Should rape be depicted in video games?

[Tweed]

Back in the 90s and 2000s you could still use it as a plot device and even mention the R word by name. These days it seems to be anathema. You have to find some other way—any other way to depict bad people and bad things happening other than a bit of the old in-and-out.

[wndrbr]

Avellone and Sawyer have entered the chat

[A Chinese opium den]

There's only one way to find out.

[rusty_shackleford]

There's only one way to find out.

(it's @MAGIC_EIGHT_BALL)

[Tweed]

Avellone and Sawyer have entered the chat

Surely by now they've both self-flagellated for their sins.

[rusty_shackleford]

Avellone and Sawyer have entered the chat

Surely by now they've both self-flagellated for their sins.

iirc they both threw each other under the bus, didn't they?

[Tweed]

Avellone and Sawyer have entered the chat

Surely by now they've both self-flagellated for their sins.

iirc they both threw each other under the bus, didn't they?

I dunno, ask Rougey.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

If it happens offscreen, but it is rather dispiriting. I would prefer not to have it in my entertainment unless it meaningfully builds up the narrative. Ie, the Hamel backstory of Trails or what happened to the conquered Garlean provinces in FF14, since it gave weight to the war that had happened before, built up dread for the escalating cold war, and gave you motivation to prevent it or end the hot war quickly.

[rusty_shackleford]

I'd pick yes except foids really like rape

[J1M]

Whether or not this can happen says a lot about the tone of a game world. Old Warcraft vs current Warcraft, basically.

[DecadeRiptide]

Yes. It's actually fun when implemented as an actual gameplay mechanic, especially when you have the chance to fight off whatever is trying to rape you. It also helps set a darker and more mature atmosphere, even when scripted into linear style campaign games.

Only times I don't want to see rape is with gretesque ***** characters like that Ellie scene from TLoU2

[wndrbr]

Avellone and Sawyer have entered the chat

Surely by now they've both self-flagellated for their sins.

Sawyer is a male feminist therefore he's likely a massive creep who's only pretending to be anti-rape. His handle on badgame is literally Rape Kid.
And Avellone actually raped a woman, and then managed to get away with it by suing.

[Tweed]

Yes. It's actually fun when implemented as an actual gameplay mechanic, especially when you have the chance to fight off whatever is trying to rape you. It also helps set a darker and more mature atmosphere, even when scripted into linear style campaign games.

Only times I don't want to see rape is with gretesque ***** characters like that Ellie scene from TLoU2

Press X to un-rape.

[Tangerine]

Yes. It's actually fun when implemented as an actual gameplay mechanic,

If I had any doubts you were brown...

[Cipher]

If it happens offscreen, but it is rather dispiriting. I would prefer not to have it in my entertainment unless it meaningfully builds up the narrative. Ie, the Hamel backstory of Trails or what happened to the conquered Garlean provinces in FF14, since it gave weight to the war that had happened before, built up dread for the escalating cold war, and gave you motivation to prevent it or end the hot war quickly.

This is basically the correct application. Essentially, when it makes sense. Cerya in Tactics Ogre is never shown to be raped, but it is heavily implied in the route where she dies. She defiantly asks to be put to the sword but her captors comment on her beauty and mention with a twisted grin what a waste it would be to kill her just yet.

Rafa from FFT heavily implies to her brother Malak that their foster father, Grand Duke Barinten, molested her as a child to try to snap him out of his blind loyalty. "You know what he did, what he did to me!".

Rape is a special kind of evil and if its included to make someone irredeemable and it makes sense within the context of the setting, then yes it should be included in the story. It can also be used to separate amongst the villains who is a really worthless and degenerate, not just extremist and/or tyrannical. I like it less when its used for shock and swerve, like in many "romance" novels written by middle aged single women for middle aged single women. Or stuff like A Song of Ice and Fire where it depicts rape as rampant even in so-called "civilized" regions just because GRRM is a hackfraud who couldn't even properly rip-off the war of the roses without making it painfully obvious and just demonstrably worse, unlike so many others did before him.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

Rape if awful and should not be a part of entertainment period. When americans added gays to entertainment gayness became normalized, the same will happen with rape. Neither gayness nor rape should be the norm.

