Baldur's Gate 3

[rusty_shackleford]

do you have any IRL friends […] with […] women?

why would you do this?

[Norfleet]

Yea, imagine that! In a role-playing game, especially a fantasy one, those words might actually mean something.

Well, to be fair, your NPC never cheats on you during the course of that playthrough. If you rewind time and make an entirely different character that does entirely different things, why SHOULDN'T the timeline be changed?

In that case, you're either a mentally castrated, demasculated ****, or someone who simply can't immerse themselves in a role-playing game. I'm not sure which is worse. Let me tell you a secret: even so called "shippers," most of whom are women, inevitably self-insert themselves into one of the characters. Why don't they do this with their own main character? For the same reason they love Yaoi: "safety sexuality."

Look, the only shippers I know about are things like UPS, FedEx, and DHL. I'm pretty sure that isn't what you're talking about, so I'm completely lost here. Why do YOU know anything about this weirdness? Do you have something you're hiding here?

So what does that really mean? Oh, it means they want all the intense emotional experience, the drama, the passion, and the romance, but without, you know, any of that personal responsibility. When they "ship" two characters, especially in some homo-pairing, they get to bask in the "thrill" of the relationship from a "safe" distance. There's absolutely no pressure for them to do something, no direct responsibility for how things turn out, and certainly no "danger" to their holy vagina.

And what does this have to do with anything?

So If you enjoy watching the romantic relationships of two characters, but not as a detached observer – rather, as a third character intimately close to them – then I've got bad news for you, mate. That means you've bought into this very mentality.

I'm always a detached observer. What part of "I am breeding characters so I can create superhumans to use as my party members" says "romantic" or "intimate"?

It's not about genuine engagement with the narrative; it's about voyeuristic projection. You're not appreciating a story; you're inserting yourself as a pseudo-participant, a emotional parasite feeding off the fictional intimacy of others. This isn't deep empathy or immersion; it's a desire for proximity to passion without any of the personal risk or character development. You're effectively an uninvited guest at an emotional banquet, deriving vicarious satisfaction from a connection that isn't, and can't be, yours. It reduces complex character dynamics to a mere spectacle for your own emotional consumption, completely missing the point of true narrative engagement.

BLAH BLAH BLAH WORDS WORDS WORDS

Look, the only words I want to hear here is "Kwisatz Haderach". The only purpose of a "romantic relationship" is to breed genetically superior ubermensch.

So why should any of this even be in a game? Why would developers waste time, effort, and energy on designing elaborate love lines where the main character isn't even involved? Why shatter a player's impression of a character (and let's be real, everyone has a different take on them) by forcing some specific behavior pattern and pairing them with another character?

Who said anything about forcing? Let the player decide.

Just for the sake of a breeder simulator?

Yes.

[Trickster]

@Trickster, do you have any IRL friends who are in happy relationships with pleasant women? Are you happy for them? Or do you secretly seethe and covet their gfs, like a real-life Wormtongue except probably not as handsome or successful?

False analogies? Seriously? It's incredible how stupid you are.

I just love this: "ACTUALLY, CHUD, YOU DON'T OWN EVERY WOMEN IN THE WORLD! W...HAT ABOUT REAL LIFE!? IT'S A DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC POWER FANTASY TO ASSUME VIRTUAL CHARACTERS, ANIMATED SOLELY FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT, SHOULD CATER TO YOUR WHIMS!"

The problem is that, unlike real life, in a game, you are the center of the universe. You are the avatar of a god. The game world is a playground for your entertainment. And yes, you own all the female characters. Soyjaks like you try to fight this with their "OOOH, THE PLAYER IS JUST ONE AMONG MANY IN A LIVING WORLD! CHARACTERS AREN'T FOCUSED ON THE PROTAGONIST!"

But that's a lie! They lie to players and to themselves. Their game design is just an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes and create the illusion of the player and their avatar's insignificance.

