Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pilsu]

Squeamishness might go over a bit better if you weren't playing a game where you can beat a baby to death with it's own arms.

[Dakk]

While I do like the idea of adding controversial features related stuff in DF, because it'd very very creepy stories to emerge from worldgen and give us a whole new level of cruelty to play with (like dumping a bunch of elven women in a pit full of demons and let them raep them till dawn to eventualy produce an army of elven demons), I think has stated his point regarding this some time ago. Hell, Toady even said he won't be adding sexual organs as a valid part of a creature's body.

I like the idea because I'm a weeaboo for http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Berserk.

[sproingie]

The bad things that can happen in DF are an emergent result.  Babies and kittens aren't special-cased, so all the ghastly things that *can* happen in a simulation that gets down to details like the melting point of one's own fat happen because it can happen to anybody.  The current behaviors of warrior mothers wearing their babies as shields and babies crawling off to die unloved and alone are disturbing, but they're more or less oversights, bugs of omission. 

Yes, blowing up a room full of lowercase 'c's is disturbingly fun, but it's an emergent behavior in the player.  The moment DF starts deliberately adding reprehensible behavior to become the FATAL of roguelikes (google "fatal rpg tvtropes" to see what I mean) is the day I quit playing for good.  But while I don't know Toady or Threetoe, I tend to think they're good people who do have pretty normal boundaries of decency, so I don't actually see DF going that way.

[Neonivek]

It would be a tough jump to get from controvercial to The FATAL of Roguelikes.

Though I perfectly understand what you mean. Going too far with including controvercial subjects will destroy the game because it is just tacked on or silly because it is just contovercial but didn't need to be implimented.

As for Controvercial one thing I think some people forget is that controvercial means that some people are against the notion.

That is the single most important reason why the game shouldn't include controvercial elements: Because they go against the wishes of some of the community itself.

Now don't go too far with my statement, of course the game cannot be everything to everyone and some things need to be included or excluded even if it would cause the community to lose members.

It is just that most of this discussion seems to forget this very fact. As if Controvery is some sort of spice.

How much of an improvement are we seeing with the people who would prefer rape to the people who would dislike it? Then how important to the game is the inclusion of Rape?

[SSBR]

sproingie, you really need to hang out on #python more.

That is the single most important reason why the game shouldn't include controvercial elements: Because they go against the wishes of some of the community itself.

Now don't go too far with my statement, of course the game cannot be everything to everyone and some things need to be included or excluded even if it would cause the community to lose members.

The two sentiments are pretty incompatible.

How much of an improvement are we seeing with the people who would prefer rape to the people who would dislike it? Then how important to the game is the inclusion of Rape?

Hah, that's a serious question?

Adding rape to DF would be absolutely out of the question, right now. Nobody misses it as a feature, so it's not like people are going to abandon DF as players if it doesn't get added. If it does get added, on the other hand, DF becomes an instant pariah among video games, alienating most of its userbase for the sake of a few. Probably many will soldier on, but the ability of DF to attract new players is compromised. Maybe DF wouldn't die, but it would be set back. Rape is a stupid feature, AFAICT nobody honestly suggested it, and that's not what this thread is really about anyway.

I think any human being must know at some level the reality that men (and people in general) are supposed to protect and serve women (and other individuals in general), not abuse them for their own desires. Any saying to the contrary is simply justification for selfishness.

I think you meant to say that people are supposed to protect people. Attaching genders and then afterward dismissing any possible accusations of sexism with "and people in general" and so on is a cheap trick, and doesn't make your post less offensive. Neither does your simple dismissive attitude towards selfishness, and in particular your dismissal of any opposition ("you're with us or against us", right?)-- a large number of people think that selfishness is in some way good-- it is the foundation of capitalism, the mechanism of evolution, and so on. The trick is that sometimes you can help yourself by helping others.

Most of these options seem like viable plot elements, if the goal is to create an immersive world for the player. I would really hope that no programming goes in to support the player committing sexual crimes, but a world completely lacking them will likely seem a little odd as DF becomes more complete.

For that kind of thing, honestly I think maybe you'd rather play Second Life. DF doesn't have an explicit goal of being a simulator of everything, and from what I can tell Toady has a few times rejected this as a primary goal. Not all simulations need be all-encompassing., nor can they be-- the more DF simulates, the slower it gets, until it's simulating individual particles and quantum effects, and you have 1 frame per 5300 years. If you want an immersive and complete world where any action is possible, Second Life and clones can do that, I think. It doesn't feeel like DF to me, it just feels like fluff. Given how long DF has been in development, it's ridiculous to prioritize something like simulating sex or rape over, say, allowing me to lay siege on goblin forts. You already agree with this, but you insist on discussing further. What more do you need? Obviously rape shouldn't be added to DF anytime soon, if ever, because there are so many more valuable things that allow so much more to be added to the tapestry of the world history.

