situation is beyond me, though.

Anyways, let's not further take this thing off-topic, yes?

I've read into the topic of the OP and the accompanying posts, and I wonder if the OP isn't mad that KoD isn't what he expected it to be and was just ranting because of that. I personally agree with their central point (or what they apparently wanted to get across, if incidental or damage control) that most h-game developers don't handle corruption very well. It's better as a slow, gradual process rather than the victim giving into the demands of their assailants because it's somehow better than sleeping in the bushes and hiking it back home, or whathaveyou. I played some of KoD and found the whole "great, I was captured by orcs and the only way to curry favor is by being their sex-toy" part incredibly off-putting. Thankfully, we don't need to take that route (from what I saw, anyways), but that it's something Sabia does (however reluctantly) is immersion-breaking. This is a proud general and likely a high-ranking noble. She would more likely spit in their faces before touching their dicks.

It's bothersome because of that fact. If she was just some Joe-nobody foot-soldier with a history of being the company whore, I could see it. That she finds the orcs repulsive at first is okay, but it hardly feels like she authentically hates the idea of being forced to jerk them off when she's given the option to do it or not and she chooses to. Why? Also, the fact that there is no escalation to it. It feels hollow, like she does it, it's done, and there are no repercussions.

Anyways, that's KoD from my perspective on how it handles that. Corruption in general isn't so much rape-y stuff, although it is aggressive. A demon corrupting a pure girl shouldn't have her moaning like a harlot on the first date. She needs to be resistant, and even objecting in order to make it appealing. When she has her first orgasm, have her resentful, but also curious. After a few more sessions, have her question if it's not better to indulge. When she hits that "sweet spot" of enjoying 20 dicks/hour, it feels more satisfying. Hell, even stuff that isn't exclusively cock-and-pussy corruption requires a slow process to be enjoyable.

An example- I like Lipucd's stuff to a degree. I find his battle-based corruption/tf to be paced pretty well. It starts slow, gradual, with the character both resisting and objecting. slowly, their thought process changes until the goop or whatever fully encompasses them. It's an enjoyable experience because it's not just "I don't like this, but I'll endure it." trash. It's "Gross! I don't like this and want to get away ASAP!" A game that gives an option and shows me no consequences for either refusing or performing the task is void of providing any worthwhile experience. Make me choke on that dick for refusing, or make me hate it the first few times and slowly enjoy it afterwards. Just giving me the option and saying "meh. No consequences, either way" is cheap and lazy as fuck.

Anyways, wall of text rants over.

 

[Nexano]

Re: How to make a better corruption game: open letter to Kingdom of Deception and oth

Ninja_Named_Bob

I have to make exuses - i really don't have time to argue with you about anything. I still have my own opinion and arguments, but don't have time to display it in more correct and detailed way. Flooding forums with arguments and sources - not my strong side. I was on reconstruction "field" RPGs holded real analog of weapon and know what's real melee brawl is. Still write all detailed information from my personal exeperience will take too much time.

You just missing my main arguments(or ignoring them)so....
So i just let it go and return to lurking.
No offence and GL.

habisain

Well i'm pretty calm and don't have any negative/rage/hate emotions about this discussion.
Knights are mostly just normal warriors or religious fanatics with bloodstained hands.
Still thankyou for your effords.

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: How to make a better corruption game: open letter to Kingdom of Deception and oth

Links I provided state that Knights were exclusively nobility. In the Medieval Era, you didn't ascend to knighthood by being a common-born with a dream. Your lot was being whatever class you were born into, regardless of drive or determination. You could sell yourself to an opposing nation if so inclined and curry favor there, but it's more likely they would just end your life instead and save themselves the risk of harboring a traitor who might act as a double-agent given the opportunity. "Chivalry" also wasn't invented in the 1800's.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Knights were exclusively nobility, because knight IS a title of nobility. And where do you think nobles come from? They don't pop out of nowhere, and they don't boast unbroken noble lineage 'til the dawn of time. A peasant COULD gain a knighthood or other title under exceptional circumstances.

Knighthood was exclusive to nobility while the commoner's were riff-raff dressed in the most shoddy armor. The average soldier actually didn't have any formal training and acted as fodder while the Knight's were generally mounted and seldom joined the fray as part of the larger bulk force. Being a "Knight" was also conceptualized in various forms across cultures, but functioned similarly. You were in service to a lord, received education and formal training from a very young age, only married into noble blood and seldom as a result of love, and you followed the code you were taught. Japan had samurai, etc.

That medieval armies were mainly made from peasant draftees is a myth. Most armies through the middle-ages were professional soldiers, and peasants were drafted only in emergencies - after all, someone has to make sure you can eat during the next winter, so drafting peasants makes little sense. And even then the peasants generally had SOME training, such as the duty of englishmen to practice with the longbow weekly. As for knights following the code... yeah, that was more of an ideal than reality. I mean, modern day leaders are also supposed to act with integrity and serve the interests of their voters first and foremost...

 

[habisain]

Re: How to make a better corruption game: open letter to Kingdom of Deception and oth

I never said a noble wouldn't rape a commoner, though. My point was that a commoner wouldn't get the chance to do the same, and if a noble didn't have a ton of favor already, their sexual misdeeds against another noble would likely end in a beheading.

Read the book I posted. Plenty of evidence of nobles raping other nobles and the justice system failing due to evidence based tests.

Links I provided state that Knights were exclusively nobility. In the Medieval Era, you didn't ascend to knighthood by being a common-born with a dream. Your lot was being whatever class you were born into, regardless of drive or determination. You could sell yourself to an opposing nation if so inclined and curry favor there, but it's more likely they would just end your life instead and save themselves the risk of harboring a traitor who might act as a double-agent given the opportunity. "Chivalry" also wasn't invented in the 1800's.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Knighthood was exclusive to nobility while the commoner's were riff-raff dressed in the most shoddy armor. The average soldier actually didn't have any formal training and acted as fodder while the Knight's were generally mounted and seldom joined the fray as part of the larger bulk force. Being a "Knight" was also conceptualized in various forms across cultures, but functioned similarly. You were in service to a lord, received education and formal training from a very young age, only married into noble blood and seldom as a result of love, and you followed the code you were taught. Japan had samurai, etc.

The link you posted also states of the rules of Chivalry, and I'm quoting, "This code was created by Leon Gautier in 1883". There were codes that Knight's actually abided by, but most of the stuff we call Chivalry is little more rooted in history than a fairy tail.

And Knight's certainly were not the same as nobility; nobles tend to like to have long, full lives. Knights tended to die a lot. Besides, throughout the entire medieval period, any Knight could create a Knight. No nobles involved (this stopped in the Tudor period), no special training.

Have you read Don Quixote? Seems appropriate.

 

[KleptoLizard]

Re: How to make a better corruption game: open letter to Kingdom of Deception and oth

This thread reminded me of the first Gyakushuu 虐襲 game by Anim.
The warlock guy who acts as the main character spends all his
attention trying to break the red-haired girl's will.
Then when she finally snaps and stops resisting, he loses all interest.

 

[EdgeOfShadow]

Re: How to make a better corruption game: open letter to Kingdom of Deception and oth

Let me throw in my 2 cents.
I really enjoy KoD and i like the direction MC is going, at the same time corruption is my main fetish so your words are breaking my heart considering how good it was implemented in NN.

Speaking of corruption in other games, all devs need to do is add a little details that MC is changing and more events, even if erotic scenes are copy-pasted, as long as situation is different its fine.

Also, too fast corruption is the worst thing possible, take it slowly.