H-Game Design, My Problem(tm) and My Idea

[super_slicer]

As an aside that one thing I've not seen yet. All the sex battle games I've played typically have you controlling the male. I think it'd be a fun divergence to try to battlefuck as the female.

For sure there's one where all the characters are futanari, has a thread SOMEWHERE on this forum. Tried it once but everything's in moon and the moves require complex menu choices as well as not having any graphics for the porn (think they were actually implementing them, but I didn't keep track of it because it wasn't really playable without knowing moon).

Tales of Androgyny features battlefuck and the devs are obsessed with male sodomy and traps (and shemales) so it may come close. Don't give them money though, they're milking the fuck out of their patreon.

I want to say there was a lesbo battlefuck game at some point and I played it but... if there was it didn't stand out too much because I can't remember for sure.

 

[Tenma]

Ladies Sex Bout, the dev ran out on that one after trying to reboot it with original sprites. Wait, now that I think about there's one developer in the west making sex battle games Enlit3D.

 

[habisain]

I already gave you my answer. I gave it because it supersedes your question. There will be no sodomy, as there is always a choice, just because many fools believe it to be the worse of two outcomes does not negate it's existence.

Just on this point: No, there is not always a choice. If you're bound and gagged, how do you choose death? If you're drugged, how do you choose death? If you're knocked unconscious, how do you choose death? Imprisonment? Drunk? Physically injured to the point of being unable to act? I can keep going on. There's many, many ways in which you can not be given a choice over what happens to you.

Your answer presumes that you are able to make a choice and that you're always in control, but many crimes, including rape, happen when the victim is not in control. To say that death is always a choice and that people are fools for not choosing death only conveys the fact that you cannot comprehend a situation when you're not in control.

 

[Wolktar]

I think the idea some developers have is "why would i put so much effort on mechanics if they aren't interested in gameplay?". And yeah, i sometimes think thats the case. But if im coming just from the art, what's stopping me from getting the art and be done with it?
The gameplay. And the best example i have is Defender of public morals asagi, the one by Ahriman. In my opinion it's the only game that has good gameplay that is connected to its H-content.
Sure, the art isn't the best but it does what is needed

 

[super_slicer]

Just on this point: No, there is not always a choice. If you're bound and gagged, how do you choose death? If you're drugged, how do you choose death? If you're knocked unconscious, how do you choose death? Imprisonment? Drunk? Physically injured to the point of being unable to act? I can keep going on. There's many, many ways in which you can not be given a choice over what happens to you.

Your answer presumes that you are able to make a choice and that you're always in control, but many crimes, including rape, happen when the victim is not in control. To say that death is always a choice and that people are fools for not choosing death only conveys the fact that you cannot comprehend a situation when you're not in control.

Like do you think there are clandestine rapist organizations that plot to sodomize paranoid men? They'll replace my morning coffee with rapedrug?

I don't know what world you live in, but here in the one that actually exists there's 0% chance of any of your listed stuff happening to me (after all someone did make this conversation about me, though I must say most of them are indeed far-fetched). And please don't try to contrive any more implausible scenarios.

 

[habisain]

Like do you think there are clandestine rapist organizations that plot to sodomize paranoid men? They'll replace my morning coffee with rapedrug?

I don't know what world you live in, but here in the one that actually exists there's 0% chance of any of your listed stuff happening to me (after all someone did make this conversation about me, though I must say most of them are indeed far-fetched). And please don't try to contrive any more implausible scenarios.

After you made it about yourself with the comment that you would choose death over being raped, I proceeded to illustrate that there is not always a choice using that example - apologies for any offence caused. However, date-rape's a thing, you know? It's kind-of common, and often involves drugs or alcohol, two of the things I listed. And I don't know where you live, so I'll understand that you might not know this, but one of Britain's most prolific sex offenders is a man named

You must be registered to see the links

, so this is absolutely something that does happen in the real world. It's certainly not hypothetical. Although obviously, rape is something that happens to women more than men. Just don't proudly boast that the chances of something like this happening to you are 0%. They're not. Crimes are committed in reality, and while the probability of any individual being a victim of any given crime is low in most advanced countries, it's certainly extant. (And of course, it should go without saying that I'm not wishing any harm to befall you, but if someone makes a subject like this about themselves, then sometimes that's how the conversation might appear to read, especially on the Internet)

Anyhow, I'll refrain from replying to posts where you use yourself as an example (which you've continued in each of your posts on this subject!), because it's not about you. I'm only seeking to illustrate that some comments in this thread (and this isn't just you) don't seem to understand what rape is. In a conversation about the implementation of rape mechanics in H-games, that does seem pertinent. One attribute of rape is that the victim is robbed of control. This can certainly include, and indeed in most situations does include, the ability of the victim to kill themselves, especially in situations when the victim is restrained or drugged.