Why do they do this? Because they've got woke ideology rattling around in their brains, where everyone, even fictional pixelated people, has rights. And the very concept that a player character, especially a male one, possesses power over everyone, gives them butthurt. And apparently, it gives you butthurt too, seeing how zealously you defend this approach.

But no matter how hard you squirm, the very concept of a computer role-playing game works against you. The player is the sole subject in the unfolding of the story. And all the characters are merely objects. When the subject interacts with the object and gets a romantic story, it's justified, beautiful, and logical. When objects rub up against each other, giving the subject some vague "fairy tale" about their relationships without direct interaction and involvement from the player, that's unnatural woke millennial design. In that case, the developer becomes the subject, interfering with my game and my interaction with it. This is an absolutely soy beta-**** way of storytelling that fights against the natural idea of player freedom and importance. And you can justify any **** with it.

"Don't like black elves in a medieval setting? Want to mod them out or change using setting? What, when you see a black person on the street, do you try to whitewashed them too? You are racist!"

I have no respect or love for any of it. By supporting this kind of thing, people are showing they don't understand a **** thing about fiction.

[Stack of Turtles]

"What, when you see a black person on the street, do you try to whitewashed them too?"

Yes.

Your argument is invalid.

[Tangerine]

@Trickster, do you have any IRL friends who are in happy relationships with pleasant women? Are you happy for them? Or do you secretly seethe and covet their gfs, like a real-life Wormtongue except probably not as handsome or successful?

False analogies? Seriously? It's incredible how stupid you are.

I just love this: "ACTUALLY, CHUD, YOU DON'T OWN EVERY WOMEN IN THE WORLD! W...HAT ABOUT REAL LIFE!? IT'S A DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC POWER FANTASY TO ASSUME VIRTUAL CHARACTERS, ANIMATED SOLELY FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT, SHOULD CATER TO YOUR WHIMS!"

The problem is that, unlike real life, in a game, you are the center of the universe. You are the avatar of a god. The game world is a playground for your entertainment. And yes, you own all the female characters. Soyjaks like you try to fight this with their "OOOH, THE PLAYER IS JUST ONE AMONG MANY IN A LIVING WORLD! CHARACTERS AREN'T FOCUSED ON THE PROTAGONIST!"

But that's a lie! They lie to players and to themselves. Their game design is just an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes and create the illusion of the player and their avatar's insignificance.

Why do they do this? Because they've got woke ideology rattling around in their brains, where everyone, even fictional pixelated people, has rights. And the very concept that a certain character, even a fictional one, especially a male one, possesses power over everyone, gives them butthurt. And apparently, it gives you butthurt too, seeing how zealously you defend this approach.

But no matter how hard you squirm, the very concept of a computer role-playing game works against you. The player is the sole subject in the unfolding of the story. And all the characters are merely objects. When the subject interacts with the object and gets a romantic story, it's justified, beautiful, and logical. When objects rub up against each other, giving the subject some vague "fairy tale" about their relationships without direct interaction and involvement from the player, that's unnatural woke millennial design. In that case, the developer becomes the subject, interfering with my game and my interaction with it. This is an absolutely soy beta-**** way of storytelling that fights against the natural idea of player freedom and importance. And you can justify any **** with it.

"Don't like black elves in a medieval setting? Want to mod them out or change using setting? What, when you see a black person on the street, do you try to whitewashed them too? You are racist!"

I have no respect or love for any of it. By supporting this kind of thing, people are showing they don't understand a **** thing about fiction.

Video game characters aren't real and you are not your character. You're playing matchmaker for 1s and 0s and getting jealous that sometimes other 1s and 0s pair up.

[Trickster]

Video game characters aren't real and you are not your character.

If that's the case, then stop defending your **** fetish, pendejo.

[Tangerine]

Video game characters aren't real and you are not your character.

If that's the case, then stop defending your **** fetish, pendejo.

This insult doesn't work when you've admitted to playing porn games where you get ******.

