itch.io

Thank you for such a lengthy, meaningful response and engaging in the debate in a respectful way!

Apart from the dissonance I highlighted as the keynote, the mechanism of the game in relation to the point it *might* be trying to make is yet another issue, which I thought I'd better not dwell on too much, mostly because it's a simple, short game, the creator is a young, relatively unknown one and it's an artistic expression after all, so attempting to critique these technical aspects too harshly doesn't seem fair. We're facing shortage of creative expression and I stand for encouraging artistic value that is self-made and not stolen or mass-generated, regardless of my personal taste or its closeness to some kind of arbitrary perfection. The reason I wrote this review was to focus on the subject of artistic freedom, pertaining to the slippery slope of eradication of the taboo in art in the long run.

If I were to give something constructive on the executive side, though, it would be my observation how the game is designed to guide the user towards violence, which undoubtedly stands as its main/goal essence, ultimately leaving very little choice or flexibility for the player (I did want to go back to the "safe" tools, but once the next one is bought it's not possible to revert it, which I find a major drawback in case we're aiming for the "let's check the level of your empathy" effect) and causing the feeling of incompleteness in the route towards the good ending, like we're either missing out on or deliberately avoiding the main part it was all designed for. If the game facilitated non-violent paths better, the effect you're talking about would be more feasible. I just don't think that's the case at the moment.

You're actually touching a pretty underrated psychological niche with the dehumanization as protection. There's an undoubted biological mechanism behind human empathy increasing in direct proportion to the resemblance to our own species (which is why it also crossed my mind with the though that if the in-game art style was closer to realism, players would probably get much more reluctant even fully knowing nobody gets hurt for real). This particular field could've been an incredibly interesting area to explore, with the fourth wall breaking trope as a clever tool for stronger impact, if it was done in consequence to clear distinction between the player's immersive game-playing self and their actual values. TMI, but torturing even a simply drawn character wasn't exactly a fun ride for me as someone who somehow ends up feeling bad after accidentally stabbing a good guy in a first person RPG, but in order to figure out why we either enjoy or don't enjoy inflicting fictional pain onto anthropomorphized concepts, we need to enclose that within the fiction they belong to to begin with, because if we as much as assign real world human rights/emotions/violations etc. to the concept in question, the mechanism we're meant to ponder is left unclear, since the "it's not real, so why am I feeling this way?" puzzle becomes "it's not real, or maybe in some way it is?" instead. It's a gray area for the most susceptible ones. 

You're right that fiction can absolutely impact you in countless ways on a cognitive and emotional level, which is why it's so enjoyable! To carry it on from there onto the territory of physical actions, there is the matter of consciousness and decisions we take responsibility for on the way, which is my conclusion of the whole point. It's a matter of who consumes the fiction more than what kind of fiction is consumed.

I haven't heard about the pet thing, but I just googled it and if you have a story to share, I'm honestly interested!

Haha it's totally alright!! Whenever I express an opinion online I always brace for counter-criticism (even if baseless or basically a misunderstanding), that's just how things work in the human world! The fact I struggle to be concise or maintain the right tone doesn't help my case either. You actually made a really good summary of the main point I was trying to get across, so I'm genuinely thankful for this! I think it's really cool, too, that  you're willing to hear out other perspectives like mine :) In the era of all the challenges related to literacy and reading comprehension, it's almost like double its original value and very much needed. Hope you are well!

Yes, that would be 100% correct! This is a complex topic and very hard to express or sum up for me at least, but the point is none of the sort of harsh criticism or disdain for the game/creator/consumers, but rather the dissonance alone, which I couldn't help but notice and ponder for a bit. 

That's a brilliant review highlighting issues that crossed my mind mid-gameplay as well. I figured it wasn't made with the intention to be deep or meaningful; the essence is simply torture for the sake of it, with its greatest asset being the candy-like aesthetics juxtaposed against the gore. I do think the game could benefit from being developed further though. It brought to my mind the Rhythm 0 performance by Marina Abramovic, and if it followed that premise (where you're free to do anything to the character, with the choice to either hurt them or treat them kindly instead), it would have been an impactful piece of media, exploring the dark aspects of human nature. Just an idea though.

This is the first time I'm hearing about this term, and from a quick check, you could be right. It's good to learn about something new, thank you!

If the character in the game was made to be a depiction of a minor, would you regard it as a child being abused? It's a genuine question, no pressure. I personally think both situations would be severely punishable and deserving of being morally condemned if they occurred in real life (which they sadly do, regardless of what kind of games the perpetrator likes to play), because all lives are important. Thankfully, the piece of media in questions has no real persons in it, which is why I'm more than happy to see people being free to enjoy it, hopefully with full awareness. And I enjoy writing my 'novels' too, at times :)

I'm sorry you haven't read the entire thing with enough comprehension. You're currently fighting a strawman you've created yourself despite my review already refuting all of your given statements, questions and assumptions. This isn't a debate on the indisputably horrific pedophilic crimes against children no one sane would question the severity of; this is about concern of treating non-sentient characters as if they were real people, particularly in the context of scenarios where they are severely victimized. I cannot explain it more clearly than this, I don't think it's possible with the other party unwilling to read or refer to anything that has actually been said, so hence on I won't engage further. I wish you well, though; our society is in desperate need of voices like yours that would speak up against actual children abuse.

I’ve made an account for the purpose of writing an honest review of the game.

To begin with: admittedly, this specific piece of media has drawn my attention after the emergence of the pro-shipping discourse on another platform. Now, for the sake of context, I do not consider myself pro-ship in the way many people seem to define this term in, which typically is an enjoyer of incestuous and pedophilic fan content. However, I do consider myself pro-ship and pro-fiction in the sense that I do not think fiction possesses the ability to directly and actively affect reality, in one-to-one proportions - without conscious actions and deliberate choices as a proxy between the two - nor do I think fiction should be censored for the sheer reason of existing. This is the reason why I will always advocate for the right of the developer of this game to create whatever they please as long as it all stays within the means of creative works; "a bunch of lines", if you will.

With this being said, drawn by my own curiosity surrounding the entire commotion, I decided to try out the game, and now having completed the experience in full, I feel qualified to give it my own judgement.

The art is beautiful, the execution flawless, and the overall aesthetic is the kind of creepy-cute that is certainly bound to attract audience. The essence of the game is - to state frankly - torture porn. Of course, it's as far from explicit sexual content as it can get, yet for the sake of clarification: the term torture porn described a genre where physical and/or mental suffering is inflicted upon a character (or multiple characters) in order to entertain and pleasure the viewer for whatever reason imaginable. This piece of work is no different than what the market has already had to offer for decades, bringing to mind such franchises as Hostel, Japanese eroguro films or horror manga grotesque, albeit much simpler and perhaps fresher. I don't feel that there is any sort of psychological depth present beyond the surface value of it. You either like it or not.

My review would’ve concluded here, if it weren’t for the latest discourse shedding slightly different light on the creation. If this work of art had the entire audience remain under the impression that it was made with the commonplace “what’s fiction stays in fiction” mindset, there would be nothing to dwell on. If, for any possible reason, one enjoys torturing a fictional man on a screen, there is no justifiable reason why any media offering this kind of experience should be off-limits.

What specifically made me alarmed is the fact that the author has clearly expressed their stance on fiction as a mean capable of directly blurring the lines of conscious actions and desires. Now (I hope this is needless to say), drawing boundaries is not only fine, but also encouraged, even if the purpose of the original post was rather to take a stance than efficiently curate the author's space. It is not the original post I’m pertaining to, though, but rather a couple of later exchanges the thread resulted in.

Abuse is abuse, and it doesn’t have to be inherently sexual to be sexually motivated. What the game depicts is a clear portrayal of a paraphilia, explicitly stated in the game, and that paraphilia is sadism. It contradicts the point that paraphilia disorders should be frowned upon in fiction; it’s a hypocritical statement.

The point I’m aiming to make is that the game, as a imaginative creation, would be absolutely harmless (and I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt, believing that it probably still is). However, with the above in mind, the gameplay began to present in a much more concerning and anxiety-inducing manner, in my particular case. With the author making it clear that they believe paraphilias shouldn’t take place in fiction; that dark media consumption is allegedly a clear reflection of one’s true character or intentions, then this particular game reads to me as alarming and unsettling.

Apart from the widely explored torture porn tropes, what caught my attention and concerned me further were the lines meant to deliberately break through the fourth wall, understood as a mean to make the consumer feel that characters in a piece of media acknowledge the spectator/player's presence and communicate with them by using any form of verbal or non-verbal communication. While in some works it might be as much as a wink to the camera, in this case I have no doubts it is made to be knowingly intentional and purposed as a part of the gameplay. The character being tortured acknowledges the concept of him being a fictional character in the eyes of the player, but to himself, he is real and has life outside of the game. Context is important, because without it, the deliberate breaking of the fourth wall is none other than a pretty brilliant device to use for impact. Here, it caters to a certain type of parasocial dynamics.

I’m going to largely paraphrase now, but with lines such as "this isn’t a game anymore;" "each hit feels so real, what’s happening to me?" "I know this is just a game to you, but to me it’s my life;" "I’m a little sad cartoon you can torture to feel better;" "I’m just a bunch of lines (<- a common dogwhistle) to you while you sit comfortably on that cushion of yours"; "knowing full you’re not going to face any repercussions for what you’re doing to me"; and most alarmingly, "look, this isn’t just a game anymore, you’re seriously hurting me" - in the light of awareness that these are designed and written by a person sharing a mindset that taboo fiction reflects a person’s real intentions, all of these can make you worry not for the "bunch of lines on the screen", but for the maker themselves. It wouldn’t have made the same impression on me - shifting uncomfortably in my chair - if I wasn’t made aware of the context behind this in the first place.

I allowed the interpretation that the essence of the game is meant to criticize these dogwhistles, serving as a mockery of the attitude where characters are believed to feel and exist in their own realm, vulnerable to harm, but the stance expressed on social media simply doesn't add up. If paraphilias are where the line should be drawn at in media, this interpretation appears contradictory. Even if the author doesn't associate it with a paraphilia, then the proposed theory of criticism of violent media would create a paradox.

All in all, the game is a plain edgy, controversial piece of media. While that should be it, as you read the author’s thoughts on the blurred lines between fiction and reality, it makes you worry whether THIS is also a reflection of something transcending just the realm of Harvey Harvington. If one were to torture a fictional character while bearing in mind it doesn’t make you a sadist or a killer in real life, there wouldn't be anything to discuss on this level. Yet if you were to torture a fictional character while thinking the media you consume and engage in reflect your hidden desires, I’m not sure what kind of work I'm looking at.

Coping with paraphilic disorders is an important part of mental health care. Medically speaking, sadism doesn’t technically work very differently than other paraphilias, which in turn are perhaps perceived as more socially dangerous, despicable or frowned upon. The truth is a paraphilia by itself, as a psychological phenomenon, cannot hurt anyone as long as it’s not acted upon, though. If anyone playing this feels like the boundary between "just fiction" and actual inner desires isn't clear to them, it’s important to reach out. You’re not alone.

I wholeheartedly respect the author for making apparently a very successful game in a short time, putting in effort and contributing to the under-appreciated taboo art community. I’m sure that for most people, this is just a fun distraction - a controversial piece for temporary escapism, making one feel something without any real risk, in the same way fictional media has always been there for human entertainment. By no means am I condemning the artwork itself; in the era of omnipresent AI slop, any form of art made with genuineness and passion in heart is meant to be nothing but valued, enjoyed and appreciated by those whose cup of tea it is. This work is no different - no matter how uneasy it made me personally, I advocate for its right to exist and flourish, should it be attempted to censored one day.

What I’ve been scrutinizing is the mindset itself, making it harder to enjoy. This might be complex, but while - as previously stated - fiction factually cannot affect reality on a 1:1 basis, for as long as you're aware of its nature, fiction (either as an abstract concept or in the form of media with no sentience of their own) bears no risk of affecting your physical actions on its own. However, there is a reason certain media are often flagged as not appropriate for the most suspectible, vulnerable minds, which often involves the ability to draw a clear boundary between what is real and what is not. In the hands of those who cannot make this distinction, this game - in the same way as other taboo artworks - would not be suitable, and it makes me worry about the author’s intentions, who has made it clear that in their personal case as well, the boundary might not be as clear as desirable. I'm simply hoping I'm wrong though, and that this simply hasn't been given as much thought. I wish the author nothing but further success, and all enjoyers to reasonably curate their experiences and the right to enjoy niche media in peace.