So... how many of you are fine with bestiality?

[MΛRCUS HΞLIUS]

Whether it is implied or explicitly shown, this game contains a scene where a person ♥♥♥♥♥ a bear. Is this a good thing? Should this be celebrated? Is this purely meant for comedic value? (along with the clowns in act 3)
What I seriously worry about is any argument that can be used to justify this kind of scene could potentially be used to justify one involving the depiction of a minor.

I personally think this is kind of thing is a waste of game development that could have been better spent on a few more meaningful dialogues... Like some platonic relationship options.

[Orion Invictus]

Cash a écrit :

Orion Invictus a écrit :

What does that say about you, then?

I dont know what does it say about me? I dont look at this stuff. I refuse to buy this because im against beastiality in my games and dont want to encourage it.

I mean, you're the one hyperfocusing on bestiality. In other words, you're getting bestiality out of it. So what does it say about you?

[Friends with Benedicts]

Cash a écrit :

Orion Invictus a écrit :

What does that say about you, then?

I dont know what does it say about me? I dont look at this stuff. I refuse to buy this because im against beastiality in my games and dont want to encourage it.

It says you probably are a murderer since you play games with murder. Or are you going to tell me you never played a game that has violence in it?

If an insane person irl mashed pissers with a bear I'd care much less than if someone beats his wife.

So yeah, the virtue signaling is completely hypocrite and contradictory in this case. Nor the "it's a crime" troll whistle.

[Cash]

Cash a écrit :

None of us would enjoy real war i suspect.

I had a similar conversation recently. Over the years i must have made thousands if not tens of thousands of simulated kills. Sometimes i wonder about myself for even enjoying that as a game. Not quite right is it? But its tolerable because its sanitised.

Edit: for the posts above. Past a certain point of realism it ceases to be tolerable.

[darthokkata]

Cash a écrit :

Grimmsch a écrit :

I don't understand that point of view and it is shifting responsibilities.

Sounds like conservative politicians that want to ban ego shooter for apparently leading to mass shootings ( which was scientifically debunked ).

When you kill people in games do they bleed out slow begging and crying? Or do they just fall over. The line has to be drawn somewhere and with AI generated images already here, there doesnt actually need to be any person involved in illegal porn any more.

None of us would enjoy real war i suspect.

Some games, yes.

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a good example of it.

It's rated M for a reason.

I'm not seeing how buggering a nature wizard pretending to be a bear in a game where you can shoot fire and turn invisible in your quest to get rid of an evil magic nightmare tadpole chilling out inside your skull is remotely close to the same thing as "depictions of real war".

This is not an issue with the game.

It's a PEBKAC error.

[Grimmsch]

Cash a écrit :

Cash a écrit :

None of us would enjoy real war i suspect.

I had a similar conversation recently. Over the years i must have made thousands if not tens of thousands of simulated kills. Sometimes i wonder about myself for even enjoying that as a game. Not quite right is it? But its tolerable because its sanitised.

Murdering thousands is ok because it is sanitized ?

But an implicit shapeshift into a bear transitioning into a squirrel dropping a nut.
Nothing explicit happening - is not sanitized ? Not ok ?

[Friends with Benedicts]

Cash a écrit :

Grimmsch a écrit :

I don't understand that point of view and it is shifting responsibilities.

Sounds like conservative politicians that want to ban ego shooter for apparently leading to mass shootings ( which was scientifically debunked ).

When you kill people in games do they bleed out slow begging and crying? Or do they just fall over. The line has to be drawn somewhere and with AI generated images already here, there doesnt actually need to be any person involved in illegal porn any more.

None of us would enjoy real war i suspect.

See how easy you contradict yourself? That's because you have no actual beliefs nor critical thinking went into this stance you take.

You just said murder in most games ain't nothin like real life because it lacks a lot of agonizing, pain, torture and sickness a real murder involves. But the same thing could be said for the bear sex scene. It lacked any depth of what an actual rape of a bear would look like (although I'll admit I've seen people dying on the internet, I've never seen a human have sex with a bear so I don't know how would that look like), and the camera even pans awya showing little to nothing happening.

So you basically just said that as murders have pretty cartoonish reactions and results, the bear scene is also far from reality therefore it's pretty okay to depict it

[Cash]

Grimmsch a écrit :

Cash a écrit :

I had a similar conversation recently. Over the years i must have made thousands if not tens of thousands of simulated kills. Sometimes i wonder about myself for even enjoying that as a game. Not quite right is it? But its tolerable because its sanitised.

