@LinkLuigi I thought it was justified to a degree. Games progress with time. LoS, in my opinion, was different, but a step forward. I LOVED Symphony of the Night when it came out in the '90s, but games have made leaps in gameplay since then. Many gamers DO whine incessantly that a developer diverges from the same old, tired formula. Many gamers just like to complain. In reality, nobody wants to play the exact same game they played a decade ago. If they do, they're in the minority. The flop that was the latest Duke Nukem should help illustrate that point. There are only two reasons I can see to play games with antiquated gameplay. One is nostalgia (which is the equivalent of loving an admittedly sub-par television show because you watched it as a child), the other is that the gameplay formula is charming in its simplicity, and modern progress has done little which would improve the core mechanics of the game. The latter category is exceedingly rare, and applies to games like Pac-Man, but even Pac-Man has been livened up a bit by tweaking the gameplay and adding a catchy new soundtrack.

TLDR; Gamers will whine about any change to a beloved series, but nobody wants the exact same game they played 10 years ago. Progress demands change.

@Morphine_OD Yeah, this seems to be the biggest problem. A loot hunting game doesn't work if...no one wants to hunt the loot. It's a shame, but unless they rewrite this thing from damn near the ground up, I don't see this thing keeping most gamers' attention for more than six months, one year tops. If every item just feels like some trivial +3 more to X or Y stat, it's going to burn out fast. It was one of the problems I had with Dungeon Siege 3 (among many). The loot just felt too generic to justify hunting for better.

@ltthompson I've done this before in other games, but I always think it smacks of terrible game design when the player has to invent ways to make the game more fun or challenging. That being said, I actually like the option to respec on the fly. I no longer have a million hours to dedicate to every game I play, so I'm alright with not being punished for investing hundreds of hours into a build which turns out not to be so great.

@DubYew I think there is a lot of well-reasoned debate too. Not everyone is going to have the same mentality or viewpoint, I don't see a problem. Some posters probably are quite young. I don't expect them to have an adult's take on sexuality.

@ggregd Perhaps. I think, like smaller budget films, they're out there, and increasingly so. I love games like Uncharted, Wolrd of Warcraft, Mass Effect, Street Fighter, and other AAA productions, but I also like games like Heavy Rain, Critter Crunch, Flower, and the like. That's my point, and ultimately the reason that I think gaming will be okay. There are as many games as their are preferences out there. You're bound to find a match somewhere. Now I can't dispute some are drastically more popular than others, because they appeal to a wider audience, but nothing is ever going to be 100% equal. I might REALLY love Tongan cuisine, but I'm not going to find a lot of restaurants that serve it, and certainly not as frequently as I'd find hamburgers. That's just how the market works. It's driven by profit and mass appeal. That doesn't mean it can't also facilitate diversity.

@buccomatic If what you say is true, that people always resisted the changes which are hard, uncomfortable, or unpopular, we'd live in a very different world. History suggests otherwise. I think it would be more accurate, using your symbolism, to rephrase your argument to state that people are resistant to uncomfortable change, even violently resistant, but sometimes adopt it regardless when they realize it promotes their long-term interests.

@Smokescreened84 Meaningful progress is never easy, as anyone who's spent a day in the gym, or attempting to correct a character flaw can attest. A problem, I think, is that whether people acknowledge it or not, for all of our learning, we are still animals, in a sense. We are less like the "reasonable androids" which are presented as the eventual end of evolution in many works of science fiction, and more flesh and blood, full of passions, both constructive and destructive.

I think that we do ourselves a large disservice when we try to pretend otherwise. The way I see it, at the core of a person, something still screams when someone snatches away their turkey leg. For all the highs and lows of human history, our art, politics, philosophy, literature, and science, we still possess a reactive nature, and I believe we always will.

Certainly, we can condition our responses, which will vary with the intelligence and insight of the individual, but we cannot help but react, unless we are catatonic. Sex illicits a reaction, and so entertainers will continue to use it. I'll end by stating that it would be to everyone's benefit if they chose to use it, as any other medium, in a variety of ways, instead of the same, tired one.

@mlcarter815 Oh, I understand the setting. It would be more than a little disturbing if some of those scenes aimed for the feel of a budding young romance. In a setting of cult-like religions, primal gods