Erin VS Erin

56 views
Skip to first unread message

Wotan-Anubis

unread,
Jun 15, 2002, 2:07:03 PM6/15/02
to
Hey there,

After lurking for a pretty long and 'producing' three games, I thought
I'd finally stand up and say something as well.

Getting straight to the point, I first want to say that my latest game
'Dear Diary' was an almost direct response to 'Gamma Gals'. Though I
had been toying with the idea for some time, 'Gamma Gals' gave me the
reason to start working on it. Hell, 'Gamma Gals' was even the reason
why Erin was called Erin in 'Dear Diary'.

Why is all this, you may ask?

Well, in all fairness, I really enjoyed 'Gamma Gals', honestly. But,
in the end, it was little more than mere fucking. Sex for sex. Fun,
yes, but totally irrealistic. This attitude was personified in Erin,
the girlfriend who gets turned on when her boyfriend cheats on her.
So I created my own Erin, a girl who does not throw herself at the
first pussy that comes along.

So now I wonder, are there any other out there who sort of share this
view. That sex is OK, and a lot of it is also very good, but that it
shouldn't get TOO far out of hand. That there should be at least some
sort of emotional value, as slim as it may be.

Now I know I sound hypocritical. My own 'SilverWolf' can easily be
compared to 'Gamm Gals' when it comes to meaningless sex.

But still... What kind of game does the average AIF-player enjoy?
The games with lots of meaningless sex?
Or the games with lots of slightly less meaningless sex?


Wotan-Anubis


PS (and COMPLETELY unrelated): I don't know who said it, but I know
that he (I assume it's a he) said that 'Fucking Amal' is a simply
lesbian porn flick. I will not stand here and let one of my favourite
movies get insulted like that. 'Fucking Amal' is not about a girl
called Amal who gets fucked a lot. In fact, there is absolutely no
lesbian sex to be seen anywhere in the entire movie. There is 1
sex-scene (heterosexual) and 1 masturbation-scene. Both scenes are
completely off-screen.
So, calling it a lesbian porn flick is slightly irrealistic.
Furhtermore, the girls walking around in it are all really about 16
years old and not 32-year old silicon-dolls who hope they can pass for
20.
Sorry, needed to get that off my chest.

Christopher Cole

unread,
Jun 15, 2002, 2:51:45 PM6/15/02
to
On 15 Jun 2002 11:07:03 -0700, wotan_...@yahoo.com (Wotan-Anubis)
wrote:


>
>So now I wonder, are there any other out there who sort of share this
>view. That sex is OK, and a lot of it is also very good, but that it
>shouldn't get TOO far out of hand. That there should be at least some
>sort of emotional value, as slim as it may be.
>
>Now I know I sound hypocritical. My own 'SilverWolf' can easily be
>compared to 'Gamm Gals' when it comes to meaningless sex.
>
>But still... What kind of game does the average AIF-player enjoy?
>The games with lots of meaningless sex?
>Or the games with lots of slightly less meaningless sex?
>
>
>Wotan-Anubis
>

Well, I know that AIF can encompass more than just sex, but I play it
(and obviously write it) for the sex. Mindless, unrealistic sex. That
being said, some of my future games will have a little more going on.

As far as emotional/realistic stuff goes, I'm not looking for that in
AIF. My games (and games I enjoy playing) are more like XXX rated
films (lots of mindless, unrealistic sex), as opposed to NC-17/R rated
films (edited, sometimes emotional sex).

I think my preference can be summed up like this...I play AIF for the
sexual situations (mindless sex), not adult situations (violence, or
what have you).

Chris

Christopher Cole

unread,
Jun 15, 2002, 3:21:10 PM6/15/02
to
On 15 Jun 2002 11:07:03 -0700, wotan_...@yahoo.com (Wotan-Anubis)
wrote:


More thoughts...


>Hell, 'Gamma Gals' was even the reason
>why Erin was called Erin in 'Dear Diary'.
>

I wonder if they are any relation to the Erin in The Search? :)

>So now I wonder, are there any other out there who sort of share this
>view. That sex is OK, and a lot of it is also very good, but that it
>shouldn't get TOO far out of hand. That there should be at least some
>sort of emotional value, as slim as it may be.
>

I'd prefer there to be no emotional value. That begins to strike to
close to 'real life' and that's not why I play games.

Chris

PM Virgin

unread,
Jun 15, 2002, 3:46:27 PM6/15/02
to
Recently, Wotan-Anubis wrote:
[Snip]

> So now I wonder, are there any other out there who sort of
> share this view. That sex is OK, and a lot of it is also very
> good, but that it shouldn't get TOO far out of hand. That there
> should be at least some sort of emotional value, as slim as it
> may be.
[Snip]

> What kind of game does the average AIF-player enjoy?
> The games with lots of meaningless sex?
> Or the games with lots of slightly less meaningless sex?
It depends. In this environment, games with meaningless sex seem to flourish
into being more rapidly. And having a game to play is preferable to none. But,
since it is meaningless, I think I required a more varied selection of it.
However, given the choice, I think I'd prefer the sex to seem to have a
little more meaning - then, I don't think I would need as much (which is not to
say that more would be a bad thing).

Later, Chris Cole wrote:
> I'd prefer there to be no emotional value. That begins to strike
> to close to 'real life' and that's not why I play games.

If they were close to "real life", I don't think we'd be getting the sex at
all. I prefer to view the games with pseud-emotional value as being closer to
the "romantisized ideal".
PM Virgin
___________________________________________________________________
Abstinence makes the groin grow hornier...

NewKid

unread,
Jun 15, 2002, 4:35:22 PM6/15/02
to
In article <b2efc36d.02061...@posting.google.com>,
Wotan-Anubis <wotan_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> So now I wonder, are there any other out there who sort of share this
> view. That sex is OK, and a lot of it is also very good, but that it
> shouldn't get TOO far out of hand. That there should be at least some
> sort of emotional value, as slim as it may be.
>
> Now I know I sound hypocritical. My own 'SilverWolf' can easily be
> compared to 'Gamm Gals' when it comes to meaningless sex.
>
> But still... What kind of game does the average AIF-player enjoy?
> The games with lots of meaningless sex?
> Or the games with lots of slightly less meaningless sex?

I think that there were two axes of variance in AIF games:
The first is the Puzzle vs. Simulation Axis,
and the Second is the Recreational vs. Relationship sex.

The first responses I saw seemed to be concerned with the second.
Relationship sex is HARD to create folks, just like in real life, for
different reasons. I usually consider "meaningful" sex as having a
large emotional content. I usually, as a player, resist emotional
overtones. Let me produce my own emotions, thank you. It can be done,
but it is hard. I usually try to have at least one
character/target/object of desire in each game with whom I try to
produce a more "meaningful" interaction (Beverly, Wynne, Jane in my big
three), but I don't know how far in the "less meaningless" direction I
get.

To me, as a player, the first axis is more important. One of the first
reviews of my first game, STX, made a point of calling it a "GAME, not
just a random walk", or words to that effect. This matters to me, as
the challenge of fighting through to the ultimate aim (a sexual
rampage) makes the ultimae payoff more entertaining.

NewKid


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

DarkSeraph

unread,
Jun 15, 2002, 6:27:13 PM6/15/02
to
Wotan-Anubis wrote:

> But still... What kind of game does the average AIF-player enjoy?
> The games with lots of meaningless sex?
> Or the games with lots of slightly less meaningless sex?

I must admit, I like my AIF characters to have a bit of
personality and take some persuading before they start waving
their backsides lavisciously at me. Of course, the problem
is realism... even when reticent at first, something has to
move the game along - and inevitably the uninterested NPC
has to become a little sex demon. There's also the problem
of vocabulary. I'm still waiting for an AIF to be written
with the possibilities for interaction that one can get from
a good MUD. I like the ones that don't preachily refuse my
commands ("Now now! You don't want to do that!") but rather
apply some standard of consequence to them ("As you exit the
room, you hear the sound of Becky crying to someone over the
phone. Minutes later, two police officers arrive and haul
your ass off to jail.") I'd have to say that (for sheer
perverse plotline) my favourite AIF is still 'Rogue Cop',
with 'GNA' a close second, and 'One Girl' getting high
awards for interactivity. I prefer short script responses
to sexual actions that build on previous ones rather than
long 'scenes' and characters that remember your past
interactions with them. I have long been tinkering with
the notion of writing an AIF myself (most likely in TADS)
as I used to work in LPC for a MUD and figure if I'm going
to bitch about the lack of interactivity and thin plot lines
I could at least put my money where my mouth is and produce
one myself. However, I do appreciate the recent flood of
AIF games and applaud anybody who puts the time, effort,
and deeply sick and twisted mind to the task of entertaining
the rest of us poor slobs. ;)

> PS (and COMPLETELY unrelated): I don't know who said it,
> but I know that he (I assume it's a he) said that 'Fucking
> Amal' is a simply lesbian porn flick. I will not stand here
> and let one of my favourite movies get insulted like that.

LOL! That was me. I didn't realize that was actually
a *real* film. If its any consolation, I just needed a
setup for the "If you've seen one, you've seen 'Amal'" joke.

Nothing personal. ::chuckle::

- DarkSeraph

Timberwulf

unread,
Jun 15, 2002, 7:20:15 PM6/15/02
to
Christopher Cole <cjco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4o2nguge0vafrplh7...@4ax.com>...

