Save scumming

[Tuckey]

Shadowrun returns I have been told, will have a  save anywhere system when the new Berlin content comes out January. Will apply to dead mans switch as well. HBS has let the backers know this first ahead of media which is a class act.

 

As regards save scumming, sure discourage it but ultimately let players play the game the way they want to play it. I think civilization V and x-com discourages this by making sure that a roll for combat success is always succeed or fail so you can't just load back if you don't like the outcome. Although in civ's case I think that is a toggle you can switch off.

[JFSOCC]

I don't understand why can't people who don't like save scumming just force themselves to play by their own rules.

I will probably avoid doing it, and all i need is willpower.

May I counter that argument with thhe following: Just because you cannot stop save scumming, doesn't mean you can't discourage it.

Save scumming is not the issue, it's the symptom of the real issue: game balance. If the only way to succeed is to save and reload often, something is wrong with the balance of your game. If the optimal way to defeat an encounter is too play it again and again until you have the correct solution, something is wrong as well.

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to reload, even often. I'm saying you shouldn't have to, at least not often.

I'm perfectly OK with failing, and then reloading, but it shouldn't be the go-to solution for dealing with tough obstacles.

 

One way to deal with this is delaying notification of failure, or altering the outcome and progression following a failed encounter to represent your failure in a different narrative outcome.

 

I'll give you an example.

Fred wants to be the leader of an organisation, as a journeyman he's worked his way up the ladder to a position of power. The leader is old and gives all his lieutenants a task, and whomever succeeds can succeed him.

Fred fails the task.

rather than just end the story for him, instead, he now has to find a different path. He can coerce and manipulate, maybe even kill the competition. He can try to prove his worth a different way, by doing something even more impressive. He can discredit the person who succeeded.

Or, he can accept his fate and forever be #2 in his organisation.

His failure didn't end his story, and thus, there was no reason for Fred to reload and try again.

[Rhawkas]

 

I don't understand why can't people who don't like save scumming just force themselves to play by their own rules.

I will probably avoid doing it, and all i need is willpower.

May I counter that argument with thhe following: Just because you cannot stop save scumming, doesn't mean you can't discourage it.

Save scumming is not the issue, it's the symptom of the real issue: game balance. If the only way to succeed is to save and reload often, something is wrong with the balance of your game. If the optimal way to defeat an encounter is too play it again and again until you have the correct solution, something is wrong as well.

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to reload, even often. I'm saying you shouldn't have to, at least not often.

I'm perfectly OK with failing, and then reloading, but it shouldn't be the go-to solution for dealing with tough obstacles.

 

One way to deal with this is delaying notification of failure, or altering the outcome and progression following a failed encounter to represent your failure in a different narrative outcome.

 

I'll give you an example.

Fred wants to be the leader of an organisation, as a journeyman he's worked his way up the ladder to a position of power. The leader is old and gives all his lieutenants a task, and whomever succeeds can succeed him.

Fred fails the task.

rather than just end the story for him, instead, he now has to find a different path. He can coerce and manipulate, maybe even kill the competition. He can try to prove his worth a different way, by doing something even more impressive. He can discredit the person who succeeded.

Or, he can accept his fate and forever be #2 in his organisation.

His failure didn't end his story, and thus, there was no reason for Fred to reload and try again.

 

 

You make some good points there, and the example given at the end really works well. Save scumming itself doesn't need to be removed/prevented, the reasons to do so need to be addressed.

 

Example:

Larry and his party come across a treasure chest. Naturally, he runs up to and tries to open it.

A trap goes off and blasts him for 1/2 his health. He's alive, but upset. He didn't save before trying to open the chest, so he doesn't load because he doesn't want to redo all the exploring he had just done.

Now, when he tried to open the chest he wasn't able to because it was also locked, so he sends Rebecca the Rogue to the chest. This time he saves, because he remembers something unpleasant that happened before with a locked chest.

Rebecca tries to unlock the chest but fails. She keeps trying and failing and eventually manages to jam the lock. Oops. Now, the treasure isn't out of their reach just yet, but some of it might be. Larry and Co. can smash the chest apart and take the loot from inside, but fragile stuff (potions, etc.) have a very high chance of being broken when the chest is. This is that bad experience he had before, so he reloads.

