VN Ren'Py Jamie [v0.9.8] [MoeMoeGames]

[rip-basium]

Thank you. That is part of my point.
Jamie went to Val actively seeking help with their fetishes/kinks. They were interested in exploring things like feminization and sissification. None of it had to be forced, and yet Val took it too far. As soon as she stopped actively listening to her "patient" and started taking advantage of him she was just plain wrong.
It is entirely possible to consensually go through cucking, feminization, humiliation, sissification and other dom/sub fetish with a simple communication between two or more parties.
That's why there are safewords - something that was never agreed upon or even discussed with Val.
I know this is a game, but when characters are put through abuse and people they are supposed to trust commit illegal acts it really bothers me. Sorry.

You don't need to say sorry. I think I understand your point.
To me, a part of the appeal of a game or story is that they can explore a relationship dynamic where a character is coerced (or goes through something explicitly noncon) and no actual living person is hurt. I don't find any part of the writing in this game advocating for anything abusive, nor does it come across as severe (to me). It's not as if Jamie is explicitly undergoing severe psychological distress and things keep happening to him, there's an implication that he's enjoying this.

I don't think this is meant to be a realistic exploration of a relationship between two people. The medium, the artstyle, the situations etc. are indicative of a fantasy. So I think that's why it seems incongruous to bring up consent. Having said that, in a different game with a bit more grounding, there's definitely a place for a more realistic and mature exploration of what you're talking about.
It's an interesting critique and I understand your perspective more clearly than what I percieved in your original comment.

 

[Mickademous]

You don't need to say sorry. I think I understand your point.
To me, a part of the appeal of a game or story is that they can explore a relationship dynamic where a character is coerced (or goes through something explicitly noncon) and no actual living person is hurt. I don't find any part of the writing in this game advocating for anything abusive, nor does it come across as severe (to me). It's not as if Jamie is explicitly undergoing severe psychological distress and things keep happening to him, there's an implication that he's enjoying this.

I don't think this is meant to be a realistic exploration of a relationship between two people. The medium, the artstyle, the situations etc. are indicative of a fantasy. So I think that's why it seems incongruous to bring up consent. Having said that, in a different game with a bit more grounding, there's definitely a place for a more realistic and mature exploration of what you're talking about.
It's an interesting critique and I understand your perspective more clearly than what I percieved in your original comment.

Thank you for this, for trying to see things from my perspective, and for saying so.

I think, personally, the biggest fundamental issue I have with the dynamics of the game's relationships are with Val's role.
She is supposed to be a therapist; someone who can be trusted, and who will only take actions in the best interest of her patients.
However she is abusing the power dynamic to service her own kink, rather than listening to Jamie and doing as he requests. While he might be enjoying some of the things that are happening as a result, she is still taking advantage of someone who is vulnerable.

Were she in some other role it might be different. I would still have a problem with the lack of consent (as it is paramount in any relationship), but it wouldn't have the same infuriating effect that her betrayal as a therapist incurs.