Porn Game Tropes: The good, the bad, and the fugly

[megaplayboy10k]

Look, It's Her/him Again

DAZ3d and Honey Select have some wonderful character models. Some are so wonderful, they get reused over and over and over again. The "Balding Middle Aged White Guy with Facial Stubble" has been used to play the "bad guy" in Babysitter, the asshole boss in Lucky Mark, the rapist doctor in Life with Pleasure, the principal in School, Love & Cousins, and at least 2-3 other games whose names escape me. The Mom from Big Brother is also the Mom in Ways of Life and, with slight variations, appears in a couple other games as well. A couple Honey Select models are constantly reused in different games. Sometimes it seems like typecasting. Other times it looks like blatant plagiarism. I kinda feel like, if you're going to use a character model that's shown up in other games, at least change up their role and personality in the new game.

 

[DarthSeduction]

Oof... I can already tell this is not gonna be fun.

Coudnt find them.
Here is an other docementry:

You must be registered to see the links

So, the production company, Incubus, which is behind this, has 0 presence online. It is extremely ill advised to take information you get from a medium as dubious as documentaries at face value, and if you can't find any information about the source, it's best to assume the source is hiding something.

To be clear, there is nothing stating a documentary must be true. Discovery network is not known for caring about truth, they care about "infotainment" that means that any documentary that will entertain can be shown, regardless of the veracity of the information contained within. So any doc you've seen really doesn't mean you saw the truth, just what the film maker wanted you to see.

Men spend most of there time supressing or controling our more aminmalstic impulses.
It is also why we are more likely to cheat.
The need to spread our seed is very powerfull.

That brings us to this kind of thing. Where is your information backing up these blanket statements you make?

Rape porn is quiet populair as is incest(both are power fantasies).

Incest can be a power fantasy, but it really doesn't have to be. There is nothing inherent to incest that makes it about power. A father might find the power over their daughter tantilizing, as the son might find power over the mother thrilling, but the same could be said in reverse in both cases or not exist at all.

But you didnt really pick a good example.
Big woman is popular because the woman entire entirely depended on the men.(food, moving, etc)
Again it is a we who have power over woman.

Do you feel a sense of domination over your employer? They are dependent on you to do the work you do, are they not? I'm hoping you see the ridiculousness of your assertion already. The woman in this scenario wants to be pampered, taken care of, etc, she doesn't need you specifically to do it. There will always be a man out there willing to worship her. So, your scenario of the kept woman being dominated because she is "dependent" on you is flawed because you are not uniquely suited to be the man in this scenario.

And yes, there are other women too, but our society does trend toward the woman having the choice. She picks from a crop of suitors, generally, not the other way around.

Most of us know the difference between fantasy and reality.
You have to keep in mind that molesters get killed in jail by there immate's.
That how low on the social pecking order rapists are.
That even there fellow criminals hate them.

There's actually no data to show that the current punishments for crime act, in any way, as a deterrent to crime. At this point, putting people in prison is more about the catharsis of the victims and the appearance of order than the actual punishment of crime. However, just examine your own statement. The only thing stopping you from harming another person is fear of consequences? Seriously? That's either bullshit or you're a sociopath. Empathy is what stops people from doing horrible things.

I play games full of sexual slavery, mind control, incest and rape.
All to feed a desire to rule over woman, to dominate.

I highlighted this because I too am a sadist, so I wanted to highlight that at some point to make clear, I'm not condeming being into domination. However, I don't abide people talking about evolutionary psychology and the natural dominance of men uncritically. These things are, as someone else already pointed out, pseudo-science.

In real life doing any of the above things means i will kill you.
What seperate's humans from animals is our ability to control ourselves.
So yes there is a large amount of difference's between the kind of domination men seek.
But for most of us domination is at the very core of our prefert fetish.

Again, you make a statement without any sort of evidence to back that up. Moreover, you will kill whom? A random rapist? Who are you to kill that person?

That depends on how one defines 'suppressing'. Sure, they don't act on them, but that is largely because they are afraid of the consequences, rather than because they are successfully suppressing the desire itself. I think 'resisting' is the word you are looking for.