Rebecca works on the lock again and this time she gets lucky and manages to unlock it before jamming the lock. Larry saves his game.

Larry runs up to the chest and opens it. The loot inside can barely be called loot, much less treasure worth all the trouble he went through, so he reloads and tries again. The loot on the next attempt isn't much better, so he reloads and keeps reloading until he finds something he's happy with.

 

Now, there are numerous reasons why someone inclined to save scum might do so here.

1. The trap. It didn't kill him, but he knew about it after triggering it. Had he saved more recently, he would have loaded and tried actively searching for traps until he found it. A possible solution to this might be to make trap/secret spotting passive, or only allow one attempt to spot traps/secrets for passive spotting and active searching per character per trap/secret.

2. The lock. He was still able to continue, but there was more stuff waiting for him if he reloaded and tried to unlock the chest. A possible solution here would be to either have all the rolls preset (say he rolled a 13, 12, 8, 11, 15, and 2, jamming the lock with the 2, he'd get the same set of rolls no matter how many times he reloaded). Alternatively, it could be reliant on player skill, like in Skyrim or Bioshock or other games where there's a little mini-mini-game to unlock chests.

3. The loot. He knew the loot was randomly generated when he opened the chest, so if he save before opening it he could try for different loot until he got something he wanted. A possible solution here would be to make chests and other loot-holding items generate their loot when the map or even that playthrough is started, that way the loot would be different from other players', but it would be the same for him no matter how many times he opened it the way he did.

 

Saving in combat however, probably shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise I'm sure many people will be inclined to save scum their way through particularly difficult fights, which is really a shame.

[Mor]

Just to make sure everyone is uptodate, this issue has been already addressed. Those who oppose Save Scumming will be able to choose the Trial of Iron at the start of their game.

[Elerond]

 

I don't understand why can't people who don't like save scumming just force themselves to play by their own rules.

I will probably avoid doing it, and all i need is willpower.

May I counter that argument with thhe following: Just because you cannot stop save scumming, doesn't mean you can't discourage it.

Save scumming is not the issue, it's the symptom of the real issue: game balance. If the only way to succeed is to save and reload often, something is wrong with the balance of your game. If the optimal way to defeat an encounter is too play it again and again until you have the correct solution, something is wrong as well.

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to reload, even often. I'm saying you shouldn't have to, at least not often.

I'm perfectly OK with failing, and then reloading, but it shouldn't be the go-to solution for dealing with tough obstacles.

 

One way to deal with this is delaying notification of failure, or altering the outcome and progression following a failed encounter to represent your failure in a different narrative outcome.

 

I'll give you an example.

Fred wants to be the leader of an organisation, as a journeyman he's worked his way up the ladder to a position of power. The leader is old and gives all his lieutenants a task, and whomever succeeds can succeed him.

Fred fails the task.

rather than just end the story for him, instead, he now has to find a different path. He can coerce and manipulate, maybe even kill the competition. He can try to prove his worth a different way, by doing something even more impressive. He can discredit the person who succeeded.

Or, he can accept his fate and forever be #2 in his organisation.

His failure didn't end his story, and thus, there was no reason for Fred to reload and try again.

 

 

Also harsh punishments when you fail in skill roll and big rewards on succeeding in said rolls also drive people to save and reload until they succeed in that roll.

 

For example failing in pick pocketing roll causes in many games all neutral character to turn hostile towards your characters which usually also means that you have to reload or you can't finish the game. And succeeding in pick pocketing gives you often so good rewards that it justifies time that you spent in reloading until you succeed to pick pocket everything from everyone. Another example is fail once and lose opportunity permanently situations like lock picking safe/chest/door, in such situation failure usually means that you lose items of great value if you don't reload until you succeed to pick the lock. So like you said game should avoid such win or lose situations.  

 

For example if we take that pick pocketing example and change it so that failure don't cause people to turn hostile towards you but run away and maybe call guards, which will cause that you will get reputation to be thief which will eventually lead that you will be contacted by local thief guild or its equivalent. Which will open you new quest path in city but maybe close some other path that demands clean reputation. This kind of approach not only lower players desire to reload in case of failure, but actually encourage players to experiment what paths failures will open to them. 

 

So desire to save scum will greatly diminish if failure is valid, worthwhile and in some cases best option for your character/s.

