Holy Bacchus
Conversation Conqueror
- Dec 13, 2018
- 7,748
- 19,549
- Thread starter Hitman955
- Start date
Yup, they've said that, but that actually means "No NTR, refering specifically to the particular way the MrDots team defines it, will be in MrDots games", doesn't it? Their definiton might be the most "correct" definition, linguistically, but it's also not the definition most people opposed to the idea are using.
As a result they can honestly claim "there will be no NTR" while knowing full-well they're planning to introduce content many of their players would absolutely call NTR.
As in this example, Jeff Steel literally said that in all future games going forward, if the MC has multiple partners, then so will the primary love interests, unavoidably. Many of their players would call that unavoidable NTR, even if the devs don't. Jeff's claim that "you can avoid it by being monongamous, so it's avoidable" is a prevarication, and he knows it.
Or Jeff might be lying. I have no idea how true what he said was, but it is what he said.
Not sure, which is the problem. Something one of the development team said implied something like that (it's just the primary love interest, in this case D), but it wasn't 100% clear. Adding further confusion, they've asserted multiple times there will be no NTR, and I believe they mean that, but they've also given a very particular definition of what constitutes NTR by their definition; D fucking other men without the player being able to prevent it wouldn't actually count as NTR by their definition, provided she isn't "stolen away" by those men. Would you count that as NTR?
As a result, I don't have a simple answer to your question that I can guarantee with any real certainty.
It actually wouldn't, not by the narrow definition of NTR they're using, that's kind of the problem. Provided D isn't "stolen away" from the MC, her fucking other men in scenarios the player can't avoid doesn't qualify as NTR. Let me ask, would you define it as NTR?
So I'm just finishing up chap 1. Can someone tell me if we get to kill or otherwise permanently get rid of that Lucas psycho?
Yes. Yes I would. VERY much so. Fair enough anyway; thanks for the answer
Holy Bacchus
Conversation Conqueror
- Dec 13, 2018
- 7,748
- 19,549
Yes, it would, because D or any LI of the MC having sex with another guy that is outwith the player's control IS NTR, that's why both Martin and Ryan are optional because it's up to the player whether they want to see D involved with another man, but she will never ever do that of her volition. The MC/player is essentially approving of whatever sex acts D can perform, therefore if they're not OK with D fucking other guys, then she won't do it because the MC/player chooses not to let it happen, and the same goes for all the other girls who don't already have partners.
As long as D takes the self-defense lessons, then yes, he will be gone for good.
clos
New Member
- May 3, 2017
- 9
- 24
I gotta say, I do subscribe to the view that what's mine is MINE!... specially after such a slow burn (at the beginning anyway) to get to this point. The sharing (of D with other dudes) story line makes no sense, whether you want to make it work by claiming "personal growth" or 'sexual maturing'. its BS.
I don't mind sharing some of my toys, Elena (kinda slutty to begin with) and Olivia (there was no choice) are ok, but D? No freaking way, corrupt... err... traini....err... instructing her up to this point, only to have someone else enjoy the fruits of my labor? No.
But its a game, I get it. And Mr Dots is simply monetizing all fetishes for what its worth.
Gotta say that as far as this being an entertaining last few pages of this thread, it doesn't disappoint.
I don't mind sharing some of my toys, Elena (kinda slutty to begin with) and Olivia (there was no choice) are ok, but D? No freaking way, corrupt... err... traini....err... instructing her up to this point, only to have someone else enjoy the fruits of my labor? No.
But its a game, I get it. And Mr Dots is simply monetizing all fetishes for what its worth.
Gotta say that as far as this being an entertaining last few pages of this thread, it doesn't disappoint.
Sorry one final question: How long is this game? Both as it is and estimated at completion? I feel like I've been playing for hours and am still in chapter 1. That's not a conmplaint I'm just quite surprised. Especially for A VN and not some grindy shit
I finished chapter 2 and started the 3rd one, but I don't get the option to continue from ch. 2.
By your definition it is, but not according to the definiton they're using, it isn't. And the definition that matters, in terms of what content they might include, is the definition of the developers.
Their definition is simple; 1) The MC is in a relationship with the love interest, and 2) another person steals that love interest away via sex, sexual prowess, etc. That's literally all they count as NTR, according to their own Discord; anything else isn't. If D unavoidably fucks Ryan or Martin against player choice in a future update, but isn't "stolen away" from the MC by the experience, then they've technically kept their promise.