Also, of course, we don't suppress all of our animalistic impulses - only those where we foresee consequences we fear, and since a fear response is about as base and animalistic impulse as exists, that too is merely succumbing to our base impulses.

I quoted you here, Knight, because I find your acceptance of the uncritical view of "we 'resist' our darker impulses for fear of punishment" to be woefully incompatible with who I feel you are. Long before anyone ever gets to the point of considering the consequences of actions, we should have had several just, simple gut feelings as our empathy was telling us, nah man, this ain't it. Our society does tend to glorify the power of punitive measures to change people, but they don't. Punishment teaches us not to get caught, it does not rehabilitate us, and it does not act as a deterrent.

I got mine from years of reading up on human psychologie.
The need of men to be in control(aka dominate) is something that shows up in many different topic's.
It is never potrayed as bad just as a natural part of being a male.

This comes back to that Evo Psych question, are you an armchair psychologist, reading as uncritically as you view documentaries? There's a lot of bullshit out there that gets published. There's no section at the publisher's office that says "Hey there, let me fact check your book to make sure we're not selling lies." And that's not even just because the publisher wouldn't be willing to pay them, it's because such a job would be impossible to hire for. No one has the knowledge in every field to do that job.

Your data seems to be limted to people buying stuff.
There are alot of stuff that people use that arent legal.
Not to mention shared computer's, black markets, kill-these-people-on-sight rings, etc.

Your data seems to be nonexistent though. Sure, he hasn't provided sources either, but he's also not making blanket statements, just questioning your facts.

 

[RogueKnightUK]

I find your acceptance of the uncritical view of "we 'resist' our darker impulses for fear of punishment" to be woefully incompatible with who I feel you are. Long before anyone ever gets to the point of considering the consequences of actions, we should have had several just, simple gut feelings as our empathy was telling us, nah man, this ain't it. Our society does tend to glorify the power of punitive measures to change people, but they don't. Punishment teaches us not to get caught, it does not rehabilitate us, and it does not act as a deterrent.

Well, we were discussing instinct and impulses there, rather than higher-level consciousness exercises. The deepest part of our most instinctive nature is usually attributed to the amygdala (the small area of the brain closest to the spine that was the earliest form of brain and on top of which all else evolved). The amygdala is responsible for the 'fight or flight' response, one of the most powerful instincts we have.

The amygdala, due to its location, is sort of the first responder of the brain, being between the rest of the brain and the neural pathways to and from the body. Its responsibilities are often jokingly referred to as 'The 4 Fs':
Fear: (fight or flight are both tied to the same threat reaction) Do I fear this?
Food: Is this something I can eat and am I hungry enough to try?
Fornication: Can I fuck it?
Forget: None of the above? Let some other part of the brain deal with it, it means nothing to me.

In truth you can readily see that this is, in reality just 2 basic drives: fear and desire. When we are actually talking about baser instincts and cognitive function, all there is is fear and desire.

While other parts of the brain can, with effort and training, override the amygdala in terms of broad action, it is fairly unique in being much faster to start reacting, and while it can be overruled it is rarely silenced. That stirring of an erection that is wholly inappropriate (for whatever reason) is down to the amygdala sending "get ready for some action" signals to the sexual organs before the rest of the brain even got data to start processing. You may know with every part of your higher brain function that the food is not for you, but you salivate anyway, and guess which part of the brain sent your saliva glands that message, or started your belly growling...

Empathy is very much considered one of the higher functions of the psyche, and varies greatly from individual to individual. The common definition of a sociopath is someone without empathy, and there are a far greater number of sociopaths in any society than is generally realized. Anyone who looks at other people solely in terms of what they can get from them is high on the sociopathic scale. In our world, we have businesses treated as legal entities, such that a business as a whole can be held accountable for its actions by law as if it were a person. The 'corp' in Corporation comes from this fact. If businesses are actually looked at as individuals then their actions make them sociopaths.