I hate when japanese writers use rape to create drama and evoke sympathy in the reader, it is cheap and shows how low skilled author in writing is.

[TKVNC]

It is degenerate.

[Demonic Fate]

It should be on the same level as stabbing a random passersby for their wallet, i.e. a despicable, awful crime that happens when law and order have completely broken down, that belongs to lowlifes and marks them as worthless scum - conscripts, bandits, *******.

High status men shouldn't rape - and they generally don't need to, women are disturbingly good at convincing themselves that they wanted it, if the man is sufficiently attractive and prestigious.

The exceptions, like Berya, are out and out psychos for whom rape is just one more way to channel their sadism. They exist, but it's kind of cheap if the general of the enemy army just happens to be a serial torturer every time.

If the protagonist is fighting for a just cause, it's much more interesting to have the villain be a heroic figure who is tragically bound by loyalty to the wrong side.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

If the protagonist is fighting for a just cause, it's much more interesting to have the villain be a heroic figure who is tragically bound by loyalty to the wrong side.

I think these storylines are interesting, but they often gloss over the ruination that RPG players bring to the world, even if they are on "the right side". You will have killed lots of soldiers who were sons or husbands or were supporting a family or were a pillar of their community. You have left a lot of widowers, orphans who will grow up without a father, families will become impoverished, villages may become more vulnerable to bandits or corruption, etc. All too often the games just presume that these enemy soldiers came out of the ether and their murders will have no tangible lasting impact on the world. Also, if your character is high profile ie a great renowned hero, he will inevietably have a lot of people out to assasinate him to avenge their dad or their son and so on. Having become a killer, your character will always have to fear for his life.

I have only seen two games that have touched on this IMO, but not to the extent that they should. Tactics Ogre when after you capture the capital, Denam walks into the hospital and all of the widowers and orphans he caused stare at him. And then in the good ending, Denam quietly leaves for abroad, whereas in the bad ending he stays and gets assassinated at his coronation by an orphan. And FF14 Heavensward where the widower poisons your drink. Suikoden 2 glosses over the protagonist invading his own country at the end, and it feels like a cop out given how realistically habdled the game was before. Feels like Murayama got cold feet snd didn't want to confront that Riou killed his neighbors and would become hated. And then pretty much every other war or strategy RPG shies away from showing the repercussions of the protagonist's choice to lead a war and kill lots of people. He lives happily ever after with no one after him.

[logincrash]

If the protagonist is fighting for a just cause, it's much more interesting to have the villain be a heroic figure who is tragically bound by loyalty to the wrong side.

I think these storylines are interesting, but they often gloss over the ruination that RPG players bring to the world, even if they are on "the right side". You will have killed lots of soldiers who were sons or husbands or were supporting a family or were a pillar of their community. You have left a lot of widowers, orphans who will grow up without a father, families will become impoverished, villages may become more vulnerable to bandits or corruption, etc. All too often the games just presume that these enemy soldiers came out of the ether and their murders will have no tangible lasting impact on the world. Also, if your character is high profile ie a great renowned hero, he will inevietably have a lot of people out to assasinate him to avenge their dad or their son and so on. Having become a killer, your character will always have to fear for his life.

I have only seen two games that have touched on this IMO, but not to the extent that they should. Tactics Ogre when after you capture the capital, Denam walks into the hospital and all of the widowers and orphans he caused stare at him. And then in the good ending, Denam quietly leaves for abroad, whereas in the bad ending he stays and gets assassinated at his coronation by an orphan. And FF14 Heavensward where the widower poisons your drink. Suikoden 2 glosses over the protagonist invading his own country at the end, and it feels like a cop out given how realistically habdled the game was before. Feels like Murayama got cold feet snd didn't want to confront that Riou killed his neighbors and would become hated. And then pretty much every other war or strategy RPG shies away from showing the repercussions of the protagonist's choice to lead a war and kill lots of people. He lives happily ever after with no one after him.