[rusty_shackleford]

Video game characters aren't real and you are not your character.

If that's the case, then stop defending your **** fetish, pendejo.

This insult doesn't work when you've admitted to playing porn games where you get ******.

Oh yeah I forgot about that
lmao

[Demonic Fate]

@Trickster, do you have any IRL friends who are in happy relationships with pleasant women? Are you happy for them? Or do you secretly seethe and covet their gfs, like a real-life Wormtongue except probably not as handsome or successful?

False analogies? Seriously? It's incredible how stupid you are.

I just love this: "ACTUALLY, CHUD, YOU DON'T OWN EVERY WOMEN IN THE WORLD! W...HAT ABOUT REAL LIFE!?"

The problem is that, unlike real life, in a game, you are the center of the universe. You are the avatar of a god. The game world is a playground for your entertainment. And yes, you own all the female characters. Soyjaks like you try to fight this with their "OOOH, THE PLAYER IS JUST ONE AMONG MANY IN A LIVING WORLD! CHARACTERS AREN'T FOCUSED ON THE PROTAGONIST!"

But that's a lie! They lie to players and to themselves. Their game design is just an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes and create the illusion of the player and their avatar's insignificance.

Why do they do this? Because they've got woke ideology rattling around in their brains, where everyone, even fictional pixelated people, has rights. And the very concept that a certain character, even a fictional one, especially a male one, possesses power over everyone, gives them butthurt. And apparently, it gives you butthurt too, seeing how zealously you defend this approach.

But no matter how hard you squirm, the very concept of a computer role-playing game works against you. The player is the sole subject in the unfolding of the story. And all the characters are merely objects. When the subject interacts with the object and gets a romantic story, it's justified, beautiful, and logical. When objects rub up against each other, giving the subject some vague "fairy tale" about their relationships without direct interaction and involvement from the player, that's unnatural woke millennial design. In that case, the developer becomes the subject, interfering with my game and my interaction with it. This is an absolutely soy beta-**** way of storytelling that fights against the natural idea of player freedom and importance. And you can justify any **** with it.

"Don't like black elves in a medieval setting? Want to mod them out or change using setting? What, when you see a black person on the street, do you try to whitewashed them too? You are racist!"

I have no respect or love for any of it. By supporting this kind of thing, people are showing they don't understand a **** thing about fiction.

You sound like are a child who has just learned the naughty words "soy", "woke", "****", has no understanding of them except that they're bad, and screams them at random when forced to eat his vegetables.

No, a world full of characters that react both to your actions and to your inaction in a consistent and believable manner is not, in fact, soy, woke, or ****.

It is actually pretty **** hard to pull it off, and the archetypal "soy" developers and players both vastly prefer insipid wish-fulfillment games where every companion likes you and agrees with you on everything, instead of being written with consistent opinions and beliefs and potentially telling you to **** off if they don't like your MC.

But that would make subhuman escapist coomers like you cry that they're not getting their constant, effortless, masturbatory reward, and God forbid that you might have to wake up under dry bedsheets for one single morning.

(This is still on-topic because BG3 is a great example. You have you be intentionally trying to **** off your companions, almost all disapprovals are symbolic -1s. As long as you don't literally ruin their lives, every single one of them will be singing your praises by the end of act 1, whether you've been feeding orphans or feeding on orphans.)

[Trickster]

Video game characters aren't real and you are not your character.

If that's the case, then stop defending your **** fetish, pendejo.

This insult doesn't work when you've admitted to playing porn games where you get ******.

****** by who? You're contradicting yourself. One minute, characters aren't real and nothing exists, you are not MC, and the next they do and it all matters. Especially that **** route that deeply resonated with you. You're a clown, bro.

[A Chinese opium den]

I will take a bold stand, and defend trickster. I'm not going to read any of his posts but I assume hes saying romanceable women shouldn't date other characters if you don't romance them, and I agree. Women in videogames should know their place, if they're not there for me, they shouldn't be there in the first place. I am happy to see my male party members live fulfilling lives with romantic partners, but their partner shouldn't be an option to romance for the player in the first place. In summary I hate women and they shouldn't be in videogames.