Empathy is a very varied thing among humans, and generally far rarer than assumed or portrayed. In part that is because those who have empathy tend to believe everyone else has it. Meanwhile those lacking in empathy honestly believe they have as much of it as anyone else too, and others who may claim or be claimed to have more are just bleeding hearts and socialists.

 

[megaplayboy10k]

The model I have seen is: lizard brain, leopard brain, human brain. The amygdala is your lizard brain--the most primitive and primal drives and instincts. The leopard brain is a bit more sophisticated, but is still driven by emotions and instincts. The human brain is higher reasoning, creativity, empathy and the most complex emotional states.
I tend to feel that emotions have an internal logic of their own, and that reason without any emotion is inherently flawed just as pure emotion devoid of reason is flawed.

 

[Proto Persona]

It would be nice to see a mind control game with more nuance and subtlety in it. Perhaps early on you can give "nudges" to NPCs. Later you can manipulate or amplify their own urges and motives, alter their personality into something more pleasing but not ludicrously over the top (or have the ability to choose), or even give them a degree of agency in their own submission.

I think The Company does a pretty good job of "nudging" mind control. Though it has a few fetishes that aren't really mainstream.

 

[Segnbora]

Coudnt find them.

So the illusions you so firmly announced were your authoritative sources never actually existed. Got it. I mean, I already knew it, and so did you, but I appreciate your commitment to BS.

The show to which you linked didn't support a single one of your assertions, by the way. I'm not surprised by that either.

 

[DarthSeduction]

Empathy is a very varied thing among humans, and generally far rarer than assumed or portrayed. In part that is because those who have empathy tend to believe everyone else has it. Meanwhile those lacking in empathy honestly believe they have as much of it as anyone else too, and others who may claim or be claimed to have more are just bleeding hearts and socialists.

Empathy is relative, but what it's relative to is generally exposure. The more exposure you have to other people, other ideas, and other circumstances outside of your own, the more you have. The less exposure to others, the less experience with different circumstances from your own, the easier it is to see people through more prejudiced and therefore dehumanizing lenses, and not trigger empathetic responses. This is why your corporate entities, who's decision making is made largely by a sheltered wealthy elite, tend to be more sociopathic, because the decisions they make are about numbers, not people.

If I recall the statistic correctly, it's something like 1 in 100 are supposedly sociopaths, but it's 1 in 10 on wall street, or something, because sociopathic behavior is rewarded by the financial sector. One could extrapolate further to see how the rewarding of certain behaviors breeds people who behave that way in the first place, but that's a larger discussion.

It really bugs me when people think they can reduce us, as human beings, to the responses of our amygdala. And it kinda disgusts me when people boil things down to salivation or blood rushing to your penis as the deciding factors in how you behave. Doing this excuses and normalizes the abhorrent behavior of people, who because of the shelter their power over others brings, abuse people. We aren't just the lower functions, and to reduce our decision making down to that, even in the abstract, can and will be taken the wrong way by the types of people who do want to justify such behavior.

 

[RogueKnightUK]

Empathy is relative, but what it's relative to is generally exposure.

I'd love to see the scientific study that is from.

I mean, bear in mind that the most successful and widespread sociopaths are found in sales jobs (never caring about whether the person can really afford that bullshit credit scheme), in stockbroking (where every transaction is based on their networking and interpersonal skills), and of course C-suite executives (who generally get there by who they know, by networking with the 'right people', etc.) - in other words, the most successful known attractions/collections of sociopaths are usually in jobs that have the most exposure to other people.

Many things about the human psyche are not 'learned' by sheer exposure. For example, you can't change someone's gender preference by sending them to live in a community that has only another gender preference (though you can scare them into hiding their preference). What makes sociopaths a 'thing' that needed a label is that they often/usually have had plenty of exposure to the things that should have shown/taught empathy. Indeed, counselling and treatment has discovered they can't even be taught empathy by any means or program. It just isn't in them. Instead they are taught to recognise their limitation and to account for their bias with conscious effort. To fake it, or consider it, even if they can't feel it themselves.

