Re: Trainer Games
whats the definition ofa trainer game again? seems like it all boils down to turnin the "trainee" into a slut, a devoted slut to one master but still, aint that the same as corruption?
Well, there seems to even be disagreement on that point, at least, I constantly see a certain type of people whining about a game even having the *option* of the game including a "public favors" mode (ie., where as a sign of the master's total control over and degradation of the slave, they are forced to sexually service third parties). Some people, if they had their way, would apparently expunge this entire option from the genre.
So if you dig deep enough into any genre of ANY media offering or artwork - game, movie, music, doesn't matter - you will always find these disagreements about what "counts" and what doesn't. There really isn't an objective definition of this that I know of.
Departing from torkensteim and responding to the thread in general:
This all ties back in to why I think it makes more sense to go with an
inclusive standard, even one that risks being over-broad, rather than an
exclusive standard that might weed out some borderline-trainers. At least for now, that is, while the genre is still pretty sparse (can it even be called a "genre" when there aren't even two dozen games in it yet?). We can afford to get picky later once we have the good fortune to be up to our upper lips in trainer games. Beggars can't be choosers, and right now we are beggars.
Personally, I subscribe to threads like this and others because of certain interests, but those interests overlap. I don't insist that an H-game
must be a "pure" trainer with no other elements. Who knows, maybe someone will make a game that has both the trainer element and some other element, Z, that I also happen to like! Now, imagine for a moment: what if the board for element Z
also chose to enforce an unrealistic, purist stance that "only pure-Z games are real Z games"? The result would be that neither the trainer board, nor the "Z" board, would include the "trainer-plus-Z" game - which means it would have no chance of gaining any traction in either area, and I, a fan of both elements, who am subscribed to BOTH threads, would still fail to learn about a game that miraculously fits my needs perfectly. This would be the ultimate fail, both for game devs and for fans.
This is why I say any game that has a significant portion dedicated to some sort of trainer element (I'd personally say a quarter or more of total playtime) is worthy of at least being mentioned in a thread like this as "semi-trainer" or "partial trainer" or some such. "Includes some trainer elements". Don't people already do that on non-smut video game messaging boards, where they describe a game like it's a food recipe? "Well, it's a FPS, but there's also a role-playing element and it has a deckbuilding minigame..." Well hold on a minute there, cowboy, which is it?? The answer is, it's all three, and it deserves mention on all three boards, obviously, that way anyone who has an interest in any of those things can find it.
Sorry for the tl;dr but I really find this purism completely irrational, sorry.