I'm not so sure about meself. I enjoy the mindless ones (don't get
me wrong), but some mindless ones get on my nerves (the old AGT's give
and item and get laid things). I enjoy romantic more, I think. It's
a life thing [smiles at girlfriend] and a writing thing (I enjoy the
plot of the involved ones more and the suspence (who was it here who
loves excess suspense? I forget.) is good too. Anyway, I only have
one mindless (completely mindless) sex game on my lineup, so I may
dissapoint you, Chris. But don't worry, there's always plenty of
girls either way.

khel

unread,
Jun 15, 2002, 7:49:17 PM6/15/02
to
> But still... What kind of game does the average AIF-player enjoy?
> The games with lots of meaningless sex?
> Or the games with lots of slightly less meaningless sex?
>
>
> Wotan-Anubis

Personally (and cowardly) I like both kinds: AIF that's pretty much
all A, and AIF that's pretty much all IF with just a little A
(remember Phobos anyone?). As long as it's well-written. But if a game
is just plain "find girl, kiss girl, boff girl" that's pretty tedious.
The ideal, imho, is that an AIF game should be fun to play for the IF
as well as the A (anyone who's played OneGirl please feel free to
politely decline from mentioning it).

khel

Wiz

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 2:13:29 AM6/16/02
to
Well, I'd have to say, given the choice between what you seem to
consider "meaningful", and recreational sex such as one finds in Chris
Cole's games, I much prefer the recreational route myself, with as
little realism as possible. Why? Relationships in real life are
frequently painful and frustrating (in my experience, they all have
been, though I acknowledge that some are more fortunate than myself).
I don't like realism in what, to me, is a fantasy game to be played
for fun. I also cannot stand games that seem to give you some sort of
guilt trip for wanting to have fun with a woman without dealing as
much with consequences, or when the female characters act even more
"realistic" than they do in real life, such as in a scene like this:

female character: No, you can't fuck my tits. I won't get anything
out of it, therefore there's no reason for me to do so .

(hmm, ever hear of making your partner feel good? that is often its
own reward, I think. Also, when I had the pleasure of experiencing
this particular sex act for real, it was actually the idea of the
woman I was with, not mine. Was she unrealistic? Felt real to me.)

In any case, such a mercenary attitude in what I see as a sex
fantasy is quite jarring. And even if it's realism, why bother with
realism? Why not have fun, create some impossible or highly
implausible situations, and play around with it? I don't know, maybe
it's just a way of experimenting with sex in my head, without the
emotional and physical risks of real-life encounters. Maybe it's a
chance to explore my sexuality that I don't get in real life that
makes it fun, but whatever the reason, that's the way I feel about it.

I apologize if I have offended anyone, I just felt like expressing how
I feel on the topic, since you seemed to be wondering about us fans.
I've been a longtime player of AIF, and a sometime lurker here once I
found out about it, but never posted before.
In any case, to all of you who put forth the effort to make these fun
games, I also wanted to say thanks. Not everyone will like all of 'em,
but hey, can't please everyone.

On 15 Jun 2002 11:07:03 -0700, wotan_...@yahoo.com (Wotan-Anubis)
wrote:

>Hey there,

Wotan-Anubis

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 5:32:42 AM6/16/02
to
> I'd prefer there to be no emotional value. That begins to strike to
> close to 'real life' and that's not why I play games.


Yes, emotions are scary things. Like the emotion of feeling horny.
Really have to avoid that one ;).


But, honestly, no AIF game would really manage to even get close to
'real life', not even the already-legendary 'Townsville' will be able
to emulate 'real life'.
In my opinion, however, having something that looks just a little like
'real life' makes a game better, makes it stand out more between the
rest. Even when those games are crawling with vampires or dragons or
spaceships or whatever.
I mean, if you take away any form of something that might resemble
'real life', which you seem to prefer, it'd be nothing more than
'insert limb X into slot Y'. And then every game would be like 'One
Girl'. And 'One Girl' is a fun game for a while, but it gets really
old, really fast.
Well, that's my opinion anyway.

Wotan-Anubis

Wotan-Anubis

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 8:09:58 AM6/16/02
to
> or when the female characters act even more
> "realistic" than they do in real life, such as in a scene like this:
>
> female character: No, you can't fuck my tits. I won't get anything
> out of it, therefore there's no reason for me to do so .

One of my NPCs said something to extent once, true. But personally, I
don't really think this is "more realistic" as you put it. This too
falls under 'sex for sex'. The NPC only wants to have sex when it
satisfies her and doesn't give a damn about the player.

> (hmm, ever hear of making your partner feel good? that is often its
> own reward, I think. Also, when I had the pleasure of experiencing
> this particular sex act for real, it was actually the idea of the
> woman I was with, not mine. Was she unrealistic? Felt real to me.)

Nope. High grade realism here. I have no way of knowing the
circumstances here, but to me this seems more like sex out of love.
And I have never called that unrealistic. In fact I have made some
sort of a plea for more of it in AIF.
Unless, of course, the circumstances were a one-night stand, but I'm
assuming it wasn't.


Wotan-Anubis

Lost Weekend

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 9:57:56 AM6/16/02
to
wotan_...@yahoo.com (Wotan-Anubis) wrote in message news:<b2efc36d.02061...@posting.google.com>...

> So now I wonder, are there any other out there who sort of share this
> view. That sex is OK, and a lot of it is also very good, but that it
> shouldn't get TOO far out of hand. That there should be at least some
> sort of emotional value, as slim as it may be.

Brutally honest answer:

Attempt to provide emotional value, and it had better be damned
good. Faking meaningless sex is pretty easy for anyone who's either
watched enough porn or read "Sex for Dummies."

[Ja, such a book exists. Nein, I haven't bothered to read it. I
don't know that I like the idea of Dummies procreating.]

Add emotional content, though, and you don't just have to describe
physical goings on, but also write the description in such a way
that it impacts the player (no, "You feel so turned on," is not not
not enough).

Puzzles are also badly out of place. Using your "Dear Diary" as
the example, I had to jump through hoops to invite Erin to dinner
(in HER house, using her family's money for pizza!!!), guess how
to set the table, find the video, ask her to watch a movie (HER
movie, in her house, but she doesn't get to choose), guess that I'm
supposed to give her a flower, then find said flower (the
conservatory seems like a much better place to find such things, but
I digress). All this is done, and then I'm in complete control of
the sex act, and Erin just kind of sits there like a lump until
ordered.

The end result of this running around is that I was kind of left
feeling that the game wasn't all that different from the (get your
minds out of the gutters, people!) lock-and-key approach that is
quite common. In terms of gameplay, it didn't feel much different
then finding Shannon's bracelet, 'cept Erin wasn't nearly as much
fun after having the key slid into her lock (OK, put your minds
back in the gutter, it's actually pretty neat down here).

I'm not even sure I know WHY I asked Erin to dinner! Other than
Jeeves seemed to think it was a cool idea, of course. It's not
like Erin was showing me any interest. Maybe I was told I had
feelings for her but I forget because TELL never cuts as deep as
SHOW.

Not that it isn't a damn good game. The first-person, past-tense
perspective was interesting, and most of the writing was fairly
good. And it's fun. The real "flaw" if there is one is that it
didn't feel like anything other than "puzzles for (mostly)
recreational sex," despite the well-written ending.

I guess I better clarify the puzzle comments. Puzzles would be OK
if they came out of the plot. You could play hide-and-seek in the
dark and oops! Is that your breast? Sorry, ma'am. Gee, it took
you an awfully long time to pull away...? Okay it's a bad example.
It would draw attention to the interplay between the PC and NPC
though rather than the puzzle.

And it might give the PC a free grope while they're still in the
dark. Meaningless foreplay could do wonders for meaningful sex.

Okay. Rant over. Me like emotion. Me like escalating romance
(literary speak: rising action--no, not like that). Me no like
potato sack NPCs. Proactive woman is me kind. Me like speak like
this.

<Whack!>

Okay. Me stop now.

Kitten

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 12:39:00 PM6/16/02
to

"Wotan-Anubis" <wotan_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b2efc36d.02061...@posting.google.com...
<snip...>

> But still... What kind of game does the average AIF-player enjoy?
> The games with lots of meaningless sex?
> Or the games with lots of slightly less meaningless sex?
>
>
Damn. I read the start of this thread and decided to contribute my $0.02,
and then read all the way down the thread and found that Lost Weekend in
particular had said lots of things I wanted to say. But hey, that never
stopped me...

IMHO: for AIF, meaningless sex is fine - just as meaningless aggression is
fine in a wargame. It kind of goes with the territory.

Truly meaningful sex would be even better, but we ain't gonna get that
unless this community can discover how to make a step-change in both writing
and coding techniques.

After all, what is the *real* difference between a woman who will screw you
if you find her riding whip (Mustard in XClue) and a woman who will screw
you if you feed her a pizza (as LW points out, paid for with money stolen
from her parents!), swim and watch a film with her, and give her a flower
(Erin in Dear Diary)?

Wotan-Anubis: Dear Diary is a great game, and highly enjoyable. But you may
be deluding yourself if you think Erin in Dear Diary is really less of a
robotic sex-doll than Erin in Gamma Gals. The initiation sequence is more
complex and time-consuming, but it's still just pushin' buttons. I do
believe, though, that every robotic sex-doll in AIF ought to have at least
one button that needs pushing before delivering the goods. The more the
better. We have come a certain way from the early games where most of the
NPCs would succumb to the classic seduction technique of "x girl. fuck
girl." And we need to keep moving that way. So kudos, at the very least, for
making Erin harder to get than the average NPC.

Long term, it would be great if someone could write a game which modelled
the real-life process of falling in love with someone and mutually deciding
to have meaningful sex. The trouble is, most of the process would be
difficult to simulate in game format, and huge chunks of it would be either
tedious, or out of the player's control, or both. After all, the real-life
process is made up of all sorts of things, in themselves minor or
insignificant, highly idiosyncratic (what appeals to me about another human
being may not appeal to you, or to any randomly-chosen person in the street)
and fleeting. People appeal to us not just for what they do (the bit that
AIF can have a decent-ish stab at portraying), but also how they do it. And
also for things they don't do - it's not just in cliches that relationships
get strained by someone squeezing the toothpaste from the middle of the
tube. You can find someone totally unattractive until you catch them at
precisely *that* angle in *just* the proper light. A random, fugitive
expression or quirk of posture can melt your heart, but if you'd looked away
you would have missed it.

With the parsers we currently have (even TADS, which is impressively
versatile - can't speak of Inform, never tried to write in it), none of that
will be possible. Adrift certainly isn't sophisticated enough to model
"real-life" passion. For the moment, we are stuck with what we have. We have
to acknowledge that, in the state to which AIF has currently evolved, the
NPCs will inevitably still be "lock-key" puzzles, albeit - in the better
games - fairly complex and multi-step ones. The most we can do at this stage
is to try to make the locks and keys bear some tenuous narrative
relationship to a human situation. For example.....

