Question 1. Of the porn games.
Art.1. Whether the "try not to cum" games have good game design
The first question is discussed thus: Some porn sites advertise games where the main objective is ostensibly described to avoid reaching orgasm, that is to say, to cum.
Objection 1. It would seem to me that trying not to reach sexual orgasm (that is, to cum) is good game design, as it represents a challenge to be overcome.
Objection 2. The game poses itself as an empirical test of purity and fortitude.
Objection 3. The game encourages one not to cum, and is thus meant to be educational and healthy.
On the contrary, such games are not well-designed because it mainly preys upon people who are already browsing pornography to begin with. It is disingenuous to say such games' goal is to better one's porn addiction, for it is there exactly to feed into this very same addiction.
Reply to Objection 1. When playing the game, it is unequivocally evident that the objective is, indeed, to cum.
Reply to Objection 2. Seeking such games to prove oneself that they are pure is already a lost cause because deliberately searching for such games is unproductive in and of itself. To put it in an analogy, it is like someone starting a diet, and then staring at highly caloric food as a challenge, instead of doing actions that would further enhance their goal, like physical exercise.
Reply to Objection 3. There is no real punishment to those who actually cum, and once the player realizes it, he or she will be encouraged to play those games more and more, which will ultimately lead to more cum.
Art.2. Whether "porn games" are inherently badly designed
The second question is discussed thus: Considering that the first article deals specifically with "Try not to cum" style of games, this current article asks if all games of pornographic nature are badly designed.
Objection 1. Considering that the focus of the game is ultimately sexual gratification, it is logical to assume that the actual game play experience is just a gimmick to justify the pornography.
Objection 2. As described in the first article, engaging with pornography is unproductive, and one should seek for productive games instead.
However, given the circumstances, I am led to believe that this is not the case, because pornography is not inherently bad, contrary to what purists might think. Good game design can coexist with pornography. Furthermore, sexual imagery is art in and of itself, and exploring those themes are to be expected in video games, which are an art form themselves. Engaging with art is productive and essential to the betterment of the human mind.
Reply to Objection 1. Good gameplay and pornography are not mutually exclusive, and just because the game play is not full of action, it does not mean it is inherently a bad game. Games like "Super Real Mahjong" have perfectly good Mahjong game play, and the experience is elevated by the craft in the cutscenes and character performance.
Reply to Objection 2. To seek for productiveness in everything, even entertainment, is, at the very least, short-sighted and reminiscent of the hustle culture. Furthermore, to automatically think that games are "unproductive" and "non-thought provoking" just because of the inclusion of pornography is a dangerous preconception.
Question 2. Of the delayed games.
Art.1. Whether it is better to cancel games that take too long
The first question is discussed thus: games take time to create, and it is expected that customers wait until it is completed to play. However sometimes this may cause them to grow frustrated and play something else.
Objection 1. It is better to release the game on time even if it is incomplete, and complete it via day-one patches and subsequent updates.
Objection 2. It is better to cancel the game outright, as it will never live up to the customers' expectations.
Objection 3. It seems to me that the better course of action is to embrace crunch culture so that every deadline is met and the shareholders are pleased.
Objection 4. It is of utmost importance not to delay the release of the game.
On the contrary, games should take as long as needed to be completed and released, because customers will immediately know when a product is faulty. It is never good to belittle the customer's intelligence and good-will, especially if it took you years, even decades, to build it.
Reply to Objection 1. This option has become popular in the industry but it challenges the end user's intelligence and autonomy, as well as tainting the game's first impression. The game has to be complete when shipped, with eventual additional content being exactly what they are: additions to an already complete game.
Reply to Objection 2. Canceling is never a good option unless if driven by strong factors such as new console releases. In such situation, porting the game to the newer console is the best course of action since it will not alienate any customer from the promised product.
Reply to Objection 3. It is never good to rush out a game because you damage the very people who are working on the product. This will invariably reflect on the overall quality of the game. It is of utmost importance to always be mindful that games are not created from nothing, nor spawned from thought alone, but rather, a concretion of a team's efforts that trust in your leadership.
Reply to Objection 4. Considering all above, a delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad.
Question 3. Of the usage of generative AI in game development.
Art. 1. Whether the generative AI truly improves, facilitates, or streamlines development of games
The first question is discussed thus: with the rise of development costs, the expectation of gamers growing exponentially upon each game release, and the introduction of newfangled technology, video game companies are looking to generative AI as a means to facilitate game development.
Objection 1. Facilitating the development of games via AI is advantageous, because one can generate several mockups and placeholders of their ideas.
Objection 2. This frees up human developers to tackle more human-involved aspects of development, such as the purely creative ones, thus solving the ever-present "crunch" problem.
Objection 3. Facilitated development of games will lead to more affordable products, and/or more constant release dates.
Objection 4. Generative AI and its abilities are able to generate content in a virtually infinite fashion, therefore infinite possibilities can exist in mechanics such as NPC dialogue.
Despite all these seemingly positive notions, the usage of generative AI should be avoided, not only for the immediate problems it causes, but also the problems it causes all the way down the pipeline. Generative AI has not shown any tangible improvement for the resources it consumes, and in every step, it threatens the safety of human workers.
Reply to Objection 1. Generating placeholders with generative AI is short-sighted in a developmental sense. Placeholders and mockups are meant to look obviously unfinished, so as to signal other developers and higher-ups that those elements still need polishing. Multiple developers have stated that AI-generated mockups were meant to be temporary, and to be replaced by human-made art, as a way to save face from criticism. The truth is that this is even more insidious, because they have used a service owned by technology conglomerates and spent natural resources to create something that was supposed to be discarded from the very beginning.
Reply to Objection 2. Upon implementation of generative AI, human workers' conditions are seldom improved. There were multiple cases of developer employees being laid off once the technology was able to replace them in a good enough capacity; and it is unwise to assume that those workers agreed to have generative AI in their offices to begin with.
Reply to Objection 3. This thought is unrealistic, because despite the promises of lowering developmental costs, generative AI still incurs a certain amount of money to be paid, and with its usage becoming more and more frequent, all these additional expenses will invariably be offset to the final price of the game. In other words, the game's price will remain the same, or even increase, despite the implementation of generative AI.
Reply to Objection 4. Up to this point in time, games were cherished and played perfectly fine, even with a finite amount of content. Infinite possibilities do not directly translate to more fun within the game. This also makes development unwieldy and risky, since ill-willed players could induce the generative AI implemented in the mechanic to generate problematic content - this is known as "jailbreaking" the AI. With a reduced number of human developers, finding ways to patch those errors before and after they arise will be exponentially more difficult, for very little gain in the context of gameplay. The ultimate goal of generative AI's developers is thus: the desire to make people feel like they are dependent on this technology, causing addiction and development of parasocial feelings towards the machine. This ensures the new batch of people reliant on this technology, which in turn, makes more and more people use generative AI in their lives.