[Oyster Sauce]

I prefer romance outside of companions tbh

[Tangerine]

If that's the case, then stop defending your **** fetish, pendejo.

This insult doesn't work when you've admitted to playing porn games where you get ******.

****** by who? You're contradicting yourself. One minute, characters aren't real and nothing exists, and the next they do and it all matters. Especially that **** route that deeply resonated with you. You're a clown, bro.

I'm not because I know video game characters aren't real. You act like they're real because you're coombrained, so you intentionally go into experiences to feel the sensation of getting ******. I'm more surprised that you're suddenly mad about it, given your proclivities.

[Trickster]

This insult doesn't work when you've admitted to playing porn games where you get ******.

****** by who? You're contradicting yourself. One minute, characters aren't real and nothing exists, and the next they do and it all matters. Especially that **** route that deeply resonated with you. You're a clown, bro.

I'm not because I know video game characters aren't real. You act like they're real because you're coombrained, so you intentionally go into experiences to feel the sensation of getting ******. I'm more surprised that you're suddenly mad about it, given your proclivities.

You act like they're real

Tell the morons here that characters are object theferore they should be owned by player

It's almost scary how much you are imbecil.

[Jordy]

You sound like are a child who has just learned the naughty words "soy", "woke", "****", has no understanding of them except that they're bad, and screams them at random when forced to eat his vegetables.

No, a world full of characters that react both to your actions and to your inaction in a consistent and believable manner is not, in fact, soy, woke, or ****.

It is actually pretty **** hard to pull it off, and the archetypal "soy" developers and players both vastly prefer insipid wish-fulfillment games where every companion likes you and agrees with you on everything, instead of being written with consistent opinions and beliefs and potentially telling you to **** off if they don't like your MC.

But that would make subhuman escapist coomers like you cry that they're not getting their constant, effortless, masturbatory reward, and God forbid that you might have to wake up under dry bedsheets for one single morning.

(This is still on-topic because BG3 is a great example. You have you be intentionally trying to **** off your companions, almost all disapprovals are symbolic -1s. As long as you don't literally ruin their lives, every single one of them will be singing your praises by the end of act 1, whether you've been feeding orphans or feeding on orphans.) brown.

All that effort when you could have just said this.

[Trickster]

You sound like are a child who has just learned the naughty words "soy", "woke", "****", has no understanding of them except that they're bad, and screams them at random when forced to eat his vegetables.

No, a world full of characters that react both to your actions and to your inaction in a consistent and believable manner is not, in fact, soy, woke, or ****.

It is actually pretty **** hard to pull it off, and the archetypal "soy" developers and players both vastly prefer insipid wish-fulfillment games where every companion likes you and agrees with you on everything, instead of being written with consistent opinions and beliefs and potentially telling you to **** off if they don't like your MC.

But that would make subhuman escapist coomers like you cry that they're not getting their constant, effortless, masturbatory reward, and God forbid that you might have to wake up under dry bedsheets for one single morning.

(This is still on-topic because BG3 is a great example. You have you be intentionally trying to **** off your companions, almost all disapprovals are symbolic -1s. As long as you don't literally ruin their lives, every single one of them will be singing your praises by the end of act 1, whether you've been feeding orphans or feeding on orphans.) brown.

All that effort when you could have just said this.

It's sounds hilarious from a bunch of ***** who literally sounds and acts like woke npc's.
You deserve everything that's happened to the game industry.

[Jordy]

It's sounds hilarious from a bunch of ***** who literally sounds and acts like woke npc's.
You deserve everything that's happened to the game industry.

Sorry, I don't speak brown.

[Trickster]

It's sounds hilarious from a bunch of ***** who literally sounds and acts like woke npc's.
You deserve everything that's happened to the game industry.