Murdering thousands is ok because it is sanitized ?

But an implicit shapeshift into a bear transitioning into a squirrel dropping a nut.
Nothing explicit happening - is not sanitized ? Not ok ?

No and dont grasp at straws. Ever play TFC? Its not anything like real life. That bear is alot closer. So much so that the user can take what they want from it. Now i was trying not to talk about computer generated CP but you are pressing me.

Once its gone too far, its gone too far. Realistic beastiality is too far for me.

The makers of this game have foolishly opened this can of worms for a bit of free advertising or whatever reason. It should never have happpened.

[darthokkata]

Cash a écrit :

Grimmsch a écrit :

Murdering thousands is ok because it is sanitized ?

But an implicit shapeshift into a bear transitioning into a squirrel dropping a nut.
Nothing explicit happening - is not sanitized ? Not ok ?

No and dont grasp at straws. Ever play TFC? Its not anything like real life. That bear is alot closer. So much so that the user can take what they want from it. Now i was trying not to talk about computer generated CP but you are pressing me.

Once its gone too far, its gone too far. Realistic beastiality is too far for me.

Okay, you learn to cast fireball and turn into a cloud of mist to teleport across the room, and I'm sure everyone will acknowledge that the cartoon sex scene between a wildeshaped druid and metrosexual vampire is "too realistic".

[Cash]

darthokkata a écrit :

Cash a écrit :

No and dont grasp at straws. Ever play TFC? Its not anything like real life. That bear is alot closer. So much so that the user can take what they want from it. Now i was trying not to talk about computer generated CP but you are pressing me.

Once its gone too far, its gone too far. Realistic beastiality is too far for me.

Okay, you learn to cast fireball and turn into a cloud of mist to teleport across the room, and I'm sure everyone will acknowledge that the cartoon sex scene with a wildeshaped druid is "too realistic".

I didnt enjoy the hunting in RDR2. The game itself was engaging enough but every time i heard that sad groan i thought... why are you even playing this?

And even that was well sanitised wasnt it?

[Gaspard Savoureux]

It's a game, a video game, a RPG video game, who cares....

[darthokkata]

Cash a écrit :

darthokkata a écrit :

Okay, you learn to cast fireball and turn into a cloud of mist to teleport across the room, and I'm sure everyone will acknowledge that the cartoon sex scene with a wildeshaped druid is "too realistic".

I didnt enjoy the hunting in RDR2. The game itself was engaging enough but every time i heard that sad groan i thought... why are you even playing this?

Which, for lack of a better term, is a PEBKAC error, not a problem with the game that clearly discloses its content and has a very clear rating and description about what kind of content is involved.

This is a you issue, not a BG3 problem.

If you didn't buy it because of that, that's literally why that content warning exists.

It's a content "warning" specifically so people know what they're getting into so they can choose to not play something if they're not okay with it.

If someone buys it and is "surprised" by it, that's on them because that information was readily available and it's their own fault for not looking into it before buying the game.

The warning is there so you don't have to waste your time and money with something you don't want to play, and the devs have no obligation to cater to your personal tastes and alter their game so it suits you.

[FDru]

What makes bestiality wrong is that animals can't consent (by our standards of consent, anyway). So if that's all you're asking then that's your answer.

If you're asking if getting it on with a fictional human shifted into an animal form is bestiality I would ask if that person is actually an animal (albeit fictional) and can they consent? I would say no the first question and yes to the second.

In a world where animals are humanized to such a degree as they are in video games, cartoons, etc, would the conversation around bestiality be totally different? Obviously.

Lastly... if you're so concerned about the potential for animal exploitation from a scene in a game with a not even real animal (which is a huge stretch), go be one of the .00001% of people who actually give a ♥♥♥♥ enough to not use animal agriculture.... cause I promise you animals aren't consenting to the things we do to them before they end up in your sandwich.

[Friends with Benedicts]

FDru a écrit :

In a world where animals are humanized to such a degree as they are in video games, cartoons, etc, would the conversation around bestiality be totally different? Obviously.

its almost as if context bears actual weight when analyzing some controversy in a fictional media.

[robilar5500]

The OP bearly made it a couple hours w/o a ban.

[Nophex]

robilar5500 a écrit :

The OP bearly made it a couple hours w/o a ban.

It says more about unjust censorship than him.