Pretty certain equilibrium would mean the male generals being seduced (or rather, raped into submission) by female enemy generals. And as I said, not necessarily adding scenes either - just having it in the game systems would be enough to address my observation.
Fair enough, though I'd have to wonder if there would be any merit for such implementation.
Well, maybe it slipped off the creator's mind? Because he probably designed this game to be mainly NTR SRPG. I understand your point though. It really does put the heroines in bad light for betraying their country. But well...I kinda accept it just like other corruption/NTR RPG.
You have to get them when the girl is in the backroom having sex with king, then you ask the king to release the general to serve in army, then if the girls love for king is high enough and she hasn't gotten knocked up by him yet she will refuse.
You mean like wish-fulfillment reverse rape games? Where you get "rape" by hot busty female enemies? Why though? Wish-fulfillment is the complete opposite of what this game is about. Unless you mean getting raped by fugly women, but who would be into that? Yaoi could work as a separate game since it would serve little point to the targeted male audience of this game. Females who are into H-games are small in general so even a separate game focusing on yaoi would be a questionable use of their time.
Hey, I already said that some people will find this game in their tastes. I specifically said that I am not happy with games that portray women negatively, and I suspect that's true of a lot of people.
There's much better things you could be thinking about, like finishing your translation of Virgin Protection Magic. It's been a year since the last update by the way.
Wow. You know what? I'm not sure this is worth it. Is this community becoming so toxic that people want to shut down any discussion that they disagree with? Are you telling me what I should think? Instructing me on what I should do?
This isn't about humanitarian high ground, and you shouldn't put words like "Won't someone think of the Children!?" into my mouth. There's a fundamental thing which is that because I have an opinion that a few people disagree with, I'm being told to shut up so that they don't have to confront alternative views, and I'm being told that I shouldn't even think things they disagree with.
I never said hasbisain did take a humanitarian high ground or that you said "won't someone think of the children", I was just speaking objectively. Hora see, you're starting to take things on a personal level and I'm starting to worry about your mental health. And like I said, if you try to argue within any moral ground you're bound to get disagreeable opinions and animosity, the forums are honestly the least echo chamber places on the internet because we're allowed to tell the other your stance and your opinion contrary, even if that other opinion ends with a snarky response. As the saying goes, if you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
You misunderstand my point. I'm absolutely fine with disagreement - I've been pretty explicit about that, stating multiple times that for some people this game doesn't present an issue, and that's OK. However, when people start to tell me that I should not even be thinking something that they disagree with, or that I should just exclusively do things which they want me to do, then that is when I start to take offence. And of course, because people - including yourself and your insinuations about my mental health - are now talking about me rather than discussing opinions, then I think it has been made personal.
No, it's not that I didn't misinterpret your point, it's that the notion that implies that people telling others to shut up is in itself, is what the forum can be used for. That kind of liberty is genuine of forums and unless it's super authoritarian in here, being as humble or crude is within the boundaries of discussions as long as we aren't being told it's kindergarten here. There are no rules that state otherwise, unless you do one of the things that are explicitly stated in the rules we were given. As far as the conversations that have been had here go, everyone has been keeping it as marginal as it can be when it comes to snide and offensive comments and it's up to other party to take offense on a personal level. Though, you'll be in a happier place if you can power on through such comments and continue your deliberations till you reach a consensus as arguing on the internet will give you as much peace of mind as running your butt through a cheese grater. That and starting a conversation on morals will inevitably get you set on fire, as I have said.
And I was not aware that a reputation mark which is stated as "Respectfully Disagree" would be taken offensively. The word "Respectfully" is in there and everything, and it was not meant as a slight in any way.
Why thank you, I do find the reputation system to be silly either way, I simply assumed that's what people do nowadays to slight one another as that was generally all it surmised to be in reality.
good advice. i agree with some of that.
rotlf, it's the most important feature of the game, paired with the capture system, and the better one implemented so far (always improvable of course).
But it is true the harem mechanic doesn't really add anything to the gameplay, because it is so easy to play around it. If there were some disadvantage to using the male generals then the harem (and indeed the capture system) might become interesting game mechanics, where you have to trade off the advantages/disadvantages of using female/male generals. But there aren't, and so as far as the gameplay goes, it is just an annoyance.