[AGX-17]

Do so many people have so little self-control that they need the developers to design anti-save-scumming measures into the game? Turning it from an IE-inspired game to a Rogue-inspired game would be a contradiction of what I assume most backers were backing for.

Edited November 19, 2013 by AGX-17

[JFSOCC]

You make some good points there, and the example given at the end really works well. Save scumming itself doesn't need to be removed/prevented, the reasons to do so need to be addressed.

 

Example:

Larry and his party come across a treasure chest. Naturally, he runs up to and tries to open it.

A trap goes off and blasts him for 1/2 his health. He's alive, but upset. He didn't save before trying to open the chest, so he doesn't load because he doesn't want to redo all the exploring he had just done.

Now, when he tried to open the chest he wasn't able to because it was also locked, so he sends Rebecca the Rogue to the chest. This time he saves, because he remembers something unpleasant that happened before with a locked chest.

Rebecca tries to unlock the chest but fails. She keeps trying and failing and eventually manages to jam the lock. Oops. Now, the treasure isn't out of their reach just yet, but some of it might be. Larry and Co. can smash the chest apart and take the loot from inside, but fragile stuff (potions, etc.) have a very high chance of being broken when the chest is. This is that bad experience he had before, so he reloads.

Rebecca works on the lock again and this time she gets lucky and manages to unlock it before jamming the lock. Larry saves his game.

Larry runs up to the chest and opens it. The loot inside can barely be called loot, much less treasure worth all the trouble he went through, so he reloads and tries again. The loot on the next attempt isn't much better, so he reloads and keeps reloading until he finds something he's happy with.

 

Now, there are numerous reasons why someone inclined to save scum might do so here.

1. The trap. It didn't kill him, but he knew about it after triggering it. Had he saved more recently, he would have loaded and tried actively searching for traps until he found it. A possible solution to this might be to make trap/secret spotting passive, or only allow one attempt to spot traps/secrets for passive spotting and active searching per character per trap/secret.

2. The lock. He was still able to continue, but there was more stuff waiting for him if he reloaded and tried to unlock the chest. A possible solution here would be to either have all the rolls preset (say he rolled a 13, 12, 8, 11, 15, and 2, jamming the lock with the 2, he'd get the same set of rolls no matter how many times he reloaded). Alternatively, it could be reliant on player skill, like in Skyrim or Bioshock or other games where there's a little mini-mini-game to unlock chests.

3. The loot. He knew the loot was randomly generated when he opened the chest, so if he save before opening it he could try for different loot until he got something he wanted. A possible solution here would be to make chests and other loot-holding items generate their loot when the map or even that playthrough is started, that way the loot would be different from other players', but it would be the same for him no matter how many times he opened it the way he did.

 

Saving in combat however, probably shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise I'm sure many people will be inclined to save scum their way through particularly difficult fights, which is really a shame.

#1 and #3 can be dealt with by random seeds. You save the game after you enter the room with the randomly placed loot, the random seed is saved with it, and so the loot will always be the same. Similar for skill checks. Although for #3, I believe most loot will be handplaced in P:E

#2 I think could be solved by offering alternatives after failure. Like bash. Maybe if you expend a certain resource which you have limited access to, you can retry later.

 

A long time ago I had a nasty idea, it wouldn't be popular, but I think it would work. tracking how often a savegame is loaded, and for each time above the second time you load it, add five seconds to the load time (hidden)

Perhaps this could be reset everytime the game is shut down. (because turning off the game and booting it back up takes long enough in of itself.)

 

Eventually a person will stop bothering to save scum, unless it is REALLY important to them.

 

It's still possible to save scum

[Rhawkas]

#1 and #3 can be dealt with by random seeds. You save the game after you enter the room with the randomly placed loot, the random seed is saved with it, and so the loot will always be the same. Similar for skill checks. Although for #3, I believe most loot will be handplaced in P:E

#2 I think could be solved by offering alternatives after failure. Like bash. Maybe if you expend a certain resource which you have limited access to, you can retry later.

 

A long time ago I had a nasty idea, it wouldn't be popular, but I think it would work. tracking how often a savegame is loaded, and for each time above the second time you load it, add five seconds to the load time (hidden)

Perhaps this could be reset everytime the game is shut down. (because turning off the game and booting it back up takes long enough in of itself.)

