An article of mine, “Sex Games Get Down to Business,” apparently went up at Wired News a few days back. The piece is a preview for the upcoming Sex in Games Conference Brenda Brathwaite and Evergreen Events will be running in San Francisco this June. Even though the event will mostly handle the professional end of things, I’m quite excited to see the presenters — many of whom I know from internet land but have never met in real life — in flesh and blood action! Now I only need something to wear…
 |
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Yeah, its cool to go places and do things.
I’ve realized sex games are such a potent market, someone needs to make something that makes interactive the context of sex, which is really what we care about as a culture. That person will make bank.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:53 pm
“Makes interactive the context of sex”
Wadja mean, Patrick? I’d love to know more, and, you know, “make bank” :-).
February 24th, 2006 at 3:20 am
Is making bank better than phat lewt?
February 25th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Well, in the absence of Patrick, I’d have to say yes, yes it is.
Lingo confuses me greatly…
February 26th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Isn’t “making bank” more in the realm of construction? Masonry? I don’t get it! Why would people who are making sex games create buildings for storing money. WHY.
February 26th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Leave the Masons out of this.
Fnord.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
“Why would people who are making sex games create buildings for storing money. WHY.”
The world may never know… Probably something to do with performing decadent sexual acts in aforementioned money. Like Uncle Scrouge, in Duck Tales, who swims in the stuff. You know he’s doing more than that in there.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Maybe he’s always wanted to come into money.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
I apologize to all vertebrate lifeforms for that joke.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:53 am
Someday we’ll recover enough to be able to forgive you.
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:08 am
I figure the first truly successful sex game will be a lot like Myst: utterly gorgeous, yet filled with arbitrary puzzles that have nonsensical solutions, a lot of tedious repetition, and the whole thing doesn’t make a lot of sense, which leaves you scratching your head, wondering what all the fuss was about in the first place.
;-)
March 6th, 2006 at 10:05 am
I could never understand Myst. I mean, I understand it, but when I played it it totally baffled me. True, I was like 10 at the time, but who knew what those controls did, or why this ship was there, or what the hell was going on. And, yes, I think good sex could be a lot like that :-).
For actually thoughtful commentary on the future of sex design, I would recommend you to Kelly Rued’s musing on the IGDA’s Sex SIG mailing list. She runs Black Love Interactive, and, as such, knows her shit.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Well, the joke / stereotype is that the male sexual response is like a light switch, while the female sexual response is like a Rube Goldberg contraption: comparing it to Myst seemed the most obvious gaming metaphor. :-)
P.S. You’re making me feel old again: stop - that.