Actual reason, manners and principles often go out the window when you want to argue with someone you dislike.

I have a feeling that you've misattirbuted this, as I don't remember making that particular argument.

I suspected as much, especially given i was lumped into this, too, but figured it'd be more fun to give him the chance to shoot himself in the foot before saying as much. Could be a real reason, though, but such things people rarely change their minds on.

I'm not going to search the whole forum for a one-two-year-old topic to prove myself. But does your claim mean that currently, you aren't against straight people who complain about optional same-sex romances if those romances have an influence on the main part of the game (like providing a powerful companion who makes walkthrough easier)?

I don't know what the context is, but it sounds like you have an unrelated case to the topic at hand, and doubly so. Not only is this not sounding like a minigame, but it also sounds like it's pale in comparison to a weapon, armor, etc. What's the big idea, fox?

First, both cases (romance quests with sex cut-scenes and mini-game quests that require skills you are poor at) can be an unpleasant experience people complain about. And second, sex actually can be a mini-game. I think, in Fahrenheit it was.

Or are you talking about party companions? If they have special skills or are very powerful, they definitely can be more important than some weapon or armor.

Depends on the weapon or armor.

And i just realized that, unlike huniepop, this game does not appear to be censored. Or have the same warnings.

And it looks like a QTE game, so i'm not sure what companions are you'd be pulling from this. What game did you have to engage in gay sex in to get a powerful companion?

Well, I have no doubt that the one who is launching a fascist takeover of the gaming industry is also expressing a preference.

Thing is, while arguing about good game design has it's merit, I'm firmly believe that enjoyment of particular aspect of a game depends as much on that good game design as on the unique preferences of one playing it. So stating your own subjective preference while also trying to justify it without regards to others seems stupid to me.

I don't play games where I have to engage in gay sex, period. So I don't know how powerful or useful are companions there. I was talking about the principle in general - if the game has moments that are unpleasant for you, but you can beat the game without facing those moments, the presence of such moments is not "bad design". Regardless, if those unpleasant moments are mini-games that you are suck at or cut-scenes where you suck.
I didn't change my mind. I just think that you should practice what you preach. If a person denies others a right to complain about certain things, this person also shouldn't complain about the same things.

However, apparently dtgreene did change an opinion on the subject. If that's true, I'm ready to forget about her older preaching.

Given the point of a game is to entertain, i guess this could be true for a masochist. Yet, oddly, you're dodging the question. Usually minigames are at least perceived to attempt at making a pleasurable experience, while something where one might force a gay-sex minigame on someone else for a companion is not exactly what the average person would find pleasurable. Even a straight sex minigame to unlock a character would be offputting even to straight people, unless the game was explicitly about sex. Unless you have an actual example of this, it seems your case is flippant, rather than exemplary, and thus it entirely misses the point. Clearly such a thing, outside of a sexual game context, would be there most likely to unnerve someone regardless of orientation, so that would indeed be bad game design. Yet, this is how you defend minigames with similar outcomes that cross genres? Even those minigames at least are designed with the intent to amuse, so unless you have an example, i really don't think you've done your point of view much justice. So then i must ask, if this is your motive, why did you throw me specifically in there, and why did you explicitly throw "everyone else" in there, too? If your problem is with dtgreene, keep your point to that, otherwise you are clearly engaging in hypocrisy: you're taking the stance now that one shouldn't see off-kilter minigames as bad design, yet you've also stated that your main reason in stating this is that... you have a beef with dtgreene over a standard dtgreene created in the past of unpleasant gaming experiences and content. And given that you're motivated to point out this hypocrisy makes you a hypocrite in regards to being a hyprocrite. Which, of course, doesn't really support or discredit a given argument in general, but given our own personal standards and preferences are the basis for the argument (including your argument), you effectively delegitimize your own point in the exact same way you suggest dtgreene has.

And the worst part is, you continue after effectively admitting to this. Why engage in such sophistry? I can understand your have a beef with dtgreene, but perhaps you should keep your argument to dtgreene, instead of including me and everyone else in the doublethink.

Not sure this is a fact.

well, we are talking about something that would be preference, but there's obviously a number of reasons i've not stated 'cause i thought they'd be obvious:

-Religious inhibitions
-Moral inhibitions outside of strictly religious (especially if they have a significant other, especially one whom would be jealous)
-If they didn't find the characters appealing
-If, because it's straight sex, they don't see themselves as the other (dude for males, chick for females), thus it effectively being both gay and straight porn to them simultaneously

And i'm sure we could come up with a longer list if we really wanted to. The whole point being, sex in a game that happens to match the player's sexual preference might not necessarily be well received by the player regardless. I don't think GOG's censoring the games "for the children" here on gog.

Assumptions, but solid assumptions. 5.5/10.
My educated guess is that only points 3 and 4 really matter. All I will be be saying on the topic.

That's not the same topic. We're talking about mini-games here, not side events that aren't mini-games.

Point 2 was an issue for me for a game i got off gog. Turns out wasn't a big deal (as i naturally expected), but that didn't change the fact that i was offput by the whole scenario. Even point 1 got to me a little (largely because of point 2). 3 wasn't really a factor in my case 'cause i wasn't expecting a sex scene. 4th point, well, for me didn't come into paly because of the other points. Wasn't graphic in my case, but i was still off put that the game starts out with a sex scene and i totally wasn't expecting alot of sexuality in the game (sure was wrong, though). The game in question was Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. Not the only example, but one that is most likely to be understood on this forum. And, honestly, i thought it was in bad taste given there was no warning that the game would start off that way.