I mean, sure, if Toady simulated every possible thing that could enhance the gameplay more than rape, maybe that would be an option. But that's enough stuff that I think we can just plain ignore it. For now, suggestions like that are mind-numbingly pointless.

[Dakk]

Maybe if we steered the discussion away from rape, things would develop better and not cause insane sexist arguments about how men are supposed to protect women just because and etc.

I'd love to see rather controversial stuff in legends anyway, I only used rape as an extreme example (carefuly stolen from berserk). I don't think it'd hurt that much if we saw assassination plots, slavery, cannibalism, and crazy wizard stuff, like butchering a whole village to make flesh golems or an army of zombies, or a crazed romantic wizard ressurecting his wife as a zombie and then getting eaten by her, etc. Rape was just a very extreme example that we see once in a while in D&D and general fantasy (the whole half orc race is said to have been created through the rape of village women by orcish raiders).

Adultery! Murder! Suicide! Slavery! Genocide! Racism! Infanticide! Torture! Drugs! Fanatism! Demon worship! Most of these exist in DF to a degree right now, and each could be expanded upon to make worldgen legends deeper and more interesting.

[GrafZeppelin]

The existence of Tentacle Demons implies rape, and the goblins kidnapping children implies some sort of slavery, although not at this point in the development of the game. At this point they just become citizens of that entity, but the Ethic for slavery may mean that it could one day be included.

On the other hand, rape at this point is pretty much unpossible, mostly because everything reproduces by spores.

Just keep that in mind.

[Cyx]

Now we are up against a very important point: other than creating a more complete medieval-fantasy world, are there purposes which sexual crime could serve in DF that aren't served just as well or better than other already present or less disturbing elements? For instance: hunting down a criminal who raped the mayor's daughter is not really any different than hunting a criminal who committed murder.

No it isn't. Also, having people wave their sword at one another until one of them hasn't got any health points left adresses the fighting issue in a less disturbing manner than being able to cut limbs or pierce organs, doesn't it ?
Details are important. Even when they aren't worth anything to the game - think current personalities - they can matter to the player. Rape, however, would naturally generate stories on top of adding flavour. Some of you seem to think that people actually advocate detailed sex. I don't think this is the case. You know how dwarves will probably just spend a bunch of frames in the same bed instead of reproducing by spore, some time in the future ? It wouldn't get any more detailed than this.
Now, Architect, you've already mentioned that something would be lacking if one day relationships, crossbreds and sex are implemented but rape isn't. I agree with you, and I don't think there is anything more to be said. Not a high priority at all, but once it's a few lines of codes away, no reason not to add it.

And SSBR, come on, as long as there isn't any kind of description, DF wouldn't become a pariah among anything, nor alienate anyone, and you know it. It's almost like saying that implementing gods will alienate religious people.


Now, to talk about something else. What would you guys think of being able to torture people in DF, as a way to get information as a human, or street cred as a goblin ? The mechanics already implemented would cover much of it. Does it cross the line ?

[jfs]

Sorry for keeping to the rape example, but it probably is about the easiest to exemplify.


So, a female member of a race develops a desire to have sex with a male of the same race. She meets someone random she doesn't know, on the road. She has sex with the other. Is it rape? Well, depends on a lot of things, it may be considered rape if there was no desire for sex in the male, but the society they are members of may not consider it a crime for whatever reason. That depends on the traits of that society.
Just consider that while it's almost universally considered a bad thing in all societies we know of, some behaviours may be expected in other societies. (Think "free love" movements, some ape societies, as examples.)

I don't see all of this controversial behaviour of game characters to be something that should be added explicitly, but rather I think it will naturally occur in the game as other elements are added to the game.
In fact, consider if there was an option, "I don't want <controversial thing> to happen in my world", then the game would actually need to do more work to check whether the thing is allowed inside the in-game society's rules.
Would you still see it as a bad thing happening if the in-game society accepted it while you didn't? I see it as a bad thing to artificially put limits on emergent behaviour, and any attempt to put in limits would probably end up leaky anyway: Some cases would slip through the filter.

[Dakk]

Yes, for the sake of details and the possible plot branches, thats why I condone the addition (or expansion) of rather controversial stuff. Like Cyx said, what is DF without its mind shattering ammount of details?

[SSBR]

And SSBR, come on, as long as there isn't any kind of description, DF wouldn't become a pariah among anything, nor alienate anyone, and you know it. It's almost like saying that implementing gods will alienate religious people.

Maybe you haven't had enough experience with Americans. Just let Fox News get its grip on DF. People start waving around the term "rape simulator" even when there is no rape, let alone when there is, regardless of whether it's actually simulated. Rape, in particular of children, appears to be the most offensive topic these days, and it really doesn't compare to putting gods in a game. Now, if you put gods in a game and games existed during the Inquisition era of Europe, it'd be a different story.

