I'm not saying we should invalidate people who feel bad about blood either.

I've found it remarkably difficult to have a reasonable discussion here without getting all kinds of words put in my mouth so I can't imagine that someone who was feeling upset about these games would want to share their potentially very personal reasons why.

Yeah sorry, I should really have been more specific there. I wasn't including you in that patrikc (or a lot of the people here) because I don't think we've spoken before. Glad to make you chuckle though!

Thanks Ramor_. Perhaps it's down to some people just being so passionate about what they're discussing. I'm glad someone understood me though!

I didn't mean it like that, perhaps I should've been clearer. It was the colloquialism, it brought back fond memories.

But you siding with people, who are saying that.

What words exactly? I didn't really follow your conversation with JuWalk, so the only thing I remember is that "fictional character must be protected" argument. The "Ban anime porn" crowd uses it all the time, so there is little wonder that he assumed that you share that argument too. I'm not excusing him completely but as someone who advocates for "compassion and understanding", you should understand the reason for his mistake too.

At least he is right about reasonable people being able to see through their charade. :D

Oh, but I am. That's why I asked few times - guys, name a real reasons to delete these games. Objective ones. No one did it. They just repeated same mantras again and again - "I don't like these games", "they're bad quality", "they're just smut for fap and nothing more" (who will spend an hour or two of reading to fap to one-two pictures with little amount of sex-themed text, and then again wait for few hours? There's really tons of real porn in internet, so it's obvious that most people play these games for something different), "they can offend someone" (practically anything can offend someone, prohibitions obviously can't fix this), "they don't fit to GoG", etc. None of this can be called at least some weighty reasons, because it's all completely subjective. And there are many people with a completely opposite opinion.

When people say over and over again "this needs to be removed because we want to", not wanting to take into account the fact that there are other people whose opinion is no less valuable, sooner or later it becomes quite difficult to talk kindly to them. As already mentioned, I value honesty over pseudo-kindness in all its manifestations. So if a person continues to act like an asshole (Google translates many words with very different degrees of rudeness in this way, so I'm not sure that in English it doesn't sound ruder than it should) even after being repeatedly told "Dude, the world does not revolve around you - we need to consider the opinions of all people", I'm not going to speak kindly to him. And I will speak in the same way with those who, without good arguments, will demand to remove shooters, three-in-a-row, walking simulators and anything else, even if I'm not interested in these games at all. And if among the defenders of these games someone starts to behave in the same way, I will not support him either.

So, it's simple: Either people name good reasons for removal and we discuss them, or they continue to demand based on their subjective desires and don't give a damn about other people's desires and receive less restrained and completely deserved answers. You can't spit on others and demand to be treated with infinite respect at the same time.

Ha nice one, wasn't expecting that :D

Here's a little list of things I've been told I think that I posted to JuWalk before:
1. Fictional characters need help.
2. These games should be banned.
3. People and their tastes aren't different.
I'll forgive his assuming at first but he went on to suggest I think fictional characters need protecting multiple times after I said I didn't. Do people really believe that or is it just trolls trying to make anti-porn people look silly by pretending to be them and claiming they think that, or even people like JuWalk saying it so many times that people start to bleieve it's a thing? I've also been asked multiple times to defend my position that sex games should be banned but violent ones shouldn't when that's never been my stance.

I still think you're being too hostile for someone who is feeling genuine distress over these games to feel willing or comfortable to be open and discuss these issues with you so you're likely never going to get anything more in-depth than "I don't like it". And yes, I consider negative impact on mental health to be a valid reason and no, I don't think every game that negatively impacts one person should be instantly banned. If you're so keen on facts and objectivity why did you keep making stupid assumptions about me and not correcting them when told otherwise?

P.S. I'd go with arsehole ove asshole and how rude it is seems to vary by region.

1. Yes, I remember that.
2. Well, you did say "maybe some of those games should be banned".
3. No, I don't remember that. And it seems, I can't find such a comment. Are you sure that it's not you, who "puts words in someone's mouth" this time around?

And after you said, that you didn't, you made a vegan analogy, so it looked like you did. It's not unusual for "ban crowd" to change their opinion on the fly, sometimes in a span of one sentence. So, I'm not really surprised that you failed to convince your opponent.

I don't know. I'm no psychic, so I just assume people mean what they say until it's proven otherwise.

I agree with that. The question is - do porn games impact on people's mental health negatively?

Some may disagree with me, but my take on this issue is this:
I do not care about GOG's game curation at all. In fact, I could not care less about curation on any store.

I come to GOG for one reason, one reason only: DRM-Free games with offline installers. Epic, Origin, Ubisoft Connect, Rockstar Launcher, so on and so forth, they are all just bad Steam clones. They offer nothing that Steam doesn't. Nothing!

GOG is the only true competitor to Steam with a truly unique selling point. It's not curation, it's the anti-DRM stance and offline installer service. Sure there are a few DRM-Free titles on Humble Bundle or itch.io, but "nobody" knows those sites and "nobody" cares. They have very few games. Steam and Epic actually have some DRM-Free titles, but without offline installers, that fact becomes almost pointless.