In Dear Diary, the truly interesting puzzle IMO was working out that it
would be a good idea to give Erin a rose. Thereafter, the tedious business
of actually locating the rose and acquiring it was just mechanical and
uninvolving. Oddly, I disagree with others who say that the rose ought to
have been in the conservatory. NO. That would have led to the player
thinking of a rose as a key before identifying the lock (how to convey
affection to Erin). The fact that the rose is lurking unobtrusively in a
place whose overt raison d'etre is something else (just a convenient venue
to pay for the pizza, yeah? And everybody knows that in Adrift games
virtually every room has just one single purpose, yeah?) means that the
decision of what to do for Erin isn't too obvious.

Sadly, the other "human" decisions weren't so hard to arrive at. As LW
points out, the "dinner" idea gets handed to you on a plate (<vbg>), and the
actual mechanics of arranging the meal nearly made me put a fist through the
monitor. Deciding to watch that particular movie was fairly obvious,
especially if you'd caught the far-too-heavy hint on Erin's screensaver.

To conclude - it's all meaningless sex, but W-A is quite right in trying to
make it a little less automatic, and in trying to make the hoops you need to
jump through look a little bit more like a real-life seduction.

Galactic Hitchhiker

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 2:04:22 PM6/16/02
to
It sounds like this area of games might need a little artificial
intelligence soon. I'm guessing you can't do that with TADS or Adrift. You
would have to go back with the more "traditional" programming languages to
get this, but then that would make the games themselves harder to code. It
looks like we need a new programming language for AIF that incorporates all
the good things from the current game-focused languages (parser from TADS,
GUI from Adrift, etc.), and then be able to do coding in a language similar
to the "traditional" languages. The downside of this is that game coders
would still have to learn programming skills as well as AI skills. These
would be made easier with the GUI, but for more detail, you need to grit
your teeth and get dirty with the code. Sounds like an interesting
problem... And a difficult one as well. It would take a LONG time to get
this off the ground

Galactic Hitchhiker

Joanna

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 7:57:40 PM6/16/02
to
> But still... What kind of game does the average AIF-player enjoy?
> The games with lots of meaningless sex?
> Or the games with lots of slightly less meaningless sex?

For some reason, I have the impression that I may not be your average
player. Still, that doesn't have to stop me from stating my preferences,
does it? What I like (and please excuse me if I am being too predictable) is
the more 'emotional' thing, the thing with romance, rather that a house full
of puzzle-dolls that the player needs to score with. I loved Emma (and liked
afternoon visit). AIF like New Kid's and Scarlet Herring's I found amusing
too. Still, I prefer stuff like Adam H's series, as there is not just
romantic, but also dramatic stuff there (and wonderful tackiness). What I
like best is AIF which is a bit darker in character (Rogue Cop, Michael J.
Roberts 'Dessert', Depravity Bites, Chicks Dig Jerks, and the wonderfull
I-0). Unexpected stuff, even shocking at times, games in which the author
does something else beside serving the player the regular 6-girls in big
house on a platter. But then again, mine may well be a minority view.

And if there are any gay or bi would-be-AIF-writers out there, or just
writers who like to stretch their imaginations, do not hessitate to create a
male NPC every now and again. Would be interesting to experience for a
change (sulk).

Cheers,
Joanna


Wotan-Anubis

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 2:10:40 AM6/17/02
to
> Wotan-Anubis: Dear Diary is a great game, and highly enjoyable. But you may
> be deluding yourself if you think Erin in Dear Diary is really less of a
> robotic sex-doll than Erin in Gamma Gals. The initiation sequence is more
> complex and time-consuming, but it's still just pushin' buttons. I do
> believe, though, that every robotic sex-doll in AIF ought to have at least
> one button that needs pushing before delivering the goods. The more the
> better. We have come a certain way from the early games where most of the
> NPCs would succumb to the classic seduction technique of "x girl. fuck
> girl." And we need to keep moving that way. So kudos, at the very least, for
> making Erin harder to get than the average NPC.


If we're talking just puzzles, then yes. The game was hastily made
with ADRFIT, so great quality should not be expected. But that's not
the point here. I was talking about the writing itself.
In Gamma Gals why do you have sex with the NPCs? Just for the sex.
In Dear Diary you probably play the 'puzzles' to get right to the sex
as well. So objectionally there's really no difference there.
The difference, I think, comes when actually reading the scenes. The
scenes in DD are not like "Oh goodie, you've found my bracelet, how
could I ever repay you? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)"
In my (possibly delusion opinion) the scenes are more about the two
girls falling in love with each other, or at least, sharing
considerable affection/attraction. And then, when you give her the
rose there is an honest declaration of love (believe it or not) and
THEN you get to the sex.

So, if you're talking puzzles you could indeed say "Difference? What
difference?", but if you're talking writing (like I was), I still
think there is at least some difference.

Please feel free to prove me wrong and I'll try better next time.

Wotan-Anubis

Mister Spatula

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 4:15:09 AM6/17/02
to
A bit belated, I know. Due to the effort it is for me to fire up a Windows
session, I've gotten behind on the recent Adrift-flavored batch of released
AIF. So when Wotan-Anubis asked for comments, I had some incentive to go play
it.

On 16 Jun 2002 23:10:40 -0700, something made Wotan-Anubis blurt out:


>So, if you're talking puzzles you could indeed say "Difference? What
>difference?", but if you're talking writing (like I was), I still
>think there is at least some difference.
>
>Please feel free to prove me wrong and I'll try better next time.

No, you're absolutely right, but indeed, try better next time. As it is,
Dear Diary comes off pretty mediocre, but it makes your point; AIF with more
than Sex for Sex Sake _is_ possible.

Really, some of us try to look for the story when playing these AIFs, we're
not all cryptophiles. It's just that the story, the setup and the 'game'
combines rather less than optimal in "Dear Diary".

Things start to go wrong already in the the readme; the player is given the
_mission_ of "leading Samantha into the light and onto the road of lesbianism,
happiness and true love." So, here we have a game of convincing Samantha, with
the implied _result_ of a sexscene. ("scenes of an explicit sexual nature.")
Puzzle and reward.

But when you play the game, the puzzles aren't really about convincing Samantha
that staying in her ex-boyfriend's home might be a good idea, but a classic
game of hunting down objects and figuring out what they're for. Instead of
disctracting Samantha, it distracts the player.

Oh Well. You've proved your point to me, at least.

Kitten said:
>> Wotan-Anubis: Dear Diary is a great game, and highly enjoyable. But you may
>> be deluding yourself if you think Erin in Dear Diary is really less of a
>> robotic sex-doll than Erin in Gamma Gals.

Well, perhaps a better "robotic sex-doll" than Erin in Gamma Gals wasn't the
intention? The "meaningfull" in Meaningfull Sexscenes isn't something that can
come solely from inside the sexscene itself, it has to have someone for it
to mean anything to. So more work has to be put into story, character, theme
and mood. Ultimately the overall story is the objective, the player's reward,
not the single sexscene. In the story, it's Samantha's first time with a girl,
it's Samantha's first with Erin, it would mean a lot to her. If you think of
the Steamy Sex Scenes (SSS) as objective, and cut the sexscene with
Samantha/Erin out of it's story, and it just another meaningless act of sex.

--
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one
instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every
program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work.

Roman Levin

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 7:34:03 AM6/17/02
to
I'll have to say that I enjoyed Dear Diary much more than, say, the
Search, but I still think that Dear Diary was lacking in the sexual
department. It's still a pretty good game, though.

Shadow Wolf

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 12:06:03 PM6/17/02
to
"Galactic Hitchhiker" <emeri...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3d0c...@news.cmich.edu:

> It sounds like this area of games might need a little artificial
> intelligence soon. I'm guessing you can't do that with TADS or
> Adrift. You would have to go back with the more "traditional"
> programming languages to get this, but then that would make the games
> themselves harder to code. It looks like we need a new programming
> language for AIF that incorporates all the good things from the
> current game-focused languages (parser from TADS, GUI from Adrift,
> etc.), and then be able to do coding in a language similar to the
> "traditional" languages.

You don't need a new language -- TADS, both TADS 2 and TADS 3, is _already_
a complete programming language -- anything you can code in C/C++/Java, you
can code in TADS -- without any particular difficulty, as the syntaxes are
similar.

Inform is similar, but has to deal with the limitations of the Z machine
(unless you're using Glulxe).

> The downside of this is that game coders
> would still have to learn programming skills as well as AI skills.

These are necessary to build AI-type code in TADS, of course.

> These would be made easier with the GUI, but for more detail, you need
> to grit your teeth and get dirty with the code. Sounds like an
> interesting problem... And a difficult one as well. It would take a
> LONG time to get this off the ground
>
> Galactic Hitchhiker
>
>

--
Shadow Wolf

abo...@ns3.hcst.net

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 12:42:16 PM6/17/02
to
In article <b2efc36d.02061...@posting.google.com>,
wotan_...@yahoo.com says...

>So now I wonder, are there any other out there who sort of share this
>view. That sex is OK, and a lot of it is also very good, but that it
>shouldn't get TOO far out of hand. That there should be at least some
>sort of emotional value, as slim as it may be.
>

OK. I guess I'll throw my 2 cents in....

We're all different, so we all like different things. Some people (as is
obvious from the posts I read) like AIF like a porn movie. Cut to the chase,
and let's get busy! Some like it more drawn out, so you actually have to work
at it, with some emotional or relationship overtones to it. I think Emy
Discovers Life is the best example I've seen of this.

What about me? I like it both ways. (Now stop that! You know what I mean!)
Sometimes I'm in the mood for a good old fashion sex romp, sometimes I'm in
the mood for something drawn out. I don't think you can beat the photography
scenes with Wynne in Ideal High School for drawing out the sexual tension, and
for plain old "walk-in and have sex" I think Rogue Cop takes the top prize.