To be fair, DF is not a AAA game from a major studio. That doesn't mean that rape in video games is not one of the worst things you can do for your public image. I'm not really sure what you could do worse. Openly claiming to hate your users probably wouldn't even get you that much trouble. It's just a really, really bad move, from a PR perspective, and if it doesn't give you a gigantic black mark it's because few have noticed it yet.

Now, to talk about something else. What would you guys think of being able to torture people in DF, as a way to get information as a human, or street cred as a goblin ? The mechanics already implemented would cover much of it. Does it cross the line ?

One could implement "interrogation". People have imaginations, they can pretend their character is waterboarding the guy, or just performing a one man wear-down. If you want, during the interrogation you can beat the character up. Whatever. It's not a valuable feature, regardless.

edit: well, perhaps it'd be valuable in adventure mode, I don't know much about it. Surely there are other things that would do more to enhance the game?

In fact, consider if there was an option, "I don't want <controversial thing> to happen in my world", then the game would actually need to do more work to check whether the thing is allowed inside the in-game society's rules.

Damned straight. In particular, AFAIK Toady has made effort to prevent incest, since incest is a natural result of the simple rule "adult males and females can have children".

and any attempt to put in limits would probably end up leaky anyway: Some cases would slip through the filter.

Depends on the filter. It's quite easy to eliminate special cases, but if you want something broad and intangible you're in trouble. Rape (and incest) is easily prevented, instead of allowing the natural "force action" behavior (or whatever), special-case sex and make forcing impossible. No leaks, but certainly more work.

what is DF without its mind shattering ammount of details?

Newbie-friendly, for starters...

[Dakk]

what is DF without its mind shattering ammount of details?

Newbie-friendly, for starters...

You mean boring.

I'm a bit tired of seeing games that are newbie friendly from beggining to end. What will happen when said newbie ceases to be a newbie? He'll get bored to hell and seek something else.

Now, if you aren't a "special" fellow, it only takes a few days to get used to most of DF's main features. Don't dumb down the game for the sake of newbies, give them a tutorial instead.

Anyway, its Toady's game, he pays attention to our sugestions because we're the community and we donate. If Faux News decides to call it a genocide simulator, we'll just have yet another reason to laugh at them and Bill O'reily's silly rednecked rants.

[profit]

If half of these things were included the website would have to have adult verification, and the program would have to have parental controls and "Phone home" to bay12 to make sure the person using it was over 21.

The consequences for knowingly exposing a child under the age of 13 to anything that glorifies some of the things suggested in this thread vary from state to state, but most include imprisonment and compulsory enrollment as a sex offender.

Welcome to the united states of regulation.

PS it is legal to sell "bongs" over the internet in every state except one... Pensilvania, the DEA purposefully hounded a website into getting one shipped there, and then arrested Tommy Chong, the owner of the company for shipping it...  So dont think the government does not work to screw you at every single detail in your life...

Regan said it best... Government does not have solutions, Government IS the problem.

If toady considers any of this, he might want to have a fucking damn good lawyer on retention.

[SSBR]

re: profit: oh yay politics.

Now, if you aren't a "special" fellow, it only takes a few days to get used to most of DF's main features. Don't dumb down the game for the sake of newbies, give them a tutorial instead.

Sure, the learning curve is short, it's also quite steep. Now, before I get started, let's take it in context. I was responding to somebody that was justifying adding some silly feature that a few people might use but will probably clutter up gameplay slightly, making DF harder to handle. So when I say that a DF barren of complex features would be newbie-friendly, the point I am making is not that I want it to be barren of features, but that this new feature doesn't really help, while others (in fact, you just suggested one-- a tutorial) could-- I'm reminding you that DF is not very newbie friendly, and that's precisely because of this mind-shattering array of features. (A huge set of features is not an altogether positive thing, as this shows, so I wouldn't use it as justification, ever). In particular, I wished to imply that this relatively minor concern was in fact more significant to me than all the benefits that feature brought.

DF is actually kind of shallow in certain areas-- the newbie-stage is pretty much empty of content, and in terms of area of play there's tons that could be added with more significance, like is being done now. On a per-hour work level, I have no idea how it measures up, and I don't think I can, but I suspect it doesn't measure up there either.

[Vattic]

It's been mentioned already that the beating of children in game is a side effect of how the game handles creatures and combat. I don't think Toady spent any time specifically implementing violence against children. Alternately he'd of had to have spent time specifically removing it.

Personally I'd like to see certain controversial elements simply because lots of my favourite stories and legends contain these elements. I can understand why they are controversial though, they are used in stories because they are controversial. They make evil more evil and provide motivation for the good at the simple end of things.

There have been commercially successful games with controversial elements but no games, to my knowledge, as detailed as DF. Detail seems to be important and so I'd like to see lust in game as a motivator but the amount of detail needed to allow lust to have decent effect in the game world is questionable.

If toady considers any of this, he might want to have a fucking damn good lawyer on retention.

I wonder if he has had any problems over LCS.