Sorry, I don't speak brown.

Okay. Just make sure you don't accidentally say that to your hispanic mom, or you'll get smacked in the face.

[Jordy]

It's sounds hilarious from a bunch of ***** who literally sounds and acts like woke npc's.
You deserve everything that's happened to the game industry.

Sorry, I don't speak brown.

Okay. Just make sure you don't accidentally say that to your hispanic mom, or you'll get smacked in the face.

I'll do the civilized thing that I've inherited from my ancestors and stop this ******** up of the thread here.

[Tangerine]

****** by who? You're contradicting yourself. One minute, characters aren't real and nothing exists, and the next they do and it all matters. Especially that **** route that deeply resonated with you. You're a clown, bro.

I'm not because I know video game characters aren't real. You act like they're real because you're coombrained, so you intentionally go into experiences to feel the sensation of getting ******. I'm more surprised that you're suddenly mad about it, given your proclivities.

You act like they're real

Tell the morons here that characters are object theferore they should be owned by player

It's almost scary how much you are imbecil.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imbecile

[Trickster]

I'm not because I know video game characters aren't real. You act like they're real because you're coombrained, so you intentionally go into experiences to feel the sensation of getting ******. I'm more surprised that you're suddenly mad about it, given your proclivities.

You act like they're real

Tell the morons here that characters are object theferore they should be owned by player

It's almost scary how much you are imbecil.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imbecile

It's a spanish, тупая puta.

[rusty_shackleford]

Baldur's gate

[Trickster]

You sound like are a child who has just learned the naughty words "soy", "woke", "****", has no understanding of them except that they're bad, and screams them at random when forced to eat his vegetables.

You sound like a woke **** who's demanding a definition of woke when it's already been literally explained right to your face. Why are you ignoring my arguments?

No, a world full of characters that react both to your actions and to your inaction in a consistent and believable manner is not, in fact, soy, woke, or ****.

If being a **** is consistent and believable for you, that doesn't mean it is for others, or that others want it. Different people have completely different ideas about that. Especially when it comes to romance. Woke degenerates like you absolutely need everyone sleeping with everyone, and you don't understand the sacredness, exclusivity, or special nature of romance. That's just sad.

It is actually pretty **** hard to pull it off, and the archetypal "soy" developers and players both vastly prefer insipid wish-fulfillment games where every companion likes you and agrees with you on everything, instead of being written with consistent opinions and beliefs and potentially telling you to **** off if they don't like your MC.

"Consistent opinions and beliefs" apparently means companions are just rude to the protagonist because it supposedly shows how strong and independent they are. And "soy preferred" is a power fantasy about an extraordinary individual whom all female characters fall in love with (like Guts from Berserk, lol). Let me tell you a secret: what you're implying by that isn't actually about having consistent opinions and beliefs. It's the complete absence of them. Think about real life: you either click with someone, or you don't, and you figure that out pretty quickly. But in games, it's different. Characters can't just like or dislike you by default. Instead, their entire behavior gets dictated by some rigid win/loss logic, all boiled down to points. Everything is measured by pre-written developer dialogues and canned reactions, where the creators unilaterally decide what characters like or dislike. Take Shadowheart, for instance: they decided she doesn't like it if you refuse a threesome with Halsin. Given that kind of example, do I really need to spell out just how fundamentally flawed this whole approach is?

But that would make subhuman escapist coomers like you cry that they're not getting their constant, effortless, masturbatory reward, and God forbid that you might have to wake up under dry bedsheets for one single morning.

Just swap in the word "incel" into your verbal garbage and you'll get an almost perfect example of a feminist screeching when confronted with based fantasy. You're embarrassing yourself, ****.

(This is still on-topic because BG3 is a great example. You have you be intentionally trying to **** off your companions, almost all disapprovals are symbolic -1s. As long as you don't literally ruin their lives, every single one of them will be singing your praises by the end of act 1, whether you've been feeding orphans or feeding on orphans.)