As a fledgling author, I try to incorporate both into my games (the only one
I've released so far is "Dexter Dixon....", but I'm in the midst of my second
game right now). I designed Stella and Roxy as pretty one-dimensional women,
but I tried to give Lily and Maia a little more in the way of emotional
overtones. Claudia you had to work at the most, and I hope you got the most
out of your interactions with her.

As some have pointed out, it is much easier to program a two-value logic into
a game (He/She will or He/she won't have sex) than to try to incorporate much
more complicated fuzzy logic (he/she might do this, but not that, and
especially not if you've tried to do something else first before he/she was
ready).

[scraping sound as soap box is pulled out]
I don't know if there is a need for a new language to incorporate AI. Having
programmed for almost 20 years, the one thing I've learned is that you can get
a computer to do just about anything, it's just a matter of how much time you
want to spend on your results. Is it really worth it spending the time and
energy developing a woman with whom you have to work just as hard to have sex
with as you do with the real thing? After all, the whole idea is some level of
escapism.
[scraping sound as soap box is put away]


Well, that's my opinion, and I've thrown it out there.

A. Bomire

Lost Weekend

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:50:45 PM6/17/02
to
"Galactic Hitchhiker" <emeri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3d0c...@news.cmich.edu>...

> It sounds like this area of games might need a little artificial
> intelligence soon. I'm guessing you can't do that with TADS or Adrift.

Other people have discussed the TADS/ADRIFT deal, so I won't bore you.
I will mention that someone wrote Eliza in Inform many moons ago, and
there's some nice "reactive planning" code out there for both TADS and
Inform, just so everyone isn't stuck on theory, tho'.

I AM going to pick on the AI idea, though.

I'm quite sure that AI NPCs would be a bad thing. Sorry, not "bad";
but "unhelpful." An NPC probably shouldn't care about effifient map
traversal ("who cares?"), recognizing faces (IF characters don't
have faces to recognize), or stacking blocks so they don't fall
over (NPCs shouldn't be exempt from "Towers of Hanoi puzzle shit").
AIF NPCs should be even LESS concerned about this stuff, since none
of the Erins are going to need to fight grues any time soon.

[Sorry if I messed up anybody's game idea!]

What an AIF NPC SHOULD (too...many...caps) be concerned with is
emotional state. First, does the girl think I, the player, am cute?
That's an easy one, and can be anything from a binary flag to a
percentage, to tie in with the AI(CRPG)F thread. Second, is the
girl "In the Mood"? Again, that's pretty easy. It might (and
should in AIF) change more often than #1. Third, have I managed to
"push her buttons"? This sounds either puzzley or boring, but it
probably doesn't have to be either. Teasing could play a big part
here and something like Eliza could drive her responses. Fourth,
have I managed to not portray myself as the wussy-boy that's
catering to her every whim and fated to be "just friends"? Well,
no sex tonight, buddy.

Let's see, anything else? Flirting with another girl (with the
action happening away from the main event) could make the original
girl jealous (in a good way) to the point where she starts making
the first move.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm! Maybe that's what's happening in all these sex-
fest AIFs. You boff Girl #1 because your girlfriend is "kinda bi,"
and she wanted to watch. Girl #1 talks to Girl #2, who gets hot
for you, cuz you're that good. You figure your relationship has
gotta be on the rocks, anyway, if your girlfriend is looking to
watch you with other girls, so you start making the rounds. At the
end, your girlfriend or the "main" girl hears all the rumors, and
she's jealous because you haven't been with her yet, so she stalks
you like an animal until you assfuck her.

It all makes SENSE now! *;>

Lost Weekend

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:50:46 PM6/17/02
to
"Galactic Hitchhiker" <emeri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3d0c...@news.cmich.edu>...
> It sounds like this area of games might need a little artificial
> intelligence soon. I'm guessing you can't do that with TADS or Adrift.

Other people have discussed the TADS/ADRIFT deal, so I won't bore you.

Lost Weekend

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:50:46 PM6/17/02
to
"Galactic Hitchhiker" <emeri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3d0c...@news.cmich.edu>...
> It sounds like this area of games might need a little artificial
> intelligence soon. I'm guessing you can't do that with TADS or Adrift.

Other people have discussed the TADS/ADRIFT deal, so I won't bore you.

Lost Weekend

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:51:05 PM6/17/02
to
"Galactic Hitchhiker" <emeri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3d0c...@news.cmich.edu>...
> It sounds like this area of games might need a little artificial
> intelligence soon. I'm guessing you can't do that with TADS or Adrift.

Other people have discussed the TADS/ADRIFT deal, so I won't bore you.

Lost Weekend

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:51:06 PM6/17/02
to
"Galactic Hitchhiker" <emeri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3d0c...@news.cmich.edu>...
> It sounds like this area of games might need a little artificial
> intelligence soon. I'm guessing you can't do that with TADS or Adrift.

Other people have discussed the TADS/ADRIFT deal, so I won't bore you.

Lost Weekend

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:51:12 PM6/17/02
to
"Galactic Hitchhiker" <emeri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3d0c...@news.cmich.edu>...
> It sounds like this area of games might need a little artificial
> intelligence soon. I'm guessing you can't do that with TADS or Adrift.

Other people have discussed the TADS/ADRIFT deal, so I won't bore you.

Kitten

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 4:23:19 PM6/17/02
to

"Wotan-Anubis" <wotan_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b2efc36d.02061...@posting.google.com...

<snip........>

> If we're talking just puzzles, then yes. The game was hastily made
> with ADRFIT, so great quality should not be expected. But that's not
> the point here. I was talking about the writing itself.
> In Gamma Gals why do you have sex with the NPCs? Just for the sex.
> In Dear Diary you probably play the 'puzzles' to get right to the sex
> as well. So objectionally there's really no difference there.
> The difference, I think, comes when actually reading the scenes. The
> scenes in DD are not like "Oh goodie, you've found my bracelet, how
> could I ever repay you? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)"
> In my (possibly delusion opinion) the scenes are more about the two
> girls falling in love with each other, or at least, sharing
> considerable affection/attraction. And then, when you give her the
> rose there is an honest declaration of love (believe it or not) and
> THEN you get to the sex.


Yes and no. I go along with you a great deal on this, but not the whole way.
I think the biggest difference between the DD and GG setups is this:-
While in both games there are tasks which have to be performed and are
rewarded with sex, the tasks in GG are expressly impersonal (there is no
suggestion that a relationship is being established or developed with any of
the women). In DD there is an *attempt* to set the tasks in the framework of
beginning and developing a relationship between the two girls. Nonetheless,
structurally they remain tasks to be met and rewarded with sex scenes. As
you righly say, it is the writing which is what matters in establishing any
qualitative difference between the two.

The problem is that being immersed in an AIF context makes that a very
difficult task. The diary, the first person historic viewpoint, all help
some. But not enough. I think what happened is you were trying too hard to
make it an AIF game, and ended up betraying what you wanted to do with the
writing. That's a nasty little pitfall which often bedevils IF, in my view.
Something like this ought perhaps to have been less interactive and more
fiction. Putting in so much of the "game" stuff actually undermines what you
were aiming at in the writing.

Take the diary device, for example. If this were a real teenager's diary,
and that teenager had been getting "weird fuzzy feelings" around someone,
there would have been a lot more backstory in the diary, so we would have
known a great deal more about Erin long before the point when Samantha first
enters the garden. As it is, the first we hear about these feelings is in a
diary entry allegedly about dumping the evil brother. This is almost
certainly a "game" decision, in order not to make it *too* obvious (for
those who had the self-control not to read the .txt file first!) that the
point of the game is to get it on with Erin. The unfortunate effect is to
distance the player from the emotional content. [Oh, it's Erik's sister.
Apparently she's quite pretty. It seems I get some odd feelings whenever I
see her. Well, that's nice. Better talk to her, then...] It also has the
effect of making the timescale of the emotional development seem very
telescoped.

Then there is the infamous dinner. Most people, if they have vague feelings
of attraction to someone, will want to get to know them better in the hope
that their thoughts and feelings will become more coherent. Sure enough. But
who would come up with the bizarre concept of stealing from that person's
parents, buying a take-away pizza and serving it up in the other person's
dining room after a frantic scavenger-hunt of the kitchen? This outlandish
scenario, by its very artificiality, kills stone dead any emotional
development being written into that part of the text. Not least because the
time and effort the player spends setting the table just swamps the bit of
the game where the PC actually sits and talk to Erin. [Phew, thank god for
that, I've got it all sorted. So I was right not to put the wine on the
table, but clearly I did need the cutlery. Oh, right, we've eaten the meal.
And it seems that I do fancy her and hope she fancies me. OK, what next?].

The biggest problem is that, in an attempt to keep it flowing like a game,
we end up being *told* what we (as Samantha) feel, rather than being *shown*
it. I for one would have been very happy to have had much longer cut-scenes
which talked about the feelings in sufficient detail to enable me to
empathise with them. The AIF quasi-standard - a screen and a half of text at
most before the next player prompt - was rushing you too much. I would have
gladly swapped the entire table-setting marathon for four solid screens of
dinner narrative which left me *feeling* that Samantha was having an
emotional development.

Also, the mechanical bits do tend to overshadow the human bits. That's part
of AIF as it currently stands. Which is why, as I mentioned in an earlier
post, I loved the "rose" part. For once the issue at hand was a human one: I
want to make some sort of gesture which will tell this person that I am
attracted to her, in a more romantic way than just saying so - what can I
do? Ok the answer's the oldest cliche in the book, but after all, how did it
get to be a cliche in the first place.....? If the game had been more biased
towards that sort of decision, and less towards (for example) working out
how to serve pizza in a strange house, the emotional direction of the
writing would have survived better.

As I said above, the problem you had was that there was too much interective
and not enough fiction. As a result, the writing began to look subordinate
to the puzzles, and people like me (rightly or wrongly) were left feeling
sad that it didn't get far enough away from "lock-key" AIF.

If you were to do a version 2, which had more diary (especially some
references - flashbacks if you will - to Samantha's earlier meetings with
Erin), had no frantic scavenger-hunting (the key thing dramatically is the
decision to invite Erin to dinner. The cut-scene can handle the minute
details), and spent more narrative time evoking the feelings (possibly a
personal preference, but you could make it a bit more visual - what did Erin
*look like* when she was eating. Believe me, Samantha would notice)...... if
you were to do that, you would have a potential classic on your hands.