All of the examples of games doing the "consequences for needlessly killing random people" thing that I can think of are stealth games. MGS3 with the river of ghosts, Dishonored with the chaos levels, Alpha Protocol with some missions changing because of you killing somebody.
I think it's because the main gameplay is centered on stealth where avoiding killing is the point. The majority of RPGs are centered around combat, so punishing the player for something the entire game is focused on just feels cheap and condescending.
Some people ****** themselves in excitement over Spec Ops The Line for berating the player for killing when there was no other way to continue playing the game. But those people are pseudo intellectual midwits.

[Tweed]

If the protagonist is fighting for a just cause, it's much more interesting to have the villain be a heroic figure who is tragically bound by loyalty to the wrong side.

I think these storylines are interesting, but they often gloss over the ruination that RPG players bring to the world, even if they are on "the right side". You will have killed lots of soldiers who were sons or husbands or were supporting a family or were a pillar of their community. You have left a lot of widowers, orphans who will grow up without a father, families will become impoverished, villages may become more vulnerable to bandits or corruption, etc. All too often the games just presume that these enemy soldiers came out of the ether and their murders will have no tangible lasting impact on the world. Also, if your character is high profile ie a great renowned hero, he will inevietably have a lot of people out to assasinate him to avenge their dad or their son and so on. Having become a killer, your character will always have to fear for his life.

I have only seen two games that have touched on this IMO, but not to the extent that they should. Tactics Ogre when after you capture the capital, Denam walks into the hospital and all of the widowers and orphans he caused stare at him. And then in the good ending, Denam quietly leaves for abroad, whereas in the bad ending he stays and gets assassinated at his coronation by an orphan. And FF14 Heavensward where the widower poisons your drink. Suikoden 2 glosses over the protagonist invading his own country at the end, and it feels like a cop out given how realistically habdled the game was before. Feels like Murayama got cold feet snd didn't want to confront that Riou killed his neighbors and would become hated. And then pretty much every other war or strategy RPG shies away from showing the repercussions of the protagonist's choice to lead a war and kill lots of people. He lives happily ever after with no one after him.

All of the examples of games doing the "consequences for needlessly killing random people" thing that I can think of are stealth games. MGS3 with the river of ghosts, Dishonored with the chaos levels, Alpha Protocol with some missions changing because of you killing somebody.
I think it's because the main gameplay is centered on stealth where avoiding killing is the point. The majority of RPGs are centered around combat, so punishing the player for something the entire game is focused on just feels cheap and condescending.
Some people ****** themselves in excitement over Spec Ops The Line for berating the player for killing when there was no other way to continue playing the game. But those people are pseudo intellectual midwits.

Dishonored does this poorly through, because they hand you a load of weapons and abilities that are only useful if you intend to kill someone, but if you do that you get the bad end. So there's a right way to play and a wrong way to play.

[logincrash]

I think these storylines are interesting, but they often gloss over the ruination that RPG players bring to the world, even if they are on "the right side". You will have killed lots of soldiers who were sons or husbands or were supporting a family or were a pillar of their community. You have left a lot of widowers, orphans who will grow up without a father, families will become impoverished, villages may become more vulnerable to bandits or corruption, etc. All too often the games just presume that these enemy soldiers came out of the ether and their murders will have no tangible lasting impact on the world. Also, if your character is high profile ie a great renowned hero, he will inevietably have a lot of people out to assasinate him to avenge their dad or their son and so on. Having become a killer, your character will always have to fear for his life.

