Adult Games

[Christoph.Krn]

People personify animals which are instincts and have no observable feelings back for them; I see no reason why I cannot personify my Pandora.

First of all: no offense intended, I just thought it was interesting.


That sentence is so extremely discussable on so many layers. It is:

• Discussable because it's off-topic.
  
• Discussable because the feelings may or may not be observable.
  
• Discussable because by following its logic by which animals are just objects ("instincts") but can also be personified (as implied by the fact that there seems to be no reason to not personify a Pandora, which is also an object), the sentence contradicts itself in that it says that it /both/ does AND doesn't make sense to personify animals (and thus, Pandoras) at the same time (personification entanglement).
  
• Discussable because by following its logic, after all, human beings (which includes the definite presence of "feelings") are also nothing but biological machines ("instincts"), and thus it makes sense to personify, and do and do not personify (personification entanglement) people at the same time.
  
• Discussable because if it makes sense to personify and not personify people at the same time, Pandoras are no longer different from any animal in the context of this sentence (except that any Pandora's instincts are determined by man-made electronic routines as opposed to given biologic routines) (because the concept of "personification" as it had existed has been destroyed by the fact that it makes sense to personify and not personify people at the same time, and which therefore now means "to do or not do something that has not formerly been known as 'personification'") and at the same time are opposites (personification entanglement), which leads to the conclusion that the insight that any feelings that may probably exist for any given Pandora and may or may not be observable (and thus may or may not actually be there) is definitely of an off-topic nature. It also suggests that there may not really be a reason to personify any man-made electronics, but that claim requires further examination. Just call it "pandora", you're making everything complicated.
  

(I'm so sorry. It's clearly my brain's fault, not mine!)

 

[AquaAnalogue]

@Christoph.Krn


I'm such a dolt, I meant "instinct-driven" not "instincts"; I hate that! Thanks for pointing it out. I'll fix it now.


That said, "off topic"-ness is my specialty; I apologise.


I have never observed any element of emotional attachment from an animal to a human being which could not be ruled out as simply knowing how to continue receiving food. I have, however, observed this behaviour between human beings. That's a whole other discussion, and you're welcome to PM me or start a new topic in Off-Topic to discuss it. You are correct in any assumption you have that I consider humans completely and entirely different creatures from the other animals on our planet.


Allow me to simplify the... argument? (lol)... presented in the sentence in question.

1. Humans widely personify animals, giving them names and emotionally attaching themselves to them.
2. Animals are instinct-driven and are not sentient (this is conjecture on my part).
3. The Pandora is also not sentient (also conjecture on my part, but I believe you agree with me here).
4. Therefore, it makes sense that from the perspective of the ridiculosity factor of personifying something which is not sentient, the Pandora is on equal terms with a pet.
5. I choose to be ridiculous in my own way: personifying my Pandora.

Kaede remains Kaede for now.

 

[Christoph.Krn]

Allow me to simplify the... argument? [...]
(...)


Kaede remains Kaede for now.

I didn't try to argue or even convince you. I didn't actively think to come to the conclusions, so there was no (obvious?) intention. The one and only intention that made me write my previous post was that I hoped that some people might enjoy that after they analyzed it, they would sooner or later realize that endless philosophical discussions can be started from that single sentence because it includes so many interdependencies, of which I used just a few.

 

[AquaAnalogue]

I didn't try to argue or even convince you. I didn't actively think to come to the conclusions, so there was no (obvious?) intention. The one and only intention that made me write my previous post was that I hoped that some people might enjoy that after they analyzed it, they would sooner or later realize that endless philosophical discussions can be started from that single sentence because it includes so many interdependencies, of which I used just a few.

Oh. I'm sorry. I misunderstood it as "No offense meant, but BAM BAM BAM BAM. Q.E.D., BITCH!". The reason I hate "no offense" statements is that they don't add anything; they're either meant honestly or dishonestly, but in the case they are dishonest and you accept it as honest, you look like an idiot. So I sorta ignored the whole "no offense" thing, no offense. See what I did there? ^_^


Now that you explain it that way though... you're right.

 

[Prosthetic_Mind]

First of all- the Pandora is open source. Craig, ED, and Co. make the system, but take no responsibility for what comes out for it, which is why they aren't being sued right now by the various companies that own systems that are emulated for it (also those companies have been fairly lax for now, but if they decided in the future to restrict it, it wouldn't affect the pandora itself).


Secondly, I'm pretty sure there are already adult games that work on the pandora. I know there have been several series of naughty games for arcade/tabletop machines (not counting games like Custer's revenge for the Atari 2600), and though I haven't tried it yet, I'm sure at least one of them has to work under the current port of MAME.


No one will stop you if you try to make an adult game for the pandora, though my bet is not a whole lot of people will be that interested. The worst thing that might happen is that the major pnd sites might not accept your game.

 

[DaMummy]

game for genesis, id be surprised if pandora doesnt run it.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3VNq3-wkRfk?feature=oembed

 

[-Tj-]

Add Street Getter to that list.

 

[el_pango]

...very innovative mammary simulation minigame.

Design doc, please.


...what?


On a more serious note, haven't there been virtual girlfriend and/or boyfriend games for DS and iPhone already? I could see this being thematically appropriate (if a little racier than what's come before) in the context of a larger game (dialogue trees for courtship, minigames/feats of dexterity where the player proves their worth/tries to collect gifts to woo the person, etc.)