> So, if you're talking puzzles you could indeed say "Difference? What
> difference?", but if you're talking writing (like I was), I still
> think there is at least some difference.

Like I say, the problem is that the puzzles just bury the writing.

> Please feel free to prove me wrong and I'll try better next time.

I don't think you were wrong, just nowhere near right enough. Any chance of
a text-heavy, puzzle-lite version 2?

Kitten


Themoleman

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 4:52:58 PM6/17/02
to
First to WA its very brave to stick your neck and defend your work. I know
I cringe everytime I hear criticisms of XClue -- Yeah -- thats me Im guilty
of creating the most puzzle oreiented game out there (How do you bake the
cake again?)

Why did I do so? Do I think think sex should be so shallow and meaningless?
NO! As someone else already sex, at its best, is about pleasing another
human being -- mentally emotionally and physically. Just MHO of course. If
you are out to just please yourself then its just masturbation.

However the interactions between 2 people are just too complex to model on
a computer, especially using tools like ADRIFT.

Thus I think it's harder, if not impossible, to portray meaningful sex than
it is to portray meaningless sex. I went with the later option.

I took meaningless sex because to me its impossible to have meaningful sex
with a computer game NPC.

Regardless though, I think its important that we create all types of games
(yes, I too loved the Diary Format of DD). People have different tastes,
that is obvious.

Perhaps I should try the meaningful sex option -- I did have an idea -- I
had some ideas on how to start one -- whaddya think :

1. You would gain points and arouse NPC's by doing things to him/her. And I
don't mean suck (insert name)'s tits. I mean true foreplay. Rubbing her
feat. Lighting candles, cooking her a meal, holding her hand etc. To prevent
the puzzzle effect NONE of these would be required to advance a sexual
situation.

2. On the opposite end of the spectrum. The NPC should lose interest in you
for certain acts. C'mon guys you know what turns women off -- Burping
farting, scratching etc.. Further if you sleep with another partner and they
find out -- You just dropped your arrousal score from 34 to -100!

3 Randomness -- Yup she has a headache tonight! As I said above people are
complex way to complex to model. As some of pointed out no matter how much
you try it always become perfom task A to get to task B. What if we cheat
though and added a randomness element. Then no matter what you do you may
not be able to have sex some nights or -- you may be forced to perfrom more
than you like... WARNING: Itried a random elemnt in Xclue and some hated
it.They felt like they were being robbed that I made it impossible to
perform all sex acts on all people.

4. Time -- sex rarely happens within the first 10 minutes you meet a person,
unless it involves transaction of money. There have been some attempts to
show progression of time --eg Memories are made of this. I suppose sex can
and does happen on the first date, but thats more casual sex. To be truely
meaning fully it woiuld take place weeks months years down the line. This I
believe can be accomplished with events that cut you from one time frame to
another and create the illusion of time gone by.

5. Immersion -- OK so with all these factors my fear would be that it
would boil down to the lowest common denominator. Something akin to -- RUB
FEET, CHECK AROUSAL SCORE, SLEEP FOR NIGHT, repeated ad nauseum. There are
many ways to overcomming this randomness as I mentioned above is key events
will hurt or hinder you and prevent any macroing you might devise. Secondly,
and MORE IMPORTANTLY, make the trip as exciting as the destination. In other
words dole out the rewards along the way. Don't just make one big reward
story at the end of the puzzle. Again I tried with Xclue to reward the
player, with small bits of text, audio and video along the way. Make the
foreplay exciting for the player and there will be no rush to finish it.

Anyway thats my ideas I wasn't planning on a game idea but -- hmmmm a
relationaship/sex simulator any thoughts?

The Mole

"Wotan-Anubis" <wotan_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b2efc36d.02061...@posting.google.com...

> Hey there,
>
>
>
> After lurking for a pretty long and 'producing' three games, I thought
> I'd finally stand up and say something as well.
>
> Getting straight to the point, I first want to say that my latest game
> 'Dear Diary' was an almost direct response to 'Gamma Gals'. Though I
> had been toying with the idea for some time, 'Gamma Gals' gave me the
> reason to start working on it. Hell, 'Gamma Gals' was even the reason
> why Erin was called Erin in 'Dear Diary'.
>
> Why is all this, you may ask?
>
> Well, in all fairness, I really enjoyed 'Gamma Gals', honestly. But,
> in the end, it was little more than mere fucking. Sex for sex. Fun,
> yes, but totally irrealistic. This attitude was personified in Erin,
> the girlfriend who gets turned on when her boyfriend cheats on her.
> So I created my own Erin, a girl who does not throw herself at the
> first pussy that comes along.
>

> So now I wonder, are there any other out there who sort of share this
> view. That sex is OK, and a lot of it is also very good, but that it
> shouldn't get TOO far out of hand. That there should be at least some
> sort of emotional value, as slim as it may be.
>

> Now I know I sound hypocritical. My own 'SilverWolf' can easily be
> compared to 'Gamm Gals' when it comes to meaningless sex.
>

> But still... What kind of game does the average AIF-player enjoy?
> The games with lots of meaningless sex?
> Or the games with lots of slightly less meaningless sex?
>
>

> Wotan-Anubis


>
>
>
>
> PS (and COMPLETELY unrelated): I don't know who said it, but I know
> that he (I assume it's a he) said that 'Fucking Amal' is a simply
> lesbian porn flick. I will not stand here and let one of my favourite

> movies get insulted like that. 'Fucking Amal' is not about a girl
> called Amal who gets fucked a lot. In fact, there is absolutely no
> lesbian sex to be seen anywhere in the entire movie. There is 1
> sex-scene (heterosexual) and 1 masturbation-scene. Both scenes are
> completely off-screen.
> So, calling it a lesbian porn flick is slightly irrealistic.
> Furhtermore, the girls walking around in it are all really about 16
> years old and not 32-year old silicon-dolls who hope they can pass for
> 20.
> Sorry, needed to get that off my chest.


khel

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 9:04:21 PM6/17/02
to
wotan_...@yahoo.com (Wotan-Anubis) wrote in message news:<b2efc36d.02061...@posting.google.com>...

> But, honestly, no AIF game would really manage to even get close to
> 'real life', not even the already-legendary 'Townsville' will be able
> to emulate 'real life'.
> In my opinion, however, having something that looks just a little like
> 'real life' makes a game better, makes it stand out more between the
> rest. Even when those games are crawling with vampires or dragons or
> spaceships or whatever.
> I mean, if you take away any form of something that might resemble
> 'real life', which you seem to prefer, it'd be nothing more than
> 'insert limb X into slot Y'. And then every game would be like 'One
> Girl'. And 'One Girl' is a fun game for a while, but it gets really
> old, really fast.
> Well, that's my opinion anyway.
>
> Wotan-Anubis

There really aren't any AIF games that are like real life, even
comparitively. OG is less interesting than some games because it skips
over the hunting-for-objects section of the game, which in some games
is completely detachable and has no real relationship with the sex
bits except to hinder the player from getting to them. The good AIF
games are the ones where the wandering-around-finding-objects aspect
meshes with the sex-scenes in some way more meaningful than "give
flowers to girl, kiss girl, fuck girl".
OG could have had the player wandering finding objects for half an
hour before you get the girl, but that wouldn't have made it more
realistic. You might as well just assume the player-character has been
through his labour of object-hunting and door-unlocking and the game
happens to open just after he's finished.

khel

Sustenus Paul

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 12:29:19 AM6/18/02
to
My take on sexual fiction in general: If the plot is poor I skim it to
get to the sex. If the plot is good I end up skimming the sex. I've
never really been able to enjoy both in the same session; I need to be
in a certain mindset for one or the other. The exception to this is
comedy. Sex comedies are loads of fun, because they couch the
essential jadedness of the protaganist. That's why Blow Job Drifter
is such a wonderful game.

Not to knock the godfather of IF, but the problem I've always had with
New Kid's games is the essential disparity between the hero being a
genuinely nice guy with the girls' best interests at heart and the
hero having lots of casual sex with women who presumably don't know
about each other. The only way to reconcile it in my mind is to take
each scene as a single autonomous entity and forget about any
overarching story. Which is pretty much what I do, but I'm sure I
lose some of the experience as a consequence.

The alternative, of course, is to focus the sex on a single subject
(or a very small number of subjects), but then you pretty much have to
make the sex a side-issue to the romance, and it ends up not being
what I signed on for. Emy avoided this for the most part, but I never
really saw what was so emotionally deep about Emy anyway.

This all means I largely prefer my sex as empty, pointless fun. To a
certain extent I'm drawn to games protaganists with no personality or
with a decidely selfish streak (like the various hero(in)es of Adam
Hendine's trilogy, or the aforementioned BJD). If I can get into that
mindset and get a bunch of women who I don't care enough to feel too
bad about "loving and leaving", then I'm happy.

The other side of the coin is that NPCs with some degree of depth and
personality make for exponentially more interesting sex. And if the
women are to some degree reluctant to give it up, it sweetens the deal
a bit as well. That which is difficult to acquire is valued more than
that which falls in (or on) your lap. So it's a balancing act of
sorts.

Normy17

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 1:00:40 AM6/18/02
to
Very good points by all here. Has anyone ever played Galatea? I'm sure Emily
Short would cringe if she found her game modeled for AIF, but her coding (in
TADS I believe) was an excellent portrayal of how emotions can pan out in
conversation and so forth.

Of course, Galatea was a one-room, one NPC game, and very complex at that. And
of course what one person would find a turn off would turn on someone else, and
often it can seem arbitrary.

With that said, creating a game where you have to fall in love with someone and
then have meaningful sex over time is near impossible. The purpose of IF is
more or less to "win" by "solving puzzles." There are exceptions, of course,
but w/o puzzles you have more or less Photopia which could work with AIF but is
probably not what most are looking for.

I agree with one comment made already in particular. I think creating the
emotional impact, or meaningfulness of the sex almost has to be done in the cut
scenes and atmosphere than in the puzzle solving for all the problems recently
mentioned (idiosyncraties, e.g.).