I have only seen two games that have touched on this IMO, but not to the extent that they should. Tactics Ogre when after you capture the capital, Denam walks into the hospital and all of the widowers and orphans he caused stare at him. And then in the good ending, Denam quietly leaves for abroad, whereas in the bad ending he stays and gets assassinated at his coronation by an orphan. And FF14 Heavensward where the widower poisons your drink. Suikoden 2 glosses over the protagonist invading his own country at the end, and it feels like a cop out given how realistically habdled the game was before. Feels like Murayama got cold feet snd didn't want to confront that Riou killed his neighbors and would become hated. And then pretty much every other war or strategy RPG shies away from showing the repercussions of the protagonist's choice to lead a war and kill lots of people. He lives happily ever after with no one after him.

All of the examples of games doing the "consequences for needlessly killing random people" thing that I can think of are stealth games. MGS3 with the river of ghosts, Dishonored with the chaos levels, Alpha Protocol with some missions changing because of you killing somebody.
I think it's because the main gameplay is centered on stealth where avoiding killing is the point. The majority of RPGs are centered around combat, so punishing the player for something the entire game is focused on just feels cheap and condescending.
Some people ****** themselves in excitement over Spec Ops The Line for berating the player for killing when there was no other way to continue playing the game. But those people are pseudo intellectual midwits.

Dishonored does this poorly through, because they hand you a load of weapons and abilities that are only useful if you intend to kill someone, but if you do that you get the bad end. So there's a right way to play and a wrong way to play.

That's fair. It's similar to the Spec Ops The Line problem, but at the very least it's not as frustrating, because you're free to do as you will. The pushing towards the "correct" way to play is more subtle and meta in this case. This also goes into the deeper discussion of "morality systems" in video games too often being poorly implemented.
Also, also, on my first blind playthrough I never shied away from killing people in my way. I killed all the targets and any guard who spotted me using all the tools, weapons, magic at my disposal - yet I still got the good low chaos ending. Dishonored is not that strict of a game really.

[Red7]

I'd pick yes except foids really like rape

vagina hater

[Red7]

by tasteful i hope furry meant hot vagina rape not some furry ****

[Red7]

There's only one way to find out.

i think u need like 15 of those and connect em with **** to have real rape application

[Red7]

Rape if awful and should not be a part of entertainment period. When americans added gays to entertainment gayness became normalized, the same will happen with rape. Neither gayness nor rape should be the norm.

I hate when japanese writers use rape to create drama and evoke sympathy in the reader, it is cheap and shows how low skilled author in writing is.

whats wrong with superior penis establishing dominance by raping worthless cocksleeve, ergo making hole cum, cause vagina craves bad boy?
do u hate whamen and want to deprive them of orgasm like rusty here?

[Red7]

Yes. It's actually fun when implemented as an actual gameplay mechanic, especially when you have the chance to fight off whatever is trying to rape you. It also helps set a darker and more mature atmosphere, even when scripted into linear style campaign games.

Only times I don't want to see rape is with gretesque ***** characters like that Ellie scene from TLoU2

i was to give heart emo but i noticed "rape u" bit

wtf u play as vagina in veda gaymes? or r u vagina?

[Faceless_Sentinel]

Rape if awful and should not be a part of entertainment period. When americans added gays to entertainment gayness became normalized, the same will happen with rape. Neither gayness nor rape should be the norm.

I hate when japanese writers use rape to create drama and evoke sympathy in the reader, it is cheap and shows how low skilled author in writing is.

whats wrong with superior penis establishing dominance by raping worthless cocksleeve, ergo making hole cum, cause vagina craves bad boy?
do u hate whamen and want to deprive them of orgasm like rusty here?

Judging by modern women, you're right, but I want to have the illusion, the fairy tale of mutual love at least in computer games.

[rusty_shackleford]

I think it was Tim Cain that said "you get one use of amnesia and that's it, don't use it again"
I'd apply that to something like rape too.

[ArcaneLurker]

Be glad they aren't. They are just going to do something like Joker 2.
They'd probably create "CHUD INCEL FASCIST TRUMP SUPPORTER GAMER" and depict them getting raped by *******.