(Edited to make something a bit clearer; original word choice was poor)

 

[Beatru]

There are many Japanese games where you play as a strong willed female character that continues to fight after being raped. Though some you become weaker after it happens and usually the character doesn't appear to become too mentally affected. They usually do continue on with the quest and eventually the player does complete the quest and the big bad guy is killed, making it all worth it... hopefully.

There was one game were you play as a male and all of your female companions are stolen/raped. You are driven insane and eventually become the big bad guy at the end. I usually don't like fetishes like that, but the story was so good. I felt bad for the main character and I was actually cheering him on when he became evil.

 

[super_slicer]

Sure let's pretend that you pulling the "what if it happened to you" card wasn't a foregone conclusion.

We'll say it's about Johnny-wants-to-get-raped. Johnny CHOSE to get so drunk he could not defend himself. Johnny CHOSE to break the law and end up in rapeprison. Johnny CHOSE to consume food or drink that could contain drugs that would render him helpless. A big problem with today's society is that it believes when someone is victimized it absolves them of all personal responsibility, that's simply not true.

The case you sited is a great example of this. Those men didn't choose to get raped, but they made alot of choices that made that conclusion not only possible, but to anyone that knows the world isn't all ponies, rainbows and sparkles HIGHLY LIKELY. Who the fuck just goes to some strangers house to sleep alone? WHO? Who then consumes totally not suspicious food and drink from this complete stranger who's just such a nice and good person? Someone that wants to get raped, that's who. I'm surprised they didn't drop their pants and lube up before downing their beverages.

Make no mistake, someone can be a victim and at least partially (though in the cited case, substantially) responsible for whatever has victimized them.

 

[habisain]

We'll say it's about Johnny-wants-to-get-raped. Johnny CHOSE to get so drunk he could not defend himself. Johnny CHOSE to break the law and end up in rapeprison. Johnny CHOSE to consume food or drink that could contain drugs that would render him helpless. A big problem with today's society is that it believes when someone is victimized it absolves them of all personal responsibility, that's simply not true.

The case you sited is a great example of this. Those men didn't choose to get raped, but they made alot of choices that made that conclusion not only possible, but to anyone that knows the world isn't all ponies, rainbows and sparkles HIGHLY LIKELY. Who the fuck just goes to some strangers house to sleep alone? WHO? Who then consumes totally not suspicious food and drink from this complete stranger who's just such a nice and good person? Someone that wants to get raped, that's who. I'm surprised they didn't drop their pants and lube up before downing their beverages.

Make no mistake, someone can be a victim and at least partially (though in the cited case, substantially) responsible for whatever has victimized them.

Take the logic to it's conclusion, and women want to be raped for dressing in an attractive manner. Because if they didn't want to be raped, they'd make themselves unattractive so they weren't a target. Of course, given that porn is the great equaliser and everyone will find someone attractive, all women must be dressing attractively for someone and all women want to be raped. Needless to say, this is not a defence that works. And never mind the fact that there are many other incentives for women to dress attractively.

The men in the Reynhard Sinaga case had gone out to party and get drunk, and therefore didn't have their full mental capacity; it's not surprising that they made bad decisions, and also decisions that they wouldn't make while sober. So is your position that people getting drunk in public should accept getting taken advantage of because it's what they indicated they wanted by becoming drunk in public? I mean, if it is then I can respect that as a consistent opinion, even if I believe that kind of attitude to be morally repugnant. Someone getting drunk doesn't mean they want to be taken advantage of, it means they want to get drunk, because everyone should be able to assume that the laws of the land will protect them. People shoudn't find It necessary to plan for the eventuality that people break laws, otherwise why would anyone ever leave the house? If laws don't work, then people would be mugged and murdered a lot more than actually happens.

 

[super_slicer]

Well, let's take your logic to it's conclusion; no-one is responsible for anything that happens as long as they've either chosen to become mentally impaired or they've been victimized in some way.

Drunk driver runs over a bunch of children? Not their fault they weren't able to make good decisions. And OH, the serial killer was molested as a child so we should feel bad for them.

This is exactly the left-wing limp dicked new age cancerous bullshit that's been ruining society for years. If you take risks and make yourself vulnerable you have only yourself to blame for the outcome. If you make bad decisions, the results are on you and you deserve no sympathy.