The PC could be married and have sex with their spouse and it could be
meaningful to the PC, but not necessarily to the player (if the NPC doesn't
appeal to them).

One could also have a series of chapters in which the player must first succeed
on asking a woman out on dates, then the dates themselves, then proposing, what
not, over a long period of time (with the game fast forwarding through real
time), to create an atmosphere of genuine love between the two lead characters.
Again you run into the problem of the player not finding the relationship
realistic or the characters appealing.

Straight meaningless sex is easy. I applaud the games like Ideal High which
are great puzzlefests by themselves and are also have good sex scenes. I also
applaud games like Dextor Dixon in where the sex is a backdrop to the story,
but still significant. I would be flabbergasted if one created a game which
had emotional impact as well.

Photopia almost brought me to tears, and other games have also stirred emotions
in me as well. Babel and Anchorhead got me afraid to turn off the lights. So
if emotional atmospheres can be created in regular IF, they can be created in
AIF as well. It would just take an excellent author and programmer to
integrate graphic sexual content with an excellent atmosphere without making it
tacky or unrealistic.

Some would make the point that the AIF community if for those who want to
escape with porn. It's likely true for most games; a lot are just like
interactive porn movies. It would be great if the community could encompass
more than just this. There's smut, there's sexless IF, and there's also an
area between which few have traveled and fewer have succeeded. Good luck to ye
all.

optimus

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 6:55:33 AM6/18/02
to
Dear Joanna

> For some reason, I have the impression that I may not be your average
> player.

Being someone who loves to point out the obvious - yes, you are
definitely not the averge player. The last time we surveyed, AIF
players tended to be male, 20+yo, etc. ;) But, as always, it is
welcome to have a female opinion!


> Still, that doesn't have to stop me from stating my preferences,
> does it? What I like (and please excuse me if I am being too predictable) is
> the more 'emotional' thing, the thing with romance, rather that a house full
> of puzzle-dolls that the player needs to score with. I loved Emma (and liked
> afternoon visit). AIF like New Kid's and Scarlet Herring's I found amusing
> too. Still, I prefer stuff like Adam H's series, as there is not just
> romantic, but also dramatic stuff there (and wonderful tackiness).

Just out of curiosity, how do the (predominantly) male-heterosexual
scenes resonate with you? Do you feel any interest at all, or are they
just another scene to skip through? - that may be why there really
isn't any apparent following of the female gender for AIF.

Guys, on the other hand, would be more than happy to play a female in
other to get it on with other females. Of course, reverese that
situation, and I think most (straight) guys like myself would be
extremely uncomfortable playing a gay PC.


Optimus

optimus

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 7:07:24 AM6/18/02
to
Dear AIFers,

My two cents worth.

1) I think it is too difficult to model a relationship/'realistic'
responses with IF, unless they are relayed through cut scenes, eg
Wynne in HI.

2) Most AIF, when it comes down to it, will still be along the lines
of 'find trigger', 'use trigger', 'have sex'. No matter how well it is
dressed up.

3) It doesn't really matter to me if it is 'meaningful' sex vs
'meaningless' sex.

What matters to me is the PLOT and the WRITING. Meaningless sex is
just fine if it's well written, or has a hook to it eg Silverwolf (
GNA too, actually - c'mon, how many women have you met would sleep
with you for giving her ice cream? ). Meaningful sex is great as long
as it doesn't detract from the sex - which is really the entire point
of AIF as it stands now.

But I couldn't care a whit about meaningless sex/meaningful sex if
it's poorly written, with few descriptions, little sexual content or
description, poor puzzles or -damn it- guess-the-word puzzles. ( the
last reason is why most of the ADRIFT games do not fare well with me
save for DD )

Optimus

PS So, do I get back any change in return?

Rap

unread,
Jun 19, 2002, 11:54:36 PM6/19/02
to
"Kitten" <an...@sbmpro.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<aeiekf$5ju$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...

> "Wotan-Anubis" <wotan_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b2efc36d.02061...@posting.google.com...
> <snip...>
> > But still... What kind of game does the average AIF-player enjoy?
> > The games with lots of meaningless sex?
> > Or the games with lots of slightly less meaningless sex?
> >
> >
> Damn. I read the start of this thread and decided to contribute my $0.02,
> and then read all the way down the thread and found that Lost Weekend in
> particular had said lots of things I wanted to say. But hey, that never
> stopped me...

Dude, that's at least .03 or .04.

(But if you've read any of my posts, you'll know I consider verbosity
a good thing...)

[It's good to see that in my absence, some EXTREMELY VERBOSE newbies
have shown up. It's great to see the discussions of what makes good
AIF, too.
I don't have the time to write everything I think here; check out some
of the
old threads on Google, or read WAIF.]



> Wotan-Anubis: Dear Diary is a great game, and highly enjoyable. But you may
> be deluding yourself if you think Erin in Dear Diary is really less of a
> robotic sex-doll than Erin in Gamma Gals. The initiation sequence is more
> complex and time-consuming, but it's still just pushin' buttons. I do
> believe, though, that every robotic sex-doll in AIF ought to have at least
> one button that needs pushing before delivering the goods. The more the
> better. We have come a certain way from the early games where most of the
> NPCs would succumb to the classic seduction technique of "x girl. fuck
> girl." And we need to keep moving that way. So kudos, at the very least, for
> making Erin harder to get than the average NPC.

I think we agxers have mostly come to an agreement that we don't care
if it's pushing buttons, as long as they're interesting buttons. We
don't need a perfect sim as long as pushing the buttons also, well,
pushes *our* buttons.



> Long term, it would be great if someone could write a game which modelled
> the real-life process of falling in love with someone and mutually deciding
> to have meaningful sex.

Bleah. Are we going to simulate helping her switch apartments, dealing
with your friends' gossiping, figuring out what to buy for her
birthday, dealing with her when she gets in a fight with her best
friend.... The whole point of doing this on the computer is to bypass
that stuff, and stick with the arousing stuff. I often relate AIF to
erotic fiction. I think the stories with no backplot at all are pretty
much useless (and not arousing either). But I've never gone for the
really deep stuff either. (Cf. old old agx discussions about "Literary
AIF".) I like the long stories that develop & have lots of foreplay,
some kind of connection with non-1D characters, a plot... hey! Sorta
like good AIF games!

> With the parsers we currently have none of that will be possible.

But luckily, we don't *want* it to be possible. I mean, heck, if we
wanted that, we could just turn off our computers and go outs--- into
the sunl--- No! I can't say it!



> In Dear Diary, the truly interesting puzzle IMO was working out that it
> would be a good idea to give Erin a rose.

Very good point. I say (or quote other people saying) a lot of things
in WAIF about good puzzles, but probably don't talk much about how the
solutions can actually be logical.



> To conclude - it's all meaningless sex, but W-A is quite right in trying to
> make it a little less automatic, and in trying to make the hoops you need to
> jump through look a little bit more like a real-life seduction.

... or a consistent yet totally unrealistic seduction.

Other mini-responses to other sub-threads:

- We usually assume NPC's (in e.g. HI) are like us: totally OK with
promiscuity & just out for a good time.

- You can have interesting, possibly even emotionally engaged sex,
without needing a falling-in-love sim. You can *like* NPCs based on
much shorter descriptions, and that plus horny bastard -> meaningless
sex -- meaningless but much more interesting than sex with multiple
completely colorless hardbodies.

- I am totally into puzzles. I've been arguing for years, though, that
you need to make them part of a (consistent, even if it's in a totally
unrealistic world) plot. And I've been saying that they're a really
good opportunity for foreplay/buildup of sexual tension.

Keep up those discussions!

-Rap

Kitten

unread,
Jun 20, 2002, 4:19:19 PM6/20/02
to
"Rap" <r...@cotse.com> wrote in message
news:7a62460e.02061...@posting.google.com...
<snip various stuff including Rap doing commercials for self ;-)>

> I think we agxers have mostly come to an agreement that we don't care
> if it's pushing buttons, as long as they're interesting buttons. We
> don't need a perfect sim as long as pushing the buttons also, well,
> pushes *our* buttons.

That seems open for renegotiation. Perhaps the group's growing up (I've
lurked here since the days when NewKid actually was one, and I agree that
some years back everyone seemed quite happy with a lot less. Also, since I
*have* read WAIF, I *know* that either you were playing devil's advocate
there, or you are here...<vbg> Certainly recent posts suggest that there's a
reasonable constituency out here who would like AIF to be a shade more
diverse).
My point is that the buttons could benefit from being more than just
interesting - it would be great if they also had a coherent role to play in
NPC character development.

> > Long term, it would be great if someone could write a game which
modelled
> > the real-life process of falling in love with someone and mutually
deciding
> > to have meaningful sex.
>
> Bleah. Are we going to simulate helping her switch apartments, dealing
> with your friends' gossiping, figuring out what to buy for her
> birthday, dealing with her when she gets in a fight with her best
> friend.... The whole point of doing this on the computer is to bypass
> that stuff, and stick with the arousing stuff.

Nope. It's *one* of the points *some* of the time. Also, did you not read my
very next sentence (snipped in your post)? I pointed out that most of such a
simulation would be either tedious, or out of the player's control, or both.
However the issue is that some aspects of real life, the ones which aren't
tedious and which the PC can influence, deserve to be modelled if we want
AIF not to be an adolescent ghetto.

>I often relate AIF to
> erotic fiction. I think the stories with no backplot at all are pretty
> much useless (and not arousing either). But I've never gone for the
> really deep stuff either. (Cf. old old agx discussions about "Literary
> AIF".) I like the long stories that develop & have lots of foreplay,
> some kind of connection with non-1D characters, a plot... hey! Sorta
> like good AIF games!

Now *that* is the point - AIF is a continuum. At one end there is the "meet
girl fuck girl" roboporn crap, at the other end there is detailed plot and
character development, and some emotional or empathetic content. It's simply
a question of where along the line you feel most comfortable sitting. In my
earlier post I said it "would be great if someone could write a game which
modelled the real-life process of falling in love..." I stick by that
statement - it would be great. It seems to be Wotan-Anubis' ambition, and
The Moleman looks to be quite interested too. As it happens, though, it
isn't anywhere near top of my wish-list.

