No one is not saying MK isn't built around violence, but the grotesque violence was and is not necessary.
Yes it is. You can take it out, and end up with Street Fighter. Take more out, and end up with IK+ . The whole game is literally styled after the over-the-top action movies of the era, hells - the main character was even modeled after Jean Claude Van Damme, signature kicks and all. It is part of the identity of the brand - which at the time was just the game, of course.
Quote
The same is for BG3. BG3 is built around pushing the boundaries regarding sexuality.
Look, pushing boundaries... Just like 'exploring sexuality' ... That sounds kind of artsy and new. And there are certainly instances in this game where sex is used as a functional tool for storytelling. But buggering bugbears isn't that, really. I mean, come on. It's a cheap, immature joke. Tentacle Porn Achievement? Gay Bear Sex? All the cheap banter jokes that a 15-year-old would make... That has nothing to do with 'exploring sexuality' and 'pushing boundaries'. It just doesn't.
You can disagree, you can tell me actors can disagree - but unless you come with something substantial other than saying 'it's pushing a boundary' or other , you'll not convince me. You'll have to tell me how that stuff actually adds something, or how it works as a functional storytelling device. All I see is intended shock value, and I don't necesarily see a boundary that needed pushing, either. Again, I played Leisure Suit Larry in 1989.
Quote
If you took away the violence of GoW, it would be a very different game for many people, but it would be the same game for many people as well, just not as grotesque.
I don't know, I doubt it, but I've only seen marketing. I can't comment fairly.
Quote
The same applies for BG3, if you took away the aspects you mentioned, it would be a very different game for many people, but it would be the same game for many people.
No. That's jsut the thing. It's an adventure game with whole bunch of things to explore and stories to tell. Take away the bugbears and no one will notice [on a first playthrough, obviously], same with banging the Emperor - that one should probably not even be there, that whole scene is just a remnant from when Daisy was something romanceable - it makes no sense in the current campaign, Halsin's Sex-God comments, etc. No one would miss it, because it is all just fluff. Fluff that's in your face. It doesn't change the core of the game.
Quote
The primary difference is that you' believe that the violence in MK and GoW is essential to make the game what it truly is [quote] Precisely.
[quote while the aspects you mentioned are ancillary parts to BG3.
I just answered this, but yes.
Quote
This I disagree with, as I view the full package of BG3 exploration of sexuality as just as crucial to the make up of the game as the violence is tied to MK and GoW.
Fine. WHY? and HOW? Please. Enlighten me. Because I cannot put the bugbears and the bear sex in that context.
Quote
..snip... but Larian had a vision for bg3 and pushing the envelope in regards to sexuality was a major part of that vision.
Yes, yes... pushing the envelope.
Quote
And yes, Transfers was a popular movie, so was Black Panther.
Exactly. That doesn't make it artful or even good, just cheap laughs and fancy colors onscreen.
Quote
Just because you view that content, along with GoW and MK as immature doesn't mean others feel that content is immature.
But that's not how it works in a debate. I say what I think, you say what you think. 'Lots of people like it' is not an argument, you can't speak for 'lots of people'. Also, let's face it. Lots of people think the Earth is flat, that doesn't make it flat.