Take the logic to it's conclusion, and women want to be raped for dressing in an attractive manner. Because if they didn't want to be raped, they'd make themselves unattractive so they weren't a target. Of course, given that porn is the great equaliser and everyone will find someone attractive, all women must be dressing attractively for someone and all women want to be raped. Needless to say, this is not a defence that works. And never mind the fact that there are many other incentives for women to dress attractively.

That's... quite the logical leap though. To say someone who literally walked into the lion's den and slathered themselves in blood is the same as someone who's wearing attractive clothing. Does the latter make you more vulnerable, sure but the amount is negligible. After all you said it earlier; rape is about control.

 

[habisain]

That's... quite the logical leap though. To say someone who literally walked into the lion's den and slathered themselves in blood is the same as someone who's wearing attractive clothing. Does the latter make you more vulnerable, sure but the amount is negligible. After all you said it earlier; rape is about control.

I'm afraid it's the logical conclusion though. If your position is that you should not do anything to make yourself a target, then women should not make themselves attractive to anyone. I mean, I can respect the consistency of your position, because you do seem to agree that it does make them more vulnerable. So I'll drop this, but something that would be a good idea for you and people who subscribe to this kind of view to remember: Clearly, your moral system is not compatible with the law of the land. Regardless of your opinions on whether or not it's "left-wing limp dicked new age cancerous bullshit", the idea that you should not take advantage of people has been baked into the legal codes of western societies for hundreds of years, in one form or another. It's certainly not a new concept so I doubt it can be called new-age, and the implementation of these laws has happened under governments of all political orientations so I doubt it's left-wing. If someone were to act in the way that you describe, taking advantage of people who are vulnerable for any reason, then the laws of most western countries (+ China/Japan/S. Korea) basically state they find themselves in front of a judge, who will likely use terms such as "morally repugnant" to describe their actions while they are sentenced.

Also for reference: If you walk into a Lion's den, and they have cubs, they're gonna rip you apart regardless. If you're slathering yourself in fresh blood, they're gonna rip you apart waaay before you get to the den. Frankly, that idiom doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

Quick question which is more on topic: Has there been an H-game which uses lack of control as a game mechanic? I've actually seen this once or twice in short text based games (non-erotic ones, I'll add), and it's actually an interesting mechanic for conveying how things don't always go as the player wants. I'm pretty sure there would be pretty good ways to exploit this; it's kind-of done in NTR games, but I'm thinking more along the lines of loss or restrictions on control of the protagonist, and I'm drawing a blank.

 

[Beatru]

but I'm thinking more along the lines of loss or restrictions on control of the protagonist, and I'm drawing a blank.

I was thinking of doing something where the player can be enslaved by goblins if she loses to them. Like in the anime Goblin Slayer

 

[super_slicer]

Quick question which is more on topic: Has there been an H-game which uses lack of control as a game mechanic? I've actually seen this once or twice in short text based games (non-erotic ones, I'll add), and it's actually an interesting mechanic for conveying how things don't always go as the player wants. I'm pretty sure there would be pretty good ways to exploit this; it's kind-of done in NTR games, but I'm thinking more along the lines of loss or restrictions on control of the protagonist, and I'm drawing a blank.

All I've seen are bad ends that let you keep playing until you quit that feature a limited gameplay loop and choices that aren't really choices. Tales of Androgyny does that alot and seems to be set to do it even more. Seems like more of a VN type of thing and I don't play those so perhaps someone who does might know of more examples?

Also for reference: If you walk into a Lion's den, and they have cubs, they're gonna rip you apart regardless. If you're slathering yourself in fresh blood, they're gonna rip you apart waaay before you get to the den. Frankly, that idiom doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

Yeah, the blood was the stupid part, or there being cubs present. C'mon guy.

I'm afraid it's the logical conclusion though. If your position is that you should not do anything to make yourself a target, then women should not make themselves attractive to anyone. I mean, I can respect the consistency of your position, because you do seem to agree that it does make them more vulnerable. So I'll drop this, but something that would be a good idea for you and people who subscribe to this kind of view to remember: Clearly, your moral system is not compatible with the law of the land. Regardless of your opinions on whether or not it's "left-wing limp dicked new age cancerous bullshit", the idea that you should not take advantage of people has been baked into the legal codes of western societies for hundreds of years, in one form or another. It's certainly not a new concept so I doubt it can be called new-age, and the implementation of these laws has happened under governments of all political orientations so I doubt it's left-wing. If someone were to act in the way that you describe, taking advantage of people who are vulnerable for any reason, then the laws of most western countries (+ China/Japan/S. Korea) basically state they find themselves in front of a judge, who will likely use terms such as "morally repugnant" to describe their actions while they are sentenced.