Thus far that's been true, absolutely, but Jeff's claim is that going forward, in future games (and I'm not sure if he includes DMD Chapter 4 in that group or not) that will no longer be the case. He claims that if the MC has more than one lover, then so will the principal female love interest, because "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Now, obviously, if he was excluding DMD Chapter 4 from "all future games" then there's no problem; everyone going into those hypothetical other games would know the score from the start. But if he wasn't excluding it, and his claim that's the new status quo is true, then we've suddenly got the problem where there is no NTR (as they define it) but a lot of players will be pissed because there is NTR, by their definition, and it'll come out of left-field.
Again, that's totally accurate thus far. But if what Jeff claims is accurate, then there's no guarantee it'll be true going forward. The statements "if the MC has multiple lovers then so will the principal love interest, unavoidably" and "D won't have sex with any other man of her own volition, without player consent" cannot both be true, can they? They're mutually exclusive.
So much debate over an issue that can be resolved with a simple click of a button. Turn off the Martin path and she never gets curious about other guys. Simple.
I'm really not sure what part of what I'm saying people keep missing; I feel like I'm being really clear, but obviously I'm not explaining this very well.
I'm not talking about how the game functions at present; I'm talking about how it may be about to change, according to someone in the development team.
According to Jeff Steel, the intent for MrDots Games going forward is that if the MC is fucking women other than the principal love interest (in this case, that'd be D), then the principal love interest will be fucking other men, and it will be unavoidable. If you want to avoid that happening, then the only way is to be monogamous with the principal love interest; there is no way to have multiple female partners without D simultaneously having multiple male partners.
Maybe Jeff's lying, or DMD will be excluded from the new status quo, but that is what he has said.
Holy Bacchus
Conversation Conqueror
- Dec 13, 2018
- 7,748
- 19,549
You are being clear, but also very wrong and misguided.
Regardless of what they define as NTR or not NTR, neither D nor any of the single LIs (Elena, Jennifer, Georgina) who are involved with the MC will EVER do anything with another guy unless the MC/player signs off on it. Period. They will not ever do anything with another guy without that approval and even if they have that approval, it will only be when the MC is also present AND with pre-approved guys like Martin and Ryan. So none of these girls will ever just go off and fuck random guys, or even pre-approved guys, when the MC isn't around. It's really that simple.
Also, Jeff is one of several involved in the writing process of MrD's games and most of the time what he's saying is simply his opinion/view and he's giving us an insight into the creative process, but it does not necessarily mean that what he's saying will ever be implemented, especially when it's something like this. Again, it may not meet their exact definition of NTR, but it veers very close to it for a lot of people so it would not, in my opinion, be a smart move to have the other LIs openly being with other guys while the MC is pursuing them.
Last edited:
TungstenDuck
Member
- May 6, 2018
- 483
- 915
I get that you think that, but when there are two mutually exclusive statements made about something, I think there needs to be a reason as to which one to consider false other than "the one I say; it's really that simple." That's especially true when the statement you're dismissing is the more recent claim; ideas evolve, and earlier statemets are not holy writ. If someone says "I'm going to do X" then later says "actually, from now on, I'm doing Z", I kind of need a better reason to dismiss Z out-of-hand other than "just because."
See that right there? That's a very good reason to be wary of the latter claim, and a lot more convincing than "It's X, because it is".
Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning. I appreciate it.
I agree, but it being a bad decision in my opinion doesn't mean they wouldn't make it anyway, and is therefore not a good enough reason to dismiss the possibility; people make bad decisions all the time, often by commitee.
I also agree it veers very close to what most people regard as NTR, but I maintain that such a narrow definition as the one they're using exists specifically so they can cut close to the line, but still technically claim not to have included NTR, by their definition. I've seen similarly precise wording too often in contracts; it's like a flashing light.
Last edited by a moderator:
After 3 chapters of giving players the option to turn on or turn off certain paths, you think they will force you onto a path with no option to turn it on or off? You are worrying over absolutely nothing.
And it seems this has to be repeated EVERY time a update is close
He might not be worrying over absolutely nothing. Considering the posts of Jeff he has quoted I'm a little bit worried myself as well. I'm still inclined to think that they won't, because as you, Holy Bacchus and Corvus Belli have pointed out, it wouldn't be very smart to change it at this point considering that the harem path seems to be the most popular one amongst fans, but Corvus Belli is still right to be worried.
As an aside, I think in general it would be very unwise to get rid of harem paths in all their forthcoming games from a marketing perspective, because of the popularity of such routes in many h-games. It might not be the most realistic path, but then again these are games where one can indulge in one's fantasies. In the end it's up to the devs of course, just my two cents.