>>11990989I would, and frankly I don't think it would be hard, but no one's made anything resembling an attack on the concept. Just "wah I don't like it take it out."
>>11990990You have restated your position, not elaborated. Do you even know what words mean?
Here, let me make your arguments for you. It'll be better for everyone that way.
"I am really disgusted by the idea of including something 'for' perverts."
I don't think a lack of empathy with the target audience is a good trait in even the amateurist of game designers. Okay, yeah, they're disgusting. But we have to have a leash on our feelings. People will like what you don't like.
"It's merely fap material, not anything else"
Plainly false. It's an aristocratic poodle moth. And anyway, how much 'else' do things need to be? A moving goalpost if ever I saw one. I could well say Viipii is merely smug circlejerkery, and be just as justified.
"It doesn't fit the feel of the overall game. It detracts from the whole, or at least fails to add to it."
A good argument, but frankly I don't think this game has any 'overall feel.' It was never going to have a unifying creative vision, just a sort-of-single direction. There are dozens of 'mons here that detract from or fail to add to anything in particular; they're just cool things being included.
inb4 ad hominem in place of rebuttal 