To claim that it is just lack of exposure is both wrongful, and harmful, to all parties. Just as wrong as saying someone is gay because they didn't have a good male role model and it is the mother's fault, or that someone is just stupid for not being able to read easily and well, nothing to do with dyslexia.

 

[OhWee]

I miss the old days when this thread was fun to read, with lots of witty entertaining posts... nothing wrong with tropes, except when they are overused to an extreme.

Look, It's Her/him Again

DAZ3d and Honey Select have some wonderful character models. Some are so wonderful, they get reused over and over and over again. The "Balding Middle Aged White Guy with Facial Stubble" has been used to play the "bad guy" in Babysitter, the asshole boss in Lucky Mark, the rapist doctor in Life with Pleasure, the principal in School, Love & Cousins, and at least 2-3 other games whose names escape me. The Mom from Big Brother is also the Mom in Ways of Life and, with slight variations, appears in a couple other games as well. A couple Honey Select models are constantly reused in different games. Sometimes it seems like typecasting. Other times it looks like blatant plagiarism. I kinda feel like, if you're going to use a character model that's shown up in other games, at least change up their role and personality in the new game.

He has a name.

You must be registered to see the links

. Yeah he gets used a lot. He plays a nice guy in Dating My Daughter, though (Graham, father of Olivia - D and her dad meet them on a nude beach). He's also the perveted boss in Katie's Corruption. He tends to be put in 'corporate exec' roles quite often.

I tend to regard the 'more popular' models as actors and actresses playing various roles. If the look of the premade character fits the role the game creator has in mind... so yeah it's a casting call sorta thing. And if the game developer can't bother to signficantly customize these characters, and just uses the premade character, yeah in my mind they are fair game for recasting, as the game developer doesn't 'control' the copyright to that specific character model, the PA in/or the Daz (etc.) store does.

The problem with premade male models in Daz is that the female to male ratio is so high in the Daz store that there just aren't that many compelling male options. And on other sites offering Daz and Poser models as well. The ratio of premade characters available is around 3 females for every male. Sure, you can use morphs to modify existing characters and change them up a bit, but if you aren't the best at that you can end up with a weird looking characer that looks good from one angle but looks 'off' from another.

Anyways, short form, yeah the 'recycled' character roles thing qualifies as a trope. Russell as the middle aged perverted corporate type seems to happen a lot. And

You must be registered to see the links

seems to get used in the MILF role a lot. The George Clooney and Teri Hatcher of 3D porn...

Honorable mention to

You must be registered to see the links

Need a huge fat guy? George is here!

Spoiler: George nailing a hot chick

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Miloen]

Sorry for the off topic but which game is this from?

Kinda funny that OhWee posted that because me next one is:

Mind Control Isn't Rape:

View attachment 35030
Consent is a state of mind

So you've got your ladyfriend, sister, mother, aunt, cousin, neighbor and boss all riding the pleasure train with you as the conductor due to hypnosis, drugs, psychic abilities, ancient Eskimo magic, or the help of a demonic entity. Now a normie might just think that there is something morally wrong in taking advantage of someone clearly not in their right mind. Morals are for lesser people. You know better because you're just showing them all how much they wanted your dick in the first place. Even better, if they don't remember it happening due to being turned in to a sex doll it's a victimless crime anyway.

Examples include: Teacher's Pets (hey, she's your wife, drugging her for sex is FINE), Dreams of Desire (nearly everyone), The Artifact (Eskimo magic FTW), Lab Rats (drug them into submission), Glassix (Magic succubus glasses), Harem Villa (Magic Succubus), Superpowered (Break minds like they were made out of glass)

 

[DarthSeduction]

I mean, bear in mind that the most successful and widespread sociopaths are found in sales jobs (never caring about whether the person can really afford that bullshit credit scheme), in stockbroking (where every transaction is based on their networking and interpersonal skills), and of course C-suite executives (who generally get there by who they know, by networking with the 'right people', etc.) - in other words, the most successful known attractions/collections of sociopaths are usually in jobs that have the most exposure to other people.