Huh? Of course it's illegal and immoral to rape someone, no matter the circumstances and victim's won't be held liable for their victimization no matter how much of a part their choices played in making them vulnerable. We were talking about choice and responsibility, not legality or morality. Who else but yourself can be responsible for the results of your decisions? I guarantee you that each one of those men has regretted the poor choices they made on the night they were sexually assaulted, and for good reason because their assaults never could have occurred otherwise.

Today's culture tells them they aren't responsible for those choices, that it's wrong to blame themselves, instead of engaging in self reflection and improvement, perhapst toward not being a moron in the future. It started with the femnazis (at least here in the U.S.) who in more recent history have been responsible for the creation of new and nonsensical forms of rape; eye rape, stare rape, gym rape. They've even gone so far as to claim: "You have “the right to retroactively withdraw consent” from any encounters you had, at any point in the past, that no longer feel good or safe to you." so yeah, it's the left behind this coddling of victims and the undermining of personal accountability.

 

[Tenma]

I agree with Slicer here. Put laconic, as someone who'd nearly joined an armed services branch, I know first and foremost your own safety is your entirely in your hands. You are in charge of you ingest, drink, and take. Lock yourself indoors, get enough food, water, and excise nothing can hurt you. Anything else, is entirely your fault, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. Though I really must ask how we allowed this tread got so derailed.

On the OP's topic, story-wise I continued digging and I remember No Tears School has something along the lines of extensive line of events leading to an alternate end. On the struggle mechanics I'll believe that a 3D game would be better suited to such an extensive struggle system. Perhaps with something like a mix of typical h-struggle inputs. Like Heavy Rain. You'd input a certain of inputs, maybe mash a little in the struggle. Click on a prompt or respond to a text prompt etc. Depending on what type of game that's developed succeeding at these prompts would win the battle, or in the case of an RPG put you at an advantage when your turn rolls around; or even cancel the enemies moves. If we're going all in on the struggle system. Maybe you'd need to hold down a button and need to click a certain spheres that'd appear on the screen. The only thing stopping such an extensive struggle system, is of course the fact most H-game developers are in fact artists first; developers second.

 

[habisain]

@Tenma: It's not completely off topic. In discussion of rape mechanics in games, the definition of rape is important. Also at the risk of stating the obvious, armed services operate in situations where regular law does not apply, and with dangerous equipment/environments, and so your statement is correct: if someone cannot rely on the law to protect them, then safety should be their concern. It's also correct that if the law states someone should be in a safe place (or at least with respect to the actions of others), they shouldn't have to assume they are in an unsafe place. Otherwise there's no point to that law.

@super_slicer: I'm going to point out that for all of those things that you attribute to "feminazis" either they're things which are not true under law (i.e. retroactively withdrawing consent is not possible under any legal system, if only because it would significantly undermine all verbal contracts), or were covered by law decades ago, way before any "feminazis" were politically active (although your terminology is very unclear, but it sounds like you're talking about harassment for most of them, which in the US is 1960's law). As an academic, I'm afraid I do feel an obligation to correct misinformation when I see it.

Tis a shame that no-one has come up with interesting implementations on loss of control though. The Eramaker games (or at least, the ones where you don't play as a Master type character) do some of this, but then again they're kinda not great games even if you do get past the language barrier (very good story generators though!). Also @Tenma, QTEs as a mechanic for escaping rape have been done before. Like, a lot. Unfortunately, QTEs are frequently cited as one of the worst game mechanics present in popular games, so I'm pretty sure that implementing QTEs in an H-game will annoy many of the players. On thinking about it, this might be one of the big problems with implementing "better" H-game mechanics. I suspect that it's also true that lack of control as a mechanic would annoy a lot of people as well, so even before considering any details about the amount of effort required to implement better H-game mechanics, an author would need to weigh up the risk of alienating parts of their player base by implementing those mechanics. It actually turns out to be a more complex topic than I first thought.

EDIT: Actually now that I think about it, NewLife also does lack of control as a gameplay mechanic (what with it's willpower/drunken-ness mechanics), and it's reasonably interesting implementation of it. It also highlights just how tricky the entire consent stuff is, because despite the author of NewLife not wanting to include non-consent content for legal reasons (which I think he's misinterpreted the law on in a fairly substantial way, but it's his game so he gets to decide what he does with it), NewLife certainly includes non-consent content.

 

[Beatru]

Unfortunately, QTEs are frequently cited as one of the worst game mechanics present in popular games, so I'm pretty sure that implementing QTEs in an H-game will annoy many of the players.