 

Eventually a person will stop bothering to save scum, unless it is REALLY important to them.

 

It's still possible to save scum

 

 

Yeah, random seeds is what I was thinking of but couldn't remember what it was called. XD

 

Also, I mentioned bashing chests and stuff, but people inclined to save scum would probably do so once they found out that bashing chests open could destroy some of the items inside (like in Baldur's Gate). Course, you could just not leave indications of the broken items (no "Broken Item" items in the chest, etc.) then they wouldn't know if they broke something.

 

As for your idea, it sounds like the easiest way around it would be to create a bunch of extra save files to run up the timers on while trying to get the desired result and then just regularly delete or overwrite them all with the original save to try again with fresh timers. They'd really just be inconvenienced. Worse is that it would affect players playing normally that are just having a lot of trouble with an encounter, which is really unfortunate since that's nowhere near the intention. =(

[Lephys]

Exactly, Tarnesh is the Hogger (WoW) of Forgotten Realms What? Yes, you heard me, WoW. Don't judge me, I tried WoW once and it was terrible.

 

Honestly, throwing a reasonably difficult oponents at the beginning of a story is a good thing. One should know that there is a dangerous world out there for badly prepared adventurer wannabes, so you better watch out.

The thing is, I was literally as prepared as I could've been. Well, without taking on the two crazy evil dudes, but, I didn't trust them. Anywho, I don't attribute having to get lucky in a randomized system to difficulty. Having to figure out the best tactics to use to get the job done... THAT'S difficulty. In other words, what was the strategy for taking down Tarnesh? Don't let him cast Mirror Image (and, subsequently, like level 5 Magic Missile or whatever). But, even if you opt to "not let" him do that, you can just get a bunch of crappy rolls that completely negate any amount of effort you put into affecting the situation.

 

I'd much rather have a tough fight that's tough because of what you have to figure out with what you're able to do, rather than tough because of factors beyond your control that you have to hope cause planetary alignment. Which is one reason I look forward, so much, to P:E's hit system and mechanics.

 

I'll take a "Man, that guy REALLY keeps you on your toes!" boss/baddie over a "Man, that guy does like 1,000 damage!/that guy resists everything!" boss/baddie, any day.

[jamoecw]

 

Exactly, Tarnesh is the Hogger (WoW) of Forgotten Realms What? Yes, you heard me, WoW. Don't judge me, I tried WoW once and it was terrible.

 

Honestly, throwing a reasonably difficult oponents at the beginning of a story is a good thing. One should know that there is a dangerous world out there for badly prepared adventurer wannabes, so you better watch out.

The thing is, I was literally as prepared as I could've been. Well, without taking on the two crazy evil dudes, but, I didn't trust them. Anywho, I don't attribute having to get lucky in a randomized system to difficulty. Having to figure out the best tactics to use to get the job done... THAT'S difficulty. In other words, what was the strategy for taking down Tarnesh? Don't let him cast Mirror Image (and, subsequently, like level 5 Magic Missile or whatever). But, even if you opt to "not let" him do that, you can just get a bunch of crappy rolls that completely negate any amount of effort you put into affecting the situation.

 

I'd much rather have a tough fight that's tough because of what you have to figure out with what you're able to do, rather than tough because of factors beyond your control that you have to hope cause planetary alignment. Which is one reason I look forward, so much, to P:E's hit system and mechanics.

 

I'll take a "Man, that guy REALLY keeps you on your toes!" boss/baddie over a "Man, that guy does like 1,000 damage!/that guy resists everything!" boss/baddie, any day.

 

my first playthrough i missed them (i stayed off roads, as i felt it would avoid potential ambushes), and it took me 8 times to beat him.  now with those two it takes me on average 3 times to beat him.  the trick is to get your hit frequency up in order to stop his spell casting, imoen with a shortbow works well here.  i also send my character ahead so he gets hit with the magic missile or fear spell.  finally don't play anything that can't take a hit, it is gg if you die at anytime, so your safety is paramount.

[Mor]

For example if we take that pick pocketing example and change it so that failure don't cause people to turn hostile towards you but run away and maybe call guards, which will cause that you will get reputation to be thief which will eventually lead that you will be contacted by local thief guild or its equivalent. Which will open you new quest path in city but maybe close some other path that demands clean reputation. This kind of approach not only lower players desire to reload in case of failure, but actually encourage players to experiment what paths failures will open to them.