But a sociopath is a fully grown person with a personality disorder already baked into the pie. That's as relevant as the fact that the moon isn't made of cheese. Sociopaths may not be born, but they are made, and much of what makes them is related to development, rather than anything that happens in their adult lives. If you've already got that disorder that doesn't mean that you're going to "treat it" when you start exposing yourself later in life.

Also, sales, socks, and executives are all job descriptions where the interactions with other people are purely adversarial. That's why sociopaths excel in them. The way that it is encouraged you interact with others is in taking advantage of them, manipulating them into deals that are beneficial to you and your company, rather than them and their personal needs and wants. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the rewarding nature of our current system to people with their disposition.

To claim that it is just lack of exposure is both wrongful, and harmful, to all parties. Just as wrong as saying someone is gay because they didn't have a good male role model and it is the mother's fault, or that someone is just stupid for not being able to read easily and well, nothing to do with dyslexia.

Everything I've ever read says that sociopaths are made, not born. What makes them varies, but its usually is something related to your upbringing. Neglectful or emotionally abusive parents, in particular during really early development, when the child needs the social interaction the most, can really stunt a person's development of empathy. I would assume that certain kinds of intense trauma, physical or psychological, might be able to screw things up as well, but again, this is a case of made, not born. If you've got information to prove otherwise, please provide it.

As to specific studies, I admit, I'm extrapolating. Do a search for the correlation between wealth and empathy, it will show that this idea of exposure to different people, ideas, and circumstances has an effect on empathy. If you grow up in a wealthy household, and then, growing up, only are exposed to other people who had similar experiences, and then when you're grown up, only interact with other people on the same professional level as you, you tend to not understand or care to understand how someone less fortunate than you struggles to even survive. But even if you're not born wealthy, it shows that time apart from that interaction with people who are less fortunate than you slowly desensitizes you.

 

[Dad of Boy]

TBH the most ridiculous trope seems to be "mom sees sons dick and cannot resist her primal urges."

Nobody actually thinks like this and while I get the appeal, I honestly just laugh at that dialogue most times.

 

[RogueKnightUK]

Everything I've ever read says that sociopaths are made, not born. What makes them varies, but its usually is something related to your upbringing. Neglectful or emotionally abusive parents, in particular during really early development, when the child needs the social interaction the most, can really stunt a person's development of empathy.

Ah, I think this is a case of the older definition, which regarded the levels of sociopath that tended to fall into psychiatric care for their actions, and thus is the most extreme cases. Those won't be the same sources that tell you that actually 10% of the population are far enough into the sociopathic spectrum to be classed as actual sociopaths, and as much as 30% of the population may have some mild sociopathic tendencies in regards to lack of empathy. As I think we've both alluded and know, there have been leaps and bounds made in neuroscience, which in turn have helped psychology to come a long way in the past few years. The huge commercial interest in AI right now is also feeding into a lot more research into what actual intelligence is, how the brain functions, etc.

One of the more interesting bits of research to come further to light in recent years is in how much less people actually think and reason than they assume and believe. Apparently, around 90% of the thinking we humans think we did, and we think we reasoned out, was actually decided immediately on instinct and learned response, and the brain activity after that immediate decision is all in rationalising it, rather then in being rational before it. Apparently it uses a lot less energy, since the part that rationalises is the part that makes a narrative for our memory anyway. The ability to take images inside a living functioning brain through modern scanners has completely revolutionized neuroscience, as mentioned.

One thing I can tell you from hard, practical experience, is that empathy is declining - or rather, that action based on it is. Years ago I had a job that made me a first responder to a wide variety of 'emergencies', frequently working alongside police, paramedics and the fire department. More and more incidents that happened in broad daylight, surrounded by witnesses, were simply ignored by the vast, vast majority.

In one incident a woman was harassed, bullied, and then assaulted by a man, and of some 300 potential witnesses who could not easily have failed to see and hear the commotion, less than 5 stepped forward as witnesses, and only one passer-by actually stepped in to make his presence visible to the attacker, letting him know there were witnesses and could be intervention. That's just one incident that is typical of dozens I personally saw, and is typical of most according to the police when they arrived.