Slightly higher on my wish-list would be to see NPCs behaving a lot more
like human beings. Perhaps I've been unlucky in life, but despite having
done minor trivial favours for complete strangers (finding items of lost
property for them, for example) I haven't discovered this turns them into
raging nymphomaniacs. I've had to do just a little bit more *for* them, and
*with* them, before they'll let me do things *to* them.... I think that's
what you mean by connecting with non-1D characters, and I agree. The more
dimensions the better.

> > With the parsers we currently have none of that will be possible.
>
> But luckily, we don't *want* it to be possible. I mean, heck, if we
> wanted that, we could just turn off our computers and go outs--- into
> the sunl--- No! I can't say it!

Defeatist twaddle! I mean, heck, if we really wanted to experience catharsis
and emotional involvement, we could just not bother reading, or watching
movies, or listening to music. High quality recreational pursuits benefit
hugely from mirroring, replicating or evoking real-life emotion and
experience. Just because something's on a computer and involves sex, it
doesn't have to stay at the level of downloading porn in a darkened room.

> > In Dear Diary, the truly interesting puzzle IMO was working out that it
> > would be a good idea to give Erin a rose.
>
> Very good point. I say (or quote other people saying) a lot of things
> in WAIF about good puzzles, but probably don't talk much about how the
> solutions can actually be logical.

Yeah, and not just the solutions. The point with the rose is that the
*problem* is logical, coherent and in context, as well as the answer. All
literature works quite well on cliches (who was it that said there are only
five distinct plots in all fiction?), and a rose is about as big a cliche as
there is. But in the context it was the right cliche, the one which made
sense on a game level and a human level. We're back to buttons - and given
the choice between "give lost bracelet to girl, fuck girl" and "give
internationally-recognised token of love to girl, fuck girl", which one has
greater mimesis?

> > To conclude - it's all meaningless sex, but W-A is quite right in trying
to
> > make it a little less automatic, and in trying to make the hoops you
need to
> > jump through look a little bit more like a real-life seduction.
>
> ... or a consistent yet totally unrealistic seduction.

Good point. We're back to the continuum here. No matter how good we get as
writers, there's always going to be a need for huge helpings of "suspension
of disbelief", and if we can't get realism, internal consistency will have
to do.

> Other mini-responses to other sub-threads:
>
> - We usually assume NPC's (in e.g. HI) are like us: totally OK with
> promiscuity & just out for a good time.

Agreed, but is that cause or effect? It's certainly easier to code someone
who's either permanently receptive or easily persuadable, and therefore most
NPCs fit that mould. In such a world, that assumption is the way to bet. But
what if there was a possibility of running into an NPC who was going to be
"hard work". We might have to change our assumptions, but would we mind?

In his annotations to chick.t, Newkid points out it would be fun to slip in
a totally unfuckable NPC who was otherwise indistinguishable from the
others. Even better, methinks, would be an NPC who isn't *totally*
unfuckable, just bloody difficult and requiring great ingenuity to crack. To
analogise with other kinds of computer game, it would be like the difference
between winning at "rookie" level and winning at "grand master" level...

> - You can have interesting, possibly even emotionally engaged sex,
> without needing a falling-in-love sim. You can *like* NPCs based on
> much shorter descriptions, and that plus horny bastard -> meaningless
> sex -- meaningless but much more interesting than sex with multiple
> completely colorless hardbodies.

Agreed. The continuum strikes again.


> - I am totally into puzzles. I've been arguing for years, though, that
> you need to make them part of a (consistent, even if it's in a totally
> unrealistic world) plot. And I've been saying that they're a really
> good opportunity for foreplay/buildup of sexual tension.

Amen to that, brother!

Christopher Cole

unread,
Jun 20, 2002, 5:12:49 PM6/20/02
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:19:19 +0100, "Kitten" <an...@sbmpro.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

<big snip>


>
>Slightly higher on my wish-list would be to see NPCs behaving a lot more
>like human beings. Perhaps I've been unlucky in life, but despite having
>done minor trivial favours for complete strangers (finding items of lost
>property for them, for example) I haven't discovered this turns them into
>raging nymphomaniacs. I've had to do just a little bit more *for* them, and
>*with* them, before they'll let me do things *to* them.... I think that's
>what you mean by connecting with non-1D characters, and I agree. The more
>dimensions the better.
>

I think the point is some of us don't want the more realistic NPCs (in
certain games). The reason I like an NPC that 'puts out' after finding
her bracelet is because it's exactly *unlike* real life (apart from a
few personal experiences in university). A game like Gamma Gals is
supposed to play like a porn movie, not real life.

Certain games set up a need for more 'realism', others do not. 'The
more dimenions the better' isn't necessarily true. If you want more
dimensions, don't play a game that says your girlfriend has invited
you over to screw the other girls in the house. The game is obviously
not going to offer many dimensions. As I stated above, it's really an
interactive porno. If you're not looking for an interactive porno,
don't play it. Judging from the emails I get, a lot of people love
that type of game (more than have been saying they don't here).

A game like Dear Diary is set up to have NPCs with a little more
dimension, and that's wonderful, no argument from me. But games like
Gamma Gals are set up to be a sex romp with few (if any) NPC
dimensions, and that's okay too.

Chris

Kitten

unread,
Jun 20, 2002, 6:03:27 PM6/20/02
to
"Christopher Cole" <cjco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qhg4huc1b6em9gpe2...@4ax.com...

> I think the point is some of us don't want the more realistic NPCs (in
> certain games). The reason I like an NPC that 'puts out' after finding
> her bracelet is because it's exactly *unlike* real life (apart from a
> few personal experiences in university). A game like Gamma Gals is
> supposed to play like a porn movie, not real life.

Yep. Agreed. What I am saying is that AIF is a broad church. There is room
for 1D (as Rap would define them) NPCs in one type of game. But there is
also a need for more "realistic" (in the sense of less like a porno movie -
if your student life has had porno-film-like moments, then I salute you, you
jammy bastard!) games, with more multi-dimensional characters.

> Certain games set up a need for more 'realism', others do not. 'The
> more dimenions the better' isn't necessarily true. If you want more
> dimensions, don't play a game that says your girlfriend has invited
> you over to screw the other girls in the house. The game is obviously
> not going to offer many dimensions. As I stated above, it's really an
> interactive porno. If you're not looking for an interactive porno,
> don't play it. Judging from the emails I get, a lot of people love
> that type of game (more than have been saying they don't here).

Again, I'm not saying that all games should move away from the
"single-handed" end of the spectrum. The idea is to get to a situation where
that isn't all that's on the menu. FWIW, I loved GG, and have played it more
than twice. But I appreciated that I wanted something else as well.

> A game like Dear Diary is set up to have NPCs with a little more
> dimension, and that's wonderful, no argument from me. But games like
> Gamma Gals are set up to be a sex romp with few (if any) NPC
> dimensions, and that's okay too.
>
> Chris

Never said it wasn't. Never will. Don't get touchy, Chris, you aren't being
attacked (not by me anyway). It's like films: I happen to think Citizen Kane
is one of the best films ever made. If I ever made a film, that's the sort
I'd like to try to make. However, when I want to veg out with a beer in
front of a video, I am quite likely to watch something like National
Lampoon's Animal House. God forbid I would ever try to make that sort of
film, though. All I am really saying is I hope that Hollywood never gets to
the stage when the option of making Kane ceases to be available, and *all*
they can ever make is Animal House.


Christopher Cole

unread,
Jun 20, 2002, 7:05:14 PM6/20/02
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:03:27 +0100, "Kitten" <an...@sbmpro.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

>"Christopher Cole" <cjco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:qhg4huc1b6em9gpe2...@4ax.com...
>> I think the point is some of us don't want the more realistic NPCs (in
>> certain games). The reason I like an NPC that 'puts out' after finding
>> her bracelet is because it's exactly *unlike* real life (apart from a
>> few personal experiences in university). A game like Gamma Gals is
>> supposed to play like a porn movie, not real life.
>
>Yep. Agreed. What I am saying is that AIF is a broad church. There is room
>for 1D (as Rap would define them) NPCs in one type of game. But there is
>also a need for more "realistic" (in the sense of less like a porno movie -
>if your student life has had porno-film-like moments, then I salute you, you
>jammy bastard!) games, with more multi-dimensional characters.

I agree that there is.

>
>> Certain games set up a need for more 'realism', others do not. 'The
>> more dimenions the better' isn't necessarily true. If you want more
>> dimensions, don't play a game that says your girlfriend has invited
>> you over to screw the other girls in the house. The game is obviously
>> not going to offer many dimensions. As I stated above, it's really an
>> interactive porno. If you're not looking for an interactive porno,
>> don't play it. Judging from the emails I get, a lot of people love
>> that type of game (more than have been saying they don't here).
>
>Again, I'm not saying that all games should move away from the
>"single-handed" end of the spectrum. The idea is to get to a situation where
>that isn't all that's on the menu. FWIW, I loved GG, and have played it more
>than twice. But I appreciated that I wanted something else as well.
>

I'm glad you liked GG, and I agree...I want there to be more on the
table than just GG-type games, although it did sound like these types
of games were getting a little dumped on.

>> A game like Dear Diary is set up to have NPCs with a little more
>> dimension, and that's wonderful, no argument from me. But games like
>> Gamma Gals are set up to be a sex romp with few (if any) NPC
>> dimensions, and that's okay too.
>>
>> Chris
>
>Never said it wasn't. Never will. Don't get touchy, Chris, you aren't being
>attacked (not by me anyway). It's like films: I happen to think Citizen Kane
>is one of the best films ever made. If I ever made a film, that's the sort
>I'd like to try to make. However, when I want to veg out with a beer in
>front of a video, I am quite likely to watch something like National
>Lampoon's Animal House. God forbid I would ever try to make that sort of
>film, though. All I am really saying is I hope that Hollywood never gets to
>the stage when the option of making Kane ceases to be available, and *all*
>they can ever make is Animal House.
>

I know I'm not being attacked, and I didn't mean it to sound that way.
I didn't mean to get touchy at all, I just felt like I had to stick up
for those types of games as all the discussion 'seemed' to be saying
that they aren't 'as good' as the other types of games. Just wanted to
make the point that they are a different type of game.