I like the idea, but IMO in this case the path of failure will bring the notice of the magistrate and the local guards, you have to be good (not to get caught) to get the notice of the thief guild.

 

Bottom line other than ruining the experience for most players, there is nothing anyone can do to prevent players from using save/load to re-roll the best outcome for them in a situation(good or bad). IMO there's no point in wasting time on how other players choose play and focus on our experience.(just choose the mode that you like) For that matter your idea is great, not because its supposed effect on save scumming, but because it can improve gameplay for all..

Edited November 20, 2013 by Mor

[TrashMan]

As far as I am concerned, Iron Man is the way the game SHOULD be played.

 

Yes, I'm saying that people who don't play it that way are playing it wrong. Iron Man brings forth the tense atmosphere and helps get into the character more. It's as close to true PnP playing a game can get these days, and that is exactly the desired experience.

 

But I can't really be mad for people wanting other things. We all want other things... however, the problem lies in where you're looking for them.

I might want Battlefild 4 to be a strategy game, and not a FPS.

[Sabotin]

I wouldn't really consider IE games striving to be a pnp experience. Even if it was, does the group of people you play with kick you out when your character dies? Do you start the same adventure from the beginning? Do you scratch it altogether and start a different one? I can't say I'm an expert on this matter, but I think the usual policy is that you make another character that joins in the middle of things or that you do something else like co-dm...

 

I don't really have a problem with save/reload when you fail. What I'd take issue with is save/reload to get a dice roll right. To help this I think it's the game's job is to get the players in the right mindset of what will and what will not work and provide options for solutions. The players might not see all of them (I lured the inn assassin downstairs where the guards helped me deal with him, but didn't even think of backstabbing him), but they should not get the feeling that there is one thing to do and just a matter of trying enough times. I realize that it's just as much the players' fault, but that's a poor excuse for game developers.

[PrimeJunta]

Do so many people have so little self-control that they need the developers to design anti-save-scumming measures into the game? Turning it from an IE-inspired game to a Rogue-inspired game would be a contradiction of what I assume most backers were backing for.

 

Yes. Yes, we do.

[Mor]

As far as I am concerned, Iron Man is the way the game SHOULD be played.

 

Yes, I'm saying that people who don't play it that way are playing it wrong. Iron Man brings forth the tense atmosphere and helps get into the character more. It's as close to true PnP playing a game can get these days, and that is exactly the desired experience.

 

But I can't really be mad for people wanting other things. We all want other things... however, the problem lies in where you're looking for them.

I might want Battlefild 4 to be a strategy game, and not a FPS.

I am reminded of the conversation in the Cookie Cutter Builds thread i.e. some people will always insist they are the only right way to play... the more egotistical types will also get self righteous about it. So before you get mad about others looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place, I just want to remember you that the desired experience for this game was inspired by old-school Infinity Engine style RPGs. Edited November 20, 2013 by Mor

[PrimeJunta]

But that's because we are. You inferior beings will never understand the true power of gaming unless you learn to do it ower way. 

 

Also, you are permitted to bow now.

[TrashMan]

When death is not to be feared, when there is no dread, no fear of faliure - there can be no true roleplaying. Period.

 

The very knowledge that you can reload and prevent death causes you to take actions and risk you (or a sensible character) normally wouldn't.

[Cubiq]

Um guys... if you really think that's the true way of playing the game you should have the willpower to back it up. Meaning you should be able to follow your belief and play it like that, without the developers doing it for you.

[TrashMan]

Um guys... if you really think that's the true way of playing the game you should have the willpower to back it up. Meaning you should be able to follow your belief and play it like that, without the developers doing it for you.

 

Why tempt someone in the first place? It is evil.

Do I jiggle hot, sexy, willing women in front of you when you're horny? Wands of cash when youre in debt? Food when your'e hungry? Nope. Also:

 

The very knowledge that you can reload and prevent death causes you to take actions and risk you (or a sensible character) normally wouldn't.

[Hassat Hunter]

The one thing I wonder in this thread is still the BG1 example.

 

First time it took 20 tries. These days people do it in 1.

And... they still say it's up to luck? Wait? What?

 

How can you contradict yourself in the exact same post? Still think it's luck-based if obviously you now found a winning STRATEGY? Or do did you defile luck in those years inbetween?