I could give you dozens of other examples from my own personal experience, but I think it would be more effective to ask you to consider some of those you have probably seen. For example, there were a spate of videos widely circulating around social media after Trump was elected in which some outrageous racism was evident. There's a good chance you saw a few of these. In the majority, the incidents took place in a very public space, such as the main carpark at a mall, or a busy street, or a public park, and suddenly these became the most desolate places on earth. People literally ran away to hide and avoid the whole thing rather than take any part or interest in the spirit of their own communities.

You must be registered to see the links

- racist attack inside a store, but hey, at least the others in the queue 'looked embarrassed' about it, even if not one of them told her to STFU.

You must be registered to see the links

- many people working really, really hard to not be there and not have empathy.

Just a couple of thousands, of course.

Now, of course, this may be that fear was simply stronger than empathy and compassion. That people are more afraid of getting shouted at or embarrassed than they are concerned about and willing to simply be seen to be seeing. However, that in itself is a very germaine point about the relative weight of instincts such as the fight/flight response to threat against higher esoteric thinking about empathy and one's stake in being the community one wants to live in. After all, your original bone to pick with my comments was that suggesting higher functions don't take priority, that the base instincts of the amygdala don't in reality outvote any sane person ... from experience I tell you: every fucking day.

 

[DarthSeduction]

One thing I can tell you from hard, practical experience, is that empathy is declining - or rather, that action based on it is. Years ago I had a job that made me a first responder to a wide variety of 'emergencies', frequently working alongside police, paramedics and the fire department. More and more incidents that happened in broad daylight, surrounded by witnesses, were simply ignored by the vast, vast majority.

I mean, that's a phenomena that has a lot of different causes. The greater the number of people, the less likely any one is going to volunteer to be involved. I don't remember what it's actually called, but the same people, in a situation where they were alone, would do something where they wouldn't if there was a larger group of potential people to do something. Essentially what happens is a "Someone will do something" mentality.

Also, communities that don't trust the police for completely valid reasons are going to choose not to get involved. I mean, ignoring the social aspects of these complicated issues and boiling it all down to "do you have empathy" is not really accurate.

Now, of course, this may be that fear was simply stronger than empathy and compassion. That people are more afraid of getting shouted at or embarrassed than they are concerned about and willing to simply be seen to be seeing. However, that in itself is a very germaine point about the relative weight of instincts such as the fight/flight response to threat against higher esoteric thinking about empathy and one's stake in being the community one wants to live in. After all, your original bone to pick with my comments was that suggesting higher functions don't take priority, that the base instincts of the amygdala don't in reality outvote any sane person ... from experience I tell you: every fucking day.

This is gross oversimplification though. Sure, fear could be a factor, but it's a factor that is weighed against other psychological phenomena. You can't just say "Oh they were afraid that getting involved would harm them, so that means fear, and the lizard brain, won out," because it's not as simple as fear. There's social conditioning, a general distaste for "causing a scene", the aforementioned phenomena of people not speaking up in a group, etc etc etc.

 

[Akamari]

He has a name.

You must be registered to see the links

. Yeah he gets used a lot. He plays a nice guy in Dating My Daughter, though (Graham, father of Olivia - D and her dad meet them on a nude beach). He's also the perveted boss in Katie's Corruption. He tends to be put in 'corporate exec' roles quite often.

I tend to regard the 'more popular' models as actors and actresses playing various roles. If the look of the premade character fits the role the game creator has in mind... so yeah it's a casting call sorta thing. And if the game developer can't bother to signficantly customize these characters, and just uses the premade character, yeah in my mind they are fair game for recasting, as the game developer doesn't 'control' the copyright to that specific character model, the PA in/or the Daz (etc.) store does.

I have a cameo role for him in my project. He is, indeed, a corporate executive and gets asked some unpleasant questions about his past porn career. You actually gave me an idea for a thread with this, so thanks.