Most likely because you didn't try hard enough. By the end of my first act, almost everyone was dead. Wyll died trying to kill Karlach. Karlach just ran away after agreeing with Minthara. Gale fell without an arm. Shadowheart left near the goblin location. Astarion didn't even join, because no one asked him. Only Lae'zel remained, but she's fine with "bad" deeds.
Want to play a jerk? Have the courage to roleplay him to the end, instead of leaving "false hopes" for companions, and then wondering why they do the same thing to the protagonist.

PS: I'm done with the discussion. As I said earlier, there are too many stupid *****, including on this forum. This once again confirms the validity of my main statement.

The main problem with RPGs, and Western gaming in general, is its fans.

[KOS-MOS]

Why is it that every time this kid posts, it's to argue with other users. I've seen women less hysterical than him.

[Norfleet]

I still don't understand what he's on about, other than he is deeply bothered when other characters he isn't romancing decide to romance other characters he's not romancing. What possible importance any of this has is completely lost on me.

[Trickster]

I still don't understand what he's on about, other than he is deeply bothered when other characters he isn't romancing decide to romance other characters he's not romancing. What possible importance any of this has is completely lost on me.

I've already explained this to you. If you set aside the idea of your eugenics farm for breeding supersoldiers, shipping that doesn't involve the protagonist with a companion is woke "safety sexuality", a consequence of ****** game design, game philosophy, and sheer stupidity.

[Norfleet]

shipping that doesn't involve the protagonist with a character is woke "safety sexuality"

Okay, these are words, but none of that made any sense. I'm just going to pretend you're still talking about characters ******* each other and not about boats or just attempting to put all that on a Triple Word Score.

What you have not adequately explained is "Why do I give a ****?". If people I am not ******* are ******* people that I am also not *******, WHY THE **** IS THIS MY PROBLEM? Keep in mind that this is assuming that I am even in this picture at all, as opposed to being a detached player that just gets to watch characters **** (which I assume is also popular, given the popularity of Sims mods for this). Assuming I am not getting a squad of supersoldiers out of this and that I am not ******* any of these people, why do I care who they do or don't ****?

[Stack of Turtles]

shipping that doesn't involve the protagonist with a character is woke "safety sexuality"

Okay, these are words, but none of that made any sense. I'm just going to pretend you're still talking about characters ******* each other and not about boats or just attempting to put all that on a Triple Word Score.

What you have not adequately explained is "Why do I give a ****?". If people I am not ******* are ******* people that I am also not *******, WHY THE **** IS THIS MY PROBLEM? Keep in mind that this is assuming that I am even in this picture at all, as opposed to being a detached player that just gets to watch characters **** (which I assume is also popular, given the popularity of Sims mods for this). Assuming I am not getting a squad of supersoldiers out of this and that I am not ******* any of these people, why do I care who they do or don't ****?

"Shipping" comes from "relationship" and it means when women want fictional characters to **** because they are functionally autistic with no mental filter.

[Trickster]

shipping that doesn't involve the protagonist with a character is woke "safety sexuality"

Okay, these are words, but none of that made any sense. I'm just going to pretend you're still talking about characters ******* each other and not about boats or just attempting to put all that on a Triple Word Score.

What you have not adequately explained is "Why do I give a ****?". If people I am not ******* are ******* people that I am also not *******, WHY THE **** IS THIS MY PROBLEM? Keep in mind that this is assuming that I am even in this picture at all, as opposed to being a detached player that just gets to watch characters **** (which I assume is also popular, given the popularity of Sims mods for this). Assuming I am not getting a squad of supersoldiers out of this and that I am not ******* any of these people, why do I care who they do or don't ****?

Counter-question: If you care so little about this, then why do you even want companions to sleep with each other?

[Norfleet]

"Shipping" comes from "relationship" and it means when women want fictional characters to **** because they are functionally autistic with no mental filter.

And...why is this any of my concern, exactly? I'm still missing this part.