Now because realistically, GOG is the only one offering the service of DRM-Free games with offline installers, they should not be acting as gate keepers. If they reject a game, there is no other place to get it DRM-Free with an offline installer. A few developers might sell offline installers on their own website, but most won't. I would even go as far as to call it GOG's duty to not turn away games from their store!

Sure, GOG could make a separate adult-only site, but that would require lots of marketing to raise awareness and nobody wants to do that. If they were to put an ad on the main GOG site, it would defeat the purpose of a separate adult-only site.

Here's the solution:
GOG, please add an Adult-Only game filter and get your curation team to make sure all games are marked appropriately.
OP, Deal with it. This is bigger than you. Your right to not see adult-only games on the store, does not trump other people's right to buy their games DRM-Free with offline installers.
Until there's another serious DRM-Free competitor out there, GOG should not act as a gate keeper.

I agree on the surface level, but then if we look at the details, who's to say that we will all agree on what constitutes an "objectively garbage game"? I'm afraid that it's all subjective. Now even if we did agree that a certain game was "garbage", that wouldn't necessarily mean that it couldn't be fun. There are some games that are essentially "Shitpost: The Game" which are self-aware of their status and are not trying to pretend to be anything else. I'd be lying if I said I never enjoyed any stupid games like that. Are they bad? Yes, but in a weird way they are enjoyable. It's kind of like how some movies are so bad, they're good.

I think the problem lies with consumer laziness. They do not want to spend ANY time reading reviews or investigating what they buy. This is where, I believe, all the pro-curation arguments come from. GOG offers a 30 day refund policy though, so what's the problem? Because of this policy and my habit of doing at least some research, I will always lean on the side of less restrictions. If you don't like something and you didn't bother to do any research, just refund it.

Also I just noticed that every single post here is low rated lol. What's that all about? A surplus of salt on all sides of the argument?

First, you're agreeing with yourself? (see that you replied to yourself).
Second, it's well known that there are an army of bots that secretly downvote all posts on specific threads. The Rep system is completely useless on GoG due to these bots.

Take a look at the game with id 584780 on Steam, for example. Is it possible to say that I call it bad just because I don't like shooters in general? Unlikely. After all, its quality is really extremely controversial. Or here is another example. I'm opposed to the removal/rejection of AO-games that many here are demanding, but I myself would be opposed to adding something like id 1036750. Because it's really not a GoG level. If curatorship is completely abolished, we will have a lot of such "masterpieces", as at Steam or on itch.io. Despite the fact that many of those present on this topic have very different points of view, I think we almost all agree on one thing - such a future for GoG would not make us happy.
Personally, I see such a compromise option as the most optimal: GoG employees, guided by some internal instructions that we do not know (unfortunately), conduct the first wave of screening. Users, if they see something interesting for them among the rejected games, let them know about it. And if more than 2-3 (not literally) people show interest in a particular game, the curators give it a second chance. This way, we could not be afraid of an influx of games of really questionable quality, and at the same time avoid the fact that curators cut off quite good games every now and then. Some kind of balance

As for reputation - this can be seen in many topics. Moreover, even in the middle of the night, a post almost immediately after creation may turn out to be with a low rating. So the version about the use of bots looks pretty convincing.

I wasn't replying to myself, the words are clearly JuWalk's, not my own. I accidentally deleted the wrong quote number. That being said, thanks for pointing it out, fixed now. Still getting used to this formatting.
Yeah, you may be right about those bots.

Ok I see what you mean, those are asset flips that are trying to be taken seriously, so I would not miss them either. What about games that are aware of their status? Check out 882250 and a more controversial 1141550. At first glance they look absolutely terrible as well, until you realise they are on the same level as Postal'ish Goat Simulator. The goal is bad-taste satire and thus the reviews are actually positive, they know what they are and are not trying to trick anyone. There will still be loads of people against such titles though.

Yeah that seems pretty reasonable, but I can totally imagine a scenario where a game is rejected and then another flame war starts where some users want a re-review versus another who want it to stay rejected. Who's in the right then?

The issue is that on some level both sides of the argument are right, BUT the effects of denial will affect everyone with no workaround, while if a trash game is allowed, nobody will be forced to buy it, so there's still choice.

Maybe they could add a filter to hide games with very bad reviews, unless the user disabled such a filter?

Yeah, it may be the case.

Looks like you can live out your puritanical ways, avoid seeing boobies and buttocks by buying your games at Game Jolt.
(Yes, I just watched the Jimquisition)

No prob. I was just confused, but figured it was something to that effect. Yes, the format is a little confusing at times, especially with breaking apart quotes to reply to specific parts.

I'm jumping into this thread a little late but I'm not seeing a lot of AO games on GOG. I've seen a few and the most recent is supposed to be AO but it's censored and marked M.

Is there a list of AO games that GOG carries? Just curious...