Throngled Dongle
Lurker
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 298
- Reputation score
- 17
I saw the topic pop up a few times in threads dedicated to specific games. Wanted to get in on it but didn't want to derail the thread either. So out of respect to who knows how many very specific threads - generic discussion thread here!
Generally whenever the topic comes up the same point about h-games being "illogical" or "poorly designed" because you need to lose to see the content (as far as RoR, GoR, and BF are concerned) is brought up. Then there are the usual counter-arguments that its really up to the target audience whether they like it or not, etc. etc.
I would like to attempt to put forward some personal observations about the way I've seen these debates go and possible directions to consider encouraging these types of games to go in to address the underlying complaint.
1: While VR would make more sense, not everyone wants to be dominant. This introduces the RoR and GoR fields, and BF which is a bit more flexible overall. Keep in mind, some of the male protagonist GoR games are pretty popular too so this isn't just picking on girls. A lot of guys do like being on the receiving end of GoR or losing BF.
2: The rape on losing DOES agreed introduce a conflict in purpose to the traditional game. The desireable content becomes the content for losing and winning generally holds meaning only it access to more varied content, or a traditional ending which may or may not actually be considered "better" than failing.
3: However, the counter-argument that this is just a unique quirk to the sub-variety holds true. It would make even less sense for a succubus in a BF game to only 'dominate and feed' on her partner if he manages to 'beat' her first.
4: 2 and 3 being said, I don't think the complaint is necessarily the real problem. When I see these discussions unfold, I think I see undertones that the #2 argument is less "It's an illogical mix that doesn't work out," and more "I wasn't happy with the implementation and the way the game content and h-content competed with one another."
Therefore, perhaps there are things that can be done to craft a better h-game with the h-content for "losing". It would probably help people in general to think of the current state of these games as "experimenting" to find formula that aren't just acceptable but -really- fun.
Since the losing content competes with the victory content, many people have recommended making the losing content the main goal by having games with no "victory" point. Endless survival type scenarios are a popular mode for many types of games - as well as the entire genre of roguelikes (not my unique idea - people a lot better at this than I recommended roguelikes for very specific reasons). Well, why not? If this unique genre presents content desirable enough to serve as a "reward" than focus on the journey instead. Unlockable galleries are nice, but they're not as fun as losing in a long, slow, drawn out way because the downhill struggle serves as foreplay. Perhaps the idea of "winning makes losing later more fun" should be considered in place of "winning to access additional content" and "winning to skip scenes you don't like".
As for the roguelikes - I hate the genre normally but for h-games I think the idea has solid merit. They were nominated because as I've heard others say about them they are session-based and you are generally not-expected to "win" any one given session. Aren't most h-games generally played in "sessions" anyway irregardless of their design? Also, can't procedurally generated content be altered to present more diverse content in unpredictable and surprising ways? If the content is spread out more horizontally you won't have to go as "deep" through extended play or careful management of saves/teleports to end up in preferred scenarios.
Now not every game has to be a roguelike - maybe some of the features can be transferred to other genres as hybrids: session-orientated, intentionally super-difficult or unwinnable, with perhaps different methods of laying out the content to make it easier to get to without having to resort to New Game + galleries and level select functions.
Generally whenever the topic comes up the same point about h-games being "illogical" or "poorly designed" because you need to lose to see the content (as far as RoR, GoR, and BF are concerned) is brought up. Then there are the usual counter-arguments that its really up to the target audience whether they like it or not, etc. etc.
I would like to attempt to put forward some personal observations about the way I've seen these debates go and possible directions to consider encouraging these types of games to go in to address the underlying complaint.
1: While VR would make more sense, not everyone wants to be dominant. This introduces the RoR and GoR fields, and BF which is a bit more flexible overall. Keep in mind, some of the male protagonist GoR games are pretty popular too so this isn't just picking on girls. A lot of guys do like being on the receiving end of GoR or losing BF.
2: The rape on losing DOES agreed introduce a conflict in purpose to the traditional game. The desireable content becomes the content for losing and winning generally holds meaning only it access to more varied content, or a traditional ending which may or may not actually be considered "better" than failing.
3: However, the counter-argument that this is just a unique quirk to the sub-variety holds true. It would make even less sense for a succubus in a BF game to only 'dominate and feed' on her partner if he manages to 'beat' her first.
4: 2 and 3 being said, I don't think the complaint is necessarily the real problem. When I see these discussions unfold, I think I see undertones that the #2 argument is less "It's an illogical mix that doesn't work out," and more "I wasn't happy with the implementation and the way the game content and h-content competed with one another."
Therefore, perhaps there are things that can be done to craft a better h-game with the h-content for "losing". It would probably help people in general to think of the current state of these games as "experimenting" to find formula that aren't just acceptable but -really- fun.
Since the losing content competes with the victory content, many people have recommended making the losing content the main goal by having games with no "victory" point. Endless survival type scenarios are a popular mode for many types of games - as well as the entire genre of roguelikes (not my unique idea - people a lot better at this than I recommended roguelikes for very specific reasons). Well, why not? If this unique genre presents content desirable enough to serve as a "reward" than focus on the journey instead. Unlockable galleries are nice, but they're not as fun as losing in a long, slow, drawn out way because the downhill struggle serves as foreplay. Perhaps the idea of "winning makes losing later more fun" should be considered in place of "winning to access additional content" and "winning to skip scenes you don't like".
As for the roguelikes - I hate the genre normally but for h-games I think the idea has solid merit. They were nominated because as I've heard others say about them they are session-based and you are generally not-expected to "win" any one given session. Aren't most h-games generally played in "sessions" anyway irregardless of their design? Also, can't procedurally generated content be altered to present more diverse content in unpredictable and surprising ways? If the content is spread out more horizontally you won't have to go as "deep" through extended play or careful management of saves/teleports to end up in preferred scenarios.
Now not every game has to be a roguelike - maybe some of the features can be transferred to other genres as hybrids: session-orientated, intentionally super-difficult or unwinnable, with perhaps different methods of laying out the content to make it easier to get to without having to resort to New Game + galleries and level select functions.