 

[RogueKnightUK]

I mean, that's a phenomena that has a lot of different causes. The greater the number of people, the less likely any one is going to volunteer to be involved. I don't remember what it's actually called, but the same people, in a situation where they were alone, would do something where they wouldn't if there was a larger group of potential people to do something. Essentially what happens is a "Someone will do something" mentality.

Also, communities that don't trust the police for completely valid reasons are going to choose not to get involved. I mean, ignoring the social aspects of these complicated issues and boiling it all down to "do you have empathy" is not really accurate.

This is gross oversimplification though. Sure, fear could be a factor, but it's a factor that is weighed against other psychological phenomena. You can't just say "Oh they were afraid that getting involved would harm them, so that means fear, and the lizard brain, won out," because it's not as simple as fear. There's social conditioning, a general distaste for "causing a scene", the aforementioned phenomena of people not speaking up in a group, etc etc etc.

You do realize that you've just said: it might not be that fear is stronger than empathy here - it might be fear of causing a scene, fear of crowds, fear of the police, fear of embarrassment, and fear of getting involved, right?

 

[megaplayboy10k]

When talking about the limited choices available at decision points in games, I keep thinking about a famous study entitled "7 things, plus or minus 2". Basically, it was a measurement of active memory. Generally people can remember a string of numbers or objects up to about 5-9 items reliably, then their memory falters. I think it's also applicable to decision-making and side-by-side comparisons of choices or options. The paradox of choice is, if you give someone too many options, it tends to paralyze them from making a decision.
Obviously there are design-based reasons for not giving too many choices(because they make the algorithm nightmarishly large and complex), but IRL there are also reasons for not giving too many choices. A, B, Both, Neither. You can have social interactions that A)generally improve stat X, B) generally improve stat Y, C) improve X and Y, D) improve neither but answer some plot question. A choice can be meaningful either in a "global" sense(it affects the game ending/path you get) or a "local" sense(it affects your interaction/progress in one specific area or with one specific person/character). Most games don't provide a lot of globally meaningful choices but do provide locally meaningful choices(you can choose which order to seduce characters in, and/or how to go about seducing them--woo, dominate, corrupt, enslave, etc.).

 

[RogueKnightUK]

He has a name.

You must be registered to see the links

.

But I always think of him as 'that one that looks a bit like Niko Bellac from Grand Theft Auto - at least with just a teeny bit of morphing. Never understood why he is so often cast as a villain.

 

[megaplayboy10k]

We Were So Poor, We Could Barely Afford to Live In this Tiny 5000 square foot Home

Apparently, DAZ3d et al don't have a lot of 3d scenery props related to living in modest circumstances, so every MC's home is gigantic and well-furnished, the kitchens have marble surfaces, double door refrigerators, every bed is a California King bed, etc. The home has a large bathroom, usually with a separate bath and shower. Sometimes the bath is jacuzzi/hot tub sized. Often there's a pool in the backyard, mainly as an excuse to show the female characters in skimpy swimsuits. The MC, who lives in a mini-mansion, has to get a part-time job to help pay the bills, since Dad's no longer around and Mom can't get it all done with her modest CEO salary(or whatever it is she does). Ironically, an impoverished or lower-middle class existence might actually make an incest scenario somewhat more plausible, since the stress level is higher, the living conditions might force greater intimacy, and so forth.
Examples too numerous to mention. The Visit has a particularly ludicrous home, though.

 

[DarthSeduction]

You do realize that you've just said: it might not be that fear is stronger than empathy here - it might be fear of causing a scene, fear of crowds, fear of the police, fear of embarrassment, and fear of getting involved, right?

Yay for reductionism. Fear, in that case, is not the fight or flight type fear response. It's a high level cognitive reasoning level of fear. This isn't reactive, it's logical conclusions about what may or may not be the appropriate response. Furthermore, you reduced the phenomena I mentioned, that in a crowd people are more likely to assume someone else will do something, to fear, when that's not at all what it is, it's more like a shifting of the burden of responsibility.