[Request]Sex And babys

[Dragoon]

hmm That makes sense ( do you think ill be able to change sexual preference with the colonist mod?)

[llunauk]

I'm not sure why some people are saying we should play the Sims 3 just because some of us want our Rimworld colonies to be more real by allowing them to breed. Anything that adds a different yet optional dimension to a game and how it can be played is a good thing as this brings in a bigger audience.  If you don't want to breed them don't breed them.

Most people these days given a choice seem to think they have to pick one and hate the other when infact you can have the best of both worlds most the time.   

[Olek]

I'm not sure why some people are saying we should play the Sims 3 just because some of us want our Rimworld colonies to be more real by allowing them to breed. Anything that adds a different yet optional dimension to a game and how it can be played is a good thing as this brings in a bigger audience.  If you don't want to breed them don't breed them.

Most people these days given a choice seem to think they have to pick one and hate the other when infact you can have the best of both worlds most the time.   

Sure, if there was an option to turn it on or off people would have the best of both worlds, but if your going to toss around the word "real", then you will be waiting around 300 days for a baby to be born, then what happens when raiders get into your base? or the colony is being shelled by mortars? are we going to going to have to watch mothers and babies getting killed?, no thanks.

[TenSaidYes]

I'm not sure why some people are saying we should play the Sims 3 just because some of us want our Rimworld colonies to be more real by allowing them to breed. Anything that adds a different yet optional dimension to a game and how it can be played is a good thing as this brings in a bigger audience.  If you don't want to breed them don't breed them.

Most people these days given a choice seem to think they have to pick one and hate the other when infact you can have the best of both worlds most the time.   

Sure, if there was an option to turn it on or off people would have the best of both worlds, but if your going to toss around the word "real", then you will be waiting around 300 days for a baby to be born, then what happens when raiders get into your base? or the colony is being shelled by mortars? are we going to going to have to watch mothers and babies getting killed?, no thanks.

Here's what really irks me about humans...

What the crap makes it OKAY to watch anyone get ripped apart by mortars? My colonists are, last I checked, all representative of living breathing human characters with basic, fundamental, needs and desires. Food, their own room, not to burn to death when the power plant explodes and rains fire down on the city... nothing unreasonable or dehumanizing. Why is it okay for John Walters, the 54 year old mechanical engineer who dedicated his life to keeping the lights of Salvation City glowing despite behind horribly disfigured and having panic attacks every time he stepped out his door, to be brutally murdered by artillery fire from homicidal psychopaths?

To so unflinchingly, unquestioningly declare a point at which 'watching people die' ceases to be acceptable, you are as good as admitting that it's perfectly okay to watch John and Jaquelyn Walters get murdered defending their homes because they're neither children, nor parents. Oh no, but if Suzie Lawrence and little baby 'Digsby' die in a hail of raider gunfire during the same attack, then it's gone too far.

I just had to watch my entire colony get razed to the ground. Everyone except my three 'if the enemy comes, fall back into the mountain hideout and seal up the entry hall' survivors got wiped out. I felt bad for every single one of those deaths... but I understand that this is a GAME, and that those deaths, while frustrating and emotional given the amount of time I'd invested in those characters, are simply a simulation of life on a brutal, frontier colony.

Several of those characters were 18, 17, 16, and even 15-year-olds. Are their lives less meaningful than a younger child's? How young do we have to get before your death goes from 'tragedy' to 'oh well, better dig another grave'?

[Geoblazer5]

What i'm wondering is why everyone keeps talking about what's right and what wrong and why they don't want this because this is a mod and it's your choice to download it or not.

[absentminded]

I'm not sure why some people are saying we should play the Sims 3 just because some of us want our Rimworld colonies to be more real by allowing them to breed. Anything that adds a different yet optional dimension to a game and how it can be played is a good thing as this brings in a bigger audience.  If you don't want to breed them don't breed them.

Most people these days given a choice seem to think they have to pick one and hate the other when infact you can have the best of both worlds most the time.   

Sure, if there was an option to turn it on or off people would have the best of both worlds, but if your going to toss around the word "real", then you will be waiting around 300 days for a baby to be born, then what happens when raiders get into your base? or the colony is being shelled by mortars? are we going to going to have to watch mothers and babies getting killed?, no thanks.

Here's what really irks me about humans...

That was ONE post, by one individual, not the elected representative of the human race giving the universal opinion of all humans.

[llunauk]

I see some fair points made by people opposing the idea but then I think about work arounds for them like cloning would be perhaps quicker then natural birth and itcould have benefits / disadvantages on both tied into their traits.   Considering also our colonies are on alien worlds and the whole prenant period works faster because there is something is in the water!  What if the colonists get impregnated by aliens.. thinking actual "Alien" "Aliens" films now with the face huggers ...  the whole idea of what pops out now just amuses me immensely.  Yeah I see valid reasons why it wouldn't work for some people on how they play their game but others I'm sure like myself just see endless possibilities that tick a lot of boxes.

Seriously though Matilda is in the garden collecting her crops and the next shes rolling around on the floor in agony as aliens burst out her stomach and all hell breaks loose!  Whos to say aliens aren't laced the plants with tiny alien eggs...

[Somz]

Seriously, each one of you... 5 days? 10? 15? If anything then 9 ingame months.. But at least 6, with dire consequences.
That would be something to think about, whether it's worth it or not.
Besides, fast aging wouldn't be good, people would become more and more picky about the starting characters, because picking 3x15 years old colonists would be the most effective,
or you could lose your 65 years old grandpa in half a year.
If one ingame year would increase the age of pawns by one, it'd rarely have consequence,
and as said before, pawns should live about 65-80 years randomly.
But again, pregnancy should last long and have consequences, bad ones to balance out the "free" colonist.

Also I don't think having a baby carried around, then a child running amok, then finally a fully functional colonist (that is if they didn't decide to play outside during a raid) is a good idea, at all.

If anything, the (said) idea of accelerated aging to 15 years old (the youngest I've seen) would be a better option, but even that should last for at the very least half a year, consuming a lot of juice in the process.

Mating should also be random if anything, and yes, without sex scenes..... -_-'

But hell, I don't know how many people would find it morally unacceptable,
how many would protest against it, because backstories are one thing
but having pregnant women and children killed is something different...
Though I for one wouldn't care much because it's a game, still it would probably cause trouble, a lot. ^^

And here's Tynan, in the end it's his game, it's up to him anyway, but personally I doubt he'll agree.

[RawCode]

this is not sims.

current "trend" to allow sex (including gays) into games about anything is plain stupid.
mass effect is great sample of stupidity.

probably some sociopaths will find such feature fun, but i see no reason to waste resources on such people.

[nordstage]

this is not sims.

current "trend" to allow sex (including gays) into games about anything is plain stupid.
mass effect is great sample of stupidity.

probably some sociopaths will find such feature fun, but i see no reason to waste resources on such people.

And brutal and blatant murdering of people is not sociopathic at all? It's a strange world indeed where violence is watched and ecouraged while sex and procreation is shunned.

In a game about human life stories I would argue that offspring is pretty central.

[Somz]

And brutal and blatant murdering of people is not sociopathic at all? It's a strange world indeed where violence is watched and ecouraged while sex and procreation is shunned.

In a game about human life stories I would argue that offspring is pretty central.

You know I've never understood people thinking this way.
Murdering -no problem,
Procreation -WHAT! NO!
Pork/(most)fish/clam/octopi/even lamb meat? -yummi,
Dog/insect/monkey/dolphin/cat meat? -OH GOD YOU SICK B***ARD!
etc
etc...
Gotta love 'logic', right?

[RawCode]

someone completely failed to understand my post and completely failed to get ever basic logic.

murdering pirates in game about murdering pirates is OK.

procreation in game about murdering pirates WTF LOL.
procreation in game about saving galaxy WTF.
procreation in game about dealing with blight WTF.
procreation in game about building factory WTF.

i will leave this video in order to explain why turning any game into idiotic sims is bad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrMMOteSqOE

[nordstage]

someone completely failed to understand my post and completely failed to get ever basic logic.

murdering pirates in game about murdering pirates is OK.

procreation in game about murdering pirates WTF LOL.
procreation in game about saving galaxy WTF.
procreation in game about dealing with blight WTF.
procreation in game about building factory WTF.

i will leave this video in order to explain why turning any game into idiotic sims is bad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrMMOteSqOE

Who are you to decide what Rimworld is about?
Rimworld is, according to its creator, a game about the (procedural) story of a group of people.

Taken from the front page of this site:
I've always thought the best part of games like Dwarf Fortress and The Sims was the stories that come out of them.
That's why RimWorld is designed as a story generator. It's not about winning and losing - it's about the drama, tragedy, and comedy that goes on in your colony.

Hence breeding pretty much fits in since being human in almost all cases equals creating offspring.

And lay off your sublime homofobia. It's the 21st century mate.

[Dragoon]

I'm not sure homo stuff that is what he was implying, But you sir just gave a great 1 up with the part from the front page!

[Sepkan]

I think I would only want babies if they mothers carried them into battle and they could fight, dwarf fortress style. Or if we could use them for mortar bait.