i guess it's like gr 6 health class. Medicated, sterile and over-analysed?

Posted by: Girl_from_Mars on June 9, 2006 09:26 AM

To me sex will never be boring. It's all about imagination. Honestly, this thought I am about to write may make gamers mad but it's not designed to. I am a big fan for ratings on games. E, T, M, AO ect.

If these rating are enforced then game companies will be able to allow desingers and developers to flex their muscles. Meaning that sure you can put as much sex, violence, drug use, language, ect you want in your game. As a result you will then suffer the consequence of an AO or mature rating and at that point do you make the choice to sacrifice sales for artistic expression. Adult gamers will benefit in the long run.

I say allow the creators power to put in as much crap as they want. The esrb simply slaps the M or AO rating on games. Not all AO games would have to be porno things. AO could be that for different kind of things.

Maybe their should be a special nitch called pulp gaming.

Pulp, dealing with gritty and dark subject matter.

As far as sex in games. I don't see what the draw is. I mean I play a game like say King Kong because it is something that won't happen in real life.

Sex happens in real life. If as a society we become detached from real human emotions such as love and sex we will die. At the same token I see no reason not to have say a sexual cutscene or innuendo's in a game. If their is a reason for the sex in teh game. Perhaps it is to establish an emotional connection between two characters. This connection can affect how the player relates and could make those little moral choices in games more interesting as you actually care if your female sidekick lives or dies.

Who knows maybe you might even cry...

Posted by: undercoverrabbit on June 9, 2006 10:05 AM

It is because of one obvious reason.

I'm not there.

Posted by: qdot on June 9, 2006 01:57 PM

My theory is that, for most people, sex is about interaction with other people. In a video game context, it's about interaction with optional other people and a machine. I think that's going to require you to have the -and-a-machine fetish in order for it to be your cup of tea. If it is your fetish, more power to you (for I approve, in general, of fetishes that I do not share) but if it isn't, then I think you're always going to be at least partly weirded out by the presence of the machine - or, at least, being told what to do by a machine. I think you can almost assume "willing to play with machines" as a prerequisite for people who might be willing to play a participatory sex video game and play towards that particular kink. Perhaps the webcam is underused as an input device; interface a webcam with that game where you try to make a rabbit fly and you might be talking. (Or you might not, in practice, but it might be one way to explore.)

The only really interesting concepts I've seen to date (and, sadly, neither one does much for me, but I can still appreciate them from afar) are the Soggy Biscuit Game, which attempts to simulate partners for one type of m/m (actually here, m/m/m/m/m) play, and the Great Sex Games line-up for m/f and f/f couples who play around to lesser or greater extents.

Posted by: jiggery_pokery on June 9, 2006 02:30 PM

I contend that the people most likely to make a good sexually-themed game are probably the same people who make "normal" good games now (barring, of course, Japanese sexual fetishes which might not float with American audiences). Perhaps you were bored by too much talk about sex and its implications in electronic media and not enough talk about good interactive experiences.

I'm guessing the Ubisoft "Lapis" team wasn't there, right? A presentation of a concept like that has the potential to be interesting. Ubisoft knows how to make a game, and most of us already know something about sex. They focus on a point of interest and expand it into an immersive, interactive experience. It doesn't have to be explicit or graphic to be good.

So, if you don't have A-grade game designers talking sex, you pretty much just have regular people talking sex. And you probably don't want to hear what just anyone has to say about sex. You want to hear from people who love sex, love video games, and have creative ideas about both. That's entertainment.

Posted by: T. Holbrook Walker on June 10, 2006 10:26 PM

Well put. Both days I was really missing more game designers from the "regular" gaming industry. GTA San Andreas, Fahrenheit/Heavy Rain, Knights of the Old Republic - and many more games where romance and sex are part of the game, not the only objective.

I think the conference put too much of an emphasis on the other end of the spectrum - when placing objects at and/or in a virtual Jenna Jameson is the most popular feature, who needs deep, engrossing stories? Well, that would be me. Anyway, did you get any revelations on day two?

Posted by: ensignro on June 11, 2006 12:18 AM

The thing is, this was not a closed conference -- anyone could have attended. That no "mainstream" game designers applied to speak or decided to attend says something ... I'm just not sure what, yet.

Posted by: regina lynn on June 12, 2006 05:05 PM

The conference was about "the business of digital erotic entertainment" and for those of us in the business it was very sexy. We were there to talk shop, not get turned on. I really think that if you went expecting hotness that was sort of like going to GDC and expecting booth babes, game demos from all the big hits and... well, E3. Most of the GDC sessions would bore gamers *to tears* because they are about making and selling games, not playing them. :)

And as a piggyback on Regina's comment- the show had 3 of the 5 lecture/keynotes from MAINSTREAM game developers! It's true. Brenda Brathwaite has 23 years experience as a game designer, having worked on 21 published titles... only ONE of which was dealing specifically with a sex-themed license (Playboy the Mansion). Her Wizardry series of role-playing games won major awards and her association with sex in games only dates back to the 2004 release of the Playboy game which was actually a mainstream business tycoon sim about running the Heff empire.

Sheri Graner Ray was Senior Game Designer with Sony Online Entertainment... you don't get *that* job without paying your dues for several decades in mainstram games. She specializes in gender inclusiveness for game design with the tagline "what if your player is female?" and to my knowledge has never made a sexually-focused title.

Dave Taylor is reportedly working on a sex game now (woot) but his career goes back to Doom and Quake with Id... it doesn't get more mainstream than that. He is an engineer and unless you count building the engine to support Paul Steed's busty babe models as making a "sex-themed" game, then he too is almost completely associated with mainstream industry only.

Not one erotic game designer lectured at the whole conference. The panelists mostly have backgrounds in non-sex games as well! Jeb Havens works at First Playable (DS games, kids games, etc.), Brad Abrams (using his other name) has a background in children's media including Disney, Nickelodean, and PBS (he's a major media player but his unassuming manner had most 'journalists' pegging him for a sex game opportunist from the porn industry boonies... which couldn't be further from the man's experience and talent)... I could go on but the bottom line is that everyone there, myself included, has mainstream game or media entertainment experience, probably the majority of our work experience, training, etc. wasn't geared to this genre initially. From the outside, looking in, it's not easy to spot these trends but YES mainstream game designers are making sex games. :D

Posted by: kellyrued on June 19, 2006 04:04 AM