[Jarmo]

Sitting in front of your computer for many hours causes health problems, back and otherwise.

Using a standing desk is much better for your health.

 

PE should only be played while standing, make it so.

 

The choice shouldn't be left to individuals, I know everybody is as lazy as me and will drift to a more comfortable position given a chance.

Most importantly, I'll feel stupid standing up if everybody else gets their gaming kicks in a more relaxed way.

 

Gaming shouldn't be fun or relaxing, it should be constant tedious effort to embetter yourself. No pain - no gain.

[TrashMan]

Sitting in front of your computer for many hours causes health problems, back and otherwise.

Using a standing desk is much better for your health.

 

PE should only be played while standing, make it so.

 

The choice shouldn't be left to individuals, I know everybody is as lazy as me and will drift to a more comfortable position given a chance.

Most importantly, I'll feel stupid standing up if everybody else gets their gaming kicks in a more relaxed way.

 

Gaming shouldn't be fun or relaxing, it should be constant tedious effort to embetter yourself. No pain - no gain.

 

 

Actually, if you have a proper ergonomic chair, the back problems are a thing of hte past. Especially if you combine it with back excercises.

 

But I digress. Good thing that PE has IronMan mode.

 

The error you are making is the assumption that game MUST allow you to play it any way you want or that there isn't a "proper" way to paly it, to get the desired experience out of it. A different way of playing by definition will give a different experience. Choice is all nice and good, but it's not a golden rule, nor do the developers have to supply it.

 

You have a choice of not playing or getting a mod if it's that big of a problem.

[Cubiq]

The very knowledge that you can reload and prevent death causes you to take actions and risk you (or a sensible character) normally wouldn't.

 

Not really, if you play by your own rules, there's no "knowledge" that you can reload.

As i mentioned in the post above, i'm currently playing BG2 that way atm. No reloads unless a bug. On my 5th playthrough atm.

Plus there's the issue in IronMan, if a bug kills you, you're screwed.

 

You have a choice of not playing or getting a mod if it's that big of a problem.

ooor they could make it for everyone, make more money, and people like us have the choice to play the way we want without any need for mods.

[Jarmo]

 The error you are making is the assumption that game MUST allow you to play it any way you want or that there isn't a "proper" way ...

You have a choice of not playing or getting a mod if it's that big of a problem.

 

 

The error you're making is assuming your minority opinion is the correct one, or majority one.

 

Since the Ironman style is not what IE games were about, nor the way most players want to play,

you're basically arguing the IronMan mode should not have been made or should be dropped.

 

...and then you could choose to not play or get a mod.

 

Luckily enough, the developers seem to have a broader vision.

[Lephys]

Why tempt someone in the first place? It is evil.

Do I jiggle hot, sexy, willing women in front of you when you're horny? Wands of cash when youre in debt? Food when your'e hungry? Nope. Also:

 

The very knowledge that you can reload and prevent death causes you to take actions and risk you (or a sensible character) normally wouldn't.

The only flaw there is... when are you never allowed to create a new game and get back to that very same point to try again?

 

The ability to save and reload isn't providing the ability to mulligan. It's just providing the ability to mulligan much more conveniently. So, removing it (or forcing everyone to Iron Man it) wouldn't actually prevent anyone from trying again. It would just make trying again really really annoying and round-a-bout.

 

The only game that truly meets your standards is the one that, once you die, deletes your serial key from existence, scratches its own disc all to hell, and wipes your entire hard drive, then brands your forehead with some symbol, so that stores will never, ever sell you another copy of the game ever again.

 

Just like the option of getting a mod, the sheer ability to save and reload is not the issue. It's not like it's ultra difficult to get a mod. So taking saving out of the game isn't going to prevent anyone from doing anything. If you don't want to use saving like that, then you already won't (so it doesn't matter if you CAN or not). And if you DO want to do it, what good does making it really difficult do? This isn't something illegal we're talking about, so it's not hurting anyone else.

 

For what it's worth, though, the italicized part is very true. I understand your problem with the act of save scumming, but I don't think the ability to do it is the problem.

 

Life may not dangle sexy women in front of you when you're horny, but sexy women exist all around you, and you may see some whilst horny. Should we kill them all, just so horny dudes aren't tempted?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Lephys