As another note, I'd like to mention that (whether I switch to TADS or
not) my future games will actually be more along the lines of what you
are talking about; more dimensional characters, sex but not
necessarily sexually motivated games. That's one of the main reasons
why I started my Encounter series - they'll be my mindless sex outlet,
and my "full length" games can start to explore AIF.

Chris

TheCycoONE

unread,
Jun 22, 2002, 3:34:18 PM6/22/02
to
<snippy>

Still, I prefer stuff like Adam H's series, as there is not just
> romantic, but also dramatic stuff there (and wonderful tackiness). What I
> like best is AIF which is a bit darker in character (Rogue Cop, Michael J.
> Roberts 'Dessert', Depravity Bites, Chicks Dig Jerks, and the wonderfull
> I-0). Unexpected stuff, even shocking at times, games in which the author
> does something else beside serving the player the regular 6-girls in big
> house on a platter. But then again, mine may well be a minority view.
>

So you want me to put Depravity Bites back on the CVTG? <smiles> I suppose
I could do that, not much TADS stuff out recently anyway. Though I didn't
like most of the games aforementioned, as the darker aspect doesn't quite
appeal to me, I'd like to thank you for bringing up Chicks Dig Jerks. I
didn't think the game felt complete to me, but the first section with all
the conversations ("I'm beyond Zork!") was great. The style was never
attempted again, and I wonder why. It'd be a great way to lead into one of
those meaningless sex games... to pick some random girl up in a bar by
talking right and if you don't get her their is always others!

> And if there are any gay or bi would-be-AIF-writers out there, or just
> writers who like to stretch their imaginations, do not hessitate to create
a
> male NPC every now and again. Would be interesting to experience for a
> change (sulk).

I agree... there would be an audience for MM sex scenes, I'm not into it
personally, but I know at least 2 people who would be very interested. If
we could have more females writing female oriented games then that'd be
great too, I've talked to a number of women very interested in the idea, but
it's not like I can just demand that authors get a sex change. (Chris... I
have a proclamation for you. <grins>)

<hi - Snip!>

TheCycoONE
cyc...@hotmail.com

Joanna

unread,
Jun 22, 2002, 10:56:20 PM6/22/02
to
> Just out of curiosity, how do the (predominantly) male-heterosexual
> scenes resonate with you? Do you feel any interest at all, or are they
> just another scene to skip through? - that may be why there really
> isn't any apparent following of the female gender for AIF.

Well, a scene with a male PC and a female NPC can be good for me. Just
imagine a scene in which you play a girl making out with some chap, like
Emmy making out with Sam (was it?) in Emmy discovers Life. That did not seem
to have bothered too many players, did it? I suppose long descriptions of
the guys anatomy might put you off. Actually, I think you have a valid
point:

> Guys, on the other hand, would be more than happy to play a female in
> other to get it on with other females. Of course, reverese that
> situation, and I think most (straight) guys like myself would be
> extremely uncomfortable playing a gay PC.

I think you are right. Like you say, most guys seem to have a certain mental
resistance to anything resembling gay sexuality (by which I do not mean to
say that they are prejudicedm just that it really puts them off). I think
girls don't really feel that way in general (at least I don't and I don't
think I have strong lesbian tendencies). Nothing especially off-putting
about an image of a girl stroking her breasts, for example. It can even be
stimulating, (empathy, I suppose) if it is not mere 'outward description'.
(Which is not to say that some hard-porn images don't gross me out. They
do.)

My guess is there must be a difference between male and female
heterosexuality, one that some evolutionary psychologist will probably find
some perfectly reasonable darwinian explanation for, at some point. But that
is for other newsgroups to debate.

Cheers,
Joanna


TheCycoONE

unread,
Jun 22, 2002, 11:31:53 PM6/22/02
to

> I think you are right. Like you say, most guys seem to have a certain
mental
> resistance to anything resembling gay sexuality (by which I do not mean to
> say that they are prejudicedm just that it really puts them off). I think
> girls don't really feel that way in general (at least I don't and I don't
> think I have strong lesbian tendencies). Nothing especially off-putting
> about an image of a girl stroking her breasts, for example. It can even be
> stimulating, (empathy, I suppose) if it is not mere 'outward description'.
> (Which is not to say that some hard-porn images don't gross me out. They
> do.)
>
> My guess is there must be a difference between male and female
> heterosexuality, one that some evolutionary psychologist will probably
find
> some perfectly reasonable darwinian explanation for, at some point. But
that
> is for other newsgroups to debate.

Hmm... to the extent of my sociological observations this doesn't seem to be
the case. It certainly isn't with all heterosexual guys, myself and some
friends of mine included. It does seem however that most men are less
likely to admit it then their female counterparts as we are less likely to
admit a wide range of emotion even though we experience them. eg. A guy
does not cry less often then a girl because he is hurt less, but because he
feels it unreasonable... indeed unsuitable to cry. A closer example comes
when asking a guy to identify which male in a picture is the hottest. Men
do not lack the ability to at least have some idea of which male is the best
looking, if we did we'd have no ability to look attractive ourselves, but
most men say, "Sorry, I don't judge guys." or some similar remark. They are
quite capable of doing so, but are afraid it would mark them as 'queer' or
something and most men are deftly afraid of that image.

To that end, if the man could get over his conscious, then it wouldn't
really matter what is being described so long as there were lots of
adjectives and they sounded somewhat sexy... similarly the sex scenes at
least for me don't have to involve what I could consider a beautiful women
so long as they describe it in redundant detail, make it clear that the PC
is having a good time, and never use negative words. (Negative being harsh
sounding words like 'Fat' or words which have an instant less then
attractive connotative meaning.)

Soo... I think if a man doesn't care that he's playing a work involving male
homosexuality, he'll find it just as exhilarating as any other piece of AIF.

Of course I'm speaking completely from my own understanding and
conversations I've had with close friends, this may not actually apply to
the general public at all... I guess I'll see what the reaction is, and be
honest... it's not like we know who you are anyway.

TheCycoONE
cyc...@hotmail.com

3D Master

unread,
Jun 23, 2002, 5:54:51 AM6/23/02
to

"Joanna" <joanna_...@zonnet.nl> schreef in bericht
news:af3cv4$2huv$1...@scavenger.euro.net...

> My guess is there must be a difference between male and female
> heterosexuality, one that some evolutionary psychologist will probably
find
> some perfectly reasonable darwinian explanation for, at some point. But
that
> is for other newsgroups to debate.
>
> Cheers,
> Joanna

Easy really: Men were the hunters, for tens of thousands of years we saw
each others' least lovable part: the predator, the killer, the destroyer.
While women, who went out looking for plants and fruits to eat and stayed at
the village taking care of the kids saw the most lovable parts of eachother:
the nurturing and loving side. The threshold for a man to have sex with
another guy, mostly instinctively seen as the killing partner just grew to
be much higher.

3D Master
~~~~~
"I've got something to say; it's better to burn out, than to fade away."

"Gimme some sugar, baby."
~~~~~


Joanna

unread,
Jun 24, 2002, 5:02:28 PM6/24/02
to
> Easy really: Men were the hunters, for tens of thousands of years we saw
> each others' least lovable part: the predator, the killer, the destroyer.
> While women, who went out looking for plants and fruits to eat and stayed
at
> the village taking care of the kids saw the most lovable parts of
eachother:
> the nurturing and loving side. The threshold for a man to have sex with
> another guy, mostly instinctively seen as the killing partner just grew to
> be much higher.

Yes, I thought as much. Always nice to have a grand theory of everything
handy, is it not?

Cheers,
Joanna


Joanna

unread,
Jun 24, 2002, 5:10:07 PM6/24/02
to
> when asking a guy to identify which male in a picture is the hottest. Men
> do not lack the ability to at least have some idea of which male is the
best
> looking, if we did we'd have no ability to look attractive ourselves, but
> most men say, "Sorry, I don't judge guys." or some similar remark. They
are
> quite capable of doing so, but are afraid it would mark them as 'queer' or
> something and most men are deftly afraid of that image.

Could be, but judging by the sheer horror some seem to experience when faced
with any kind of homosexuality, I doubt this explains all. The reaction
seems to be very primary with some guys I know.

> Soo... I think if a man doesn't care that he's playing a work involving
male
> homosexuality, he'll find it just as exhilarating as any other piece of
AIF.

I would some writers of AIF feel the same thing, though I won't keep my
hopes up (but rather keep on tinkering with my own project).

> the general public at all... I guess I'll see what the reaction is, and be
> honest... it's not like we know who you are anyway.

That's right, CycoOne, or shall I just call you Susan?

Cheers,
Joanna


Sustenus Paul

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 1:47:18 AM6/25/02
to
"Joanna" <joanna_...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:<af3cv4$2huv$1...@scavenger.euro.net>...

> I think you are right. Like you say, most guys seem to have a certain mental
> resistance to anything resembling gay sexuality (by which I do not mean to
> say that they are prejudicedm just that it really puts them off). I think
> girls don't really feel that way in general (at least I don't and I don't
> think I have strong lesbian tendencies). Nothing especially off-putting
> about an image of a girl stroking her breasts, for example. It can even be
> stimulating, (empathy, I suppose) if it is not mere 'outward description'.
> (Which is not to say that some hard-porn images don't gross me out. They
> do.)
>

Although I certainly don't presume to speak for the whole of my
gender, my official stance on male homosexuality is that it's... icky.
Which is funny, because I can actually acknowledge when another male
is good looking, and can even claim to have a "taste" as far as these
things go. But the actual act is just... well, icky.

I think it has to do with the fact that male mammalian genitalia is
easily the ugliest lump of flesh in all of creation. Honestly, I
don't even get why heterosexual porn aimed at men seems to be so
obsessed with it. Personally, I also think (all armchair
psychoanalysis aside) that this is where the lesbian fetish originally
came into being. Voyerism without the huge dongs staring you in the
face.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages