[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:59, topic:8535”]Just curious, does anyone in this thread think they’re making us [b]more[b] inclined to add this sort of thing?
If so, you might want to be aware that it’s having the opposite effect.[/quote]
So what exactly do you dislike about this thread?
As for interaction involving NPCs, I’d likely vote no. Aside from maybe having bandit NPCs threaten to do…things, but preferably after giving them the option to try and rob you instead of shooting on sight first. o3o
Rapist NPC bandits? GOD NO. Things like this make me more detached from this thread than ever - the only thing I’d [size=10pt]perhaps[/size] be okay with is the option to ‘play’ with other NPC’s if you’re good enough friends with them, increasing your morale. However, playing isn’t specifically specified as sexual intercourse, so other people could interpret it in different ways. Your prettiness would depend on the chance of playing.
You: Wanna Play?
Ben Dover: Mmk
After a short while: + 80 Morale
You: That was fun!
Ben Dover: Mmk
Ben Dover’s head explodes!
Dammit why can’t I do anything seriously. But you all get the idea… probably. The commands menu doesn’t go into any detail on how you play, it’s just a mystery. Like using the vibrator. It takes a few days before NPC’s can be played with again.
option to 'play' with other NPC's if you're good enough friends with them
Sorry, I cannot stop myself from posting this picture.
Dammit why can't I do anything seriously. But you all get the idea... probably. The commands menu doesn't go into any detail on how you play, it's just a mystery.
That reminds me how another roguelike - Elona - handles this (slightly NSFW).
Excuse me for interrupting your little squabble here, but did I just read a serious discussion over if “To Serve Man” is too sexist of book title for DDA?
That just tumbled by so nonchalantly I could only imagine you guys are joking around. But you aren’t are you? I know some of you got it bad about these kinds of things, but this is ridiculous. I think it would be best to just avoid this sex shit all together if you’re really so hard on about avoiding ‘sexism’ that references to old books are possibly too risky of giving the wrong impression of this game.
I’m just imagining the aneurism I’m going to get when I read the next ridiculous argument you people come up with when the subject actually involves something vaguely controversial. And god knows what kind of awkward aberration will be spawned so no one feels the horrible post-apocalyptic wasteland is too unwelcoming.
I mean things should be at least appropriately gritty, if not excessively so. This isn’t Cataclysm: Flowers and Sunshine Ahead. I’m not saying “add rapists and pedophiles”, I’m saying lighten up on the idealization of what is by definition an unideal situation.
Ultimately, it’ll depend on whether someone’s willing to code it and whether it adds something worthwhile to the game. Even if it doesn’t make it into mainline, there’s still plenty of room for someone to fork and compile it themselves.
Or did everyone forget the dildo mod?
You did.
Because someone brought it up, I asked for clarification, the raiser provided, and the general consensus seems to be that it’s not worth removing. I’m sympathetic to the annoyance at old-style use of “man” to mean humankind, but don’t feel the need to rework this part.
We don’t have to be happy with dissenting views, nor do they always prevail. But it’s good to at least check on problem reports.
And I’d point out that in the absence of zeds or other such immediate threats, the Cataclysm is really quite pleasant in the spring and summer, what with the bluebells, dahlias, poppies, datura, fruit trees blossoming, small woodland critters moving around, and the Sunny weather. (OK, so not at game start. 
)
Not every aspect of an apocalypse must be grim and dark. Some will be, yeah, but others will be enjoyable, and others kinda meh. Life works that way, and DDA simulates post-apoc life. (Some aspects are more or less cinematic than others, but the overall aim is fairly realistic.)
[quote=“Bonevomit, post:65, topic:8535”]Excuse me for interrupting your little squabble here, but did I just read a serious discussion over if “To Serve Man” is too sexist of book title for DDA?
That just tumbled by so nonchalantly I could only imagine you guys are joking around. But you aren’t are you? I know some of you got it bad about these kinds of things, but this is ridiculous. I think it would be best to just avoid this sex shit all together if you’re really so hard on about avoiding ‘sexism’ that references to old books are possibly too risky of giving the wrong impression of this game.
I’m just imagining the aneurism I’m going to get when I read the next ridiculous argument you people come up with when the subject actually involves something vaguely controversial. And god knows what kind of awkward aberration will be spawned so no one feels the horrible post-apocalyptic wasteland is too unwelcoming.
I mean things should be at least appropriately gritty, if not excessively so. This isn’t Cataclysm: Flowers and Sunshine Ahead. I’m not saying “add rapists and pedophiles”, I’m saying lighten up on the idealization of what is by definition an unideal situation.[/quote]
You’re all right.
All I could think when I saw the whole ‘To Serve Man is sexist’ comments was:
…Not sure why the discussion about this. The Devs have said no, so the solution if you really want this is: CODE IT YOURSELVES!
Simple enough deduction I do believe. On topic though, I’d prefer no explicit sexual content, for a couple of reasons.
One: It seems rather pointless to have in the game
Two: …you have a resource called the ‘internet’ for such content.
three: Some people (Myself being one) prefer games they play for general entertainment not to contain such content. It’s not that unreasonable a thing honestly.
[quote=“Jakers, post:63, topic:8535”]Rapist NPC bandits? GOD NO. Things like this make me more detached from this thread than ever - the only thing I’d [size=10pt]perhaps[/size] be okay with is the option to ‘play’ with other NPC’s if you’re good enough friends with them, increasing your morale. However, playing isn’t specifically specified as sexual intercourse, so other people could interpret it in different ways. Your prettiness would depend on the chance of playing.
You: Wanna Play?
Ben Dover: Mmk
After a short while: + 80 Morale
You: That was fun!
Ben Dover: Mmk
Ben Dover’s head explodes!
Dammit why can’t I do anything seriously. But you all get the idea… probably. The commands menu doesn’t go into any detail on how you play, it’s just a mystery. Like using the vibrator. It takes a few days before NPC’s can be played with again.[/quote]
Well, I would think actual rapist bandit NPCs would be pushing it, yes. Meant more like vague threats, keep it merely implied rather than made explicit. o3o
No, implying rape isn’t going to happen either.
[abbr=Protip: It won’t.]> Implying anything in this thread will ever make it into the game.[/abbr]
[quote=“Rivet, post:73, topic:8535”]
[abbr=Protip: It won’t.]> Implying anything in this thread will ever make it into the game.[/abbr][/quote]>Implying that implied implying of sexual content would be implied ingame with implications.
Ah i’m just kidding with ya.
Do note this thread is for discussing sexual content, explicit or not, so it takes suggestions both for and against as on topic.
Yes, I know the ‘proper’ lore… but this thread is positively farcical anyhow so I thought I’d point out the logical conclusion of this train without brakes.
Besides, in a purely meta sense plenty of nonsensical lore segments exist only to prop up odd bits of gameplay and code (bots targeting humans and ignoring zeds for example.) The question isn’t CAN lore or science be cast to support these design choices but SHOULD it?
The answer probably being that it would be a pain to code such interactions with any detail, only for it to divide the userbase.
Well, that and the fact it’d completely squash the “zombie apocalypse” theme of the game and just be flat out dumb. Also eould more drive out a large majority of players, not divide them.
I think I’m going to go watch a movie about a train with no brakes, instead of discussing logical conclusions. Snowpiercer is a really, really grim movie but I highly enjoyed it and am going back for details I overlooked the first time through.
Quite to the countrary. “Zombie apocalypse” scenario is different from “monster invasion” scenario. With “zombie apocalypse” zombies are not the main danger - they are slow, stupid, predicable and can be safely offed with minimal preparations. The main dangers (as so brilliantly demonstrated by “Random NPC+Cannibal+Psychopath” players =) are humans (and meta-humans) themselves. And their different interactions in extreme circumstances (fall of any and all large-scale civilization) do not “squash the “zombie apocalypse” theme” - they underline it.
pretty simple fact is that these ideas are not worth consideration at all until NPCs are fully integrated.
I fixed that for you.