Well, if you’ve ever played Dead Before Daylight, most of the game is centered around QTEs and it seems to have a fairly large community of people who enjoy playing it.

Take Heavy Rain as a good example of QTEs. The game is literally a movie where the outcome is decided based on what QTE’s you press. And that game I suppose was wildly successful, because the developers went on to make several new games with the exact same mechanics.

But it’s true that some people do not enjoy the mechanic at all. And I’m sure they are very vocal about their dislike. That can be said for a lot of things though. You can’t please everyone.

edit: I think it’s important that, in a game where the player just wants to relax (h-games) and not have to worry about hitting button prompts: something good should happen if you fail the button prompts. Likewise something good should happen if you succeed the button prompts.

 

[Tenma]

Well, if you’ve ever played Dead Before Daylight, most of the game is centered around QTEs and it seems to have a fairly large community of people who enjoy playing it.

Take Heavy Rain as a good example of QTEs. The game is literally a movie where the outcome is decided based on what QTE’s you press. And that game I suppose was wildly successful, because the developers went on to make several new games with the exact same mechanics.

But it’s true that some people do not enjoy the mechanic at all. And I’m sure they are very vocal about their dislike. That can be said for a lot of things though. You can’t please everyone.

Mostly this. I had a bit of time to fantasize about the system. It'd be a sort of wrestling game in a way. There'd be a sort of initiative system where you could attempt to start an attack before your enemy does, if your attack fails to land before the enemy's they start off the engagement at an advantage; alternatively you could attempt to counter the enemies first attack.

 

[habisain]

@Beatru: Oh, I'm not for one moment suggesting that all QTE in games are bad, or that people don't enjoy playing games with QTEs. Heck, I'm a big fan of the Project D'Va games, and Rhythm games like that can be characterised as being QTEs that span minutes long. But they are certainly a divisive game mechanic, and there is some pretty solid data that suggests they're not popular (hence why they're not as common in games as they were in say, the 00's or the first half of the 10's).

Oh, and incidentally, as I recall one of the main critiques of Heavy Rain was it's use of QTEs, coupled with slightly wonky controls overall. The game was certainly very good a lot of other things which made is successful, but that particular part of it may not have been a driving factor.

@Tenma: As a reference point, do you mean a system similar to Mana Khemia: Alchemists of Al-Revis (obviously not an H-game, but a moderately obscure JRPG)? That did have a system where attacks were telegraphed and it was possible to take actions to manipulate the enemy attack patterns.

 

[Tenma]

As an RPG yes, as an action game it'd be sort of a hybrid. You'd get in range of opponent, get a prompt to attack the enemy; and then combat would follow combat prompts with maybe a couple of paths to taking out an enemy or enemies available depending on what weapons or items you have. Though if the enemy got the initiative and attacked first there'd be a prompt separate from the attack prompt that'd allow you to attempt to counter instead. The timing would probably be similar to WWE wrestling games or much a larger window for easier settings.

As for sexual content, if you got wrestled down, then your opponent would attempt to strip you. There'd be a couple things you could do. You could try to halt their progress by perhaps throwing a punch or kick at them depending on what angle they got you from. Then get back to a neutral sort-of state by struggling out of their grapple. I could envision there being two separate meters at this point. A stamina meter and a resilience/health meter. If you deplete stamina the prompts get more difficult, if you run out of health. Then depending on the enemy something will happen, like your character being dragged off to a cell somewhere to further exploited; where you must escape. To simply a fade to black and the character getting up in a safe area, presumably raped and then released.

 

[super_slicer]

The way you describe it doesn't sound like an action game at all. Initiative and prompts don't an action game make, ya know? The wrestling part seems spot on though, make it yuri/futa and I'm on-board XP. Heck as an RPG it works too. Several battlefuck games do play out like that, can't give you their names because they're moon and I didn't bother learning them.

@super_slicer: I'm going to point out that for all of those things that you attribute to "feminazis" either they're things which are not true under law (i.e. retroactively withdrawing consent is not possible under any legal system, if only because it would significantly undermine all verbal contracts), or were covered by law decades ago, way before any "feminazis" were politically active (although your terminology is very unclear, but it sounds like you're talking about harassment for most of them, which in the US is 1960's law). As an academic, I'm afraid I do feel an obligation to correct misinformation when I see it.

No, they actually want people (men specifically) tried as rapists for looking at them in a way they don't like and yeah retroactive withdrawal of consent IS also an absurd idea! It's almost as if my intent was to establish a pattern of flawed logic leading back to a source and not talking about actual legality in any way shape or form as it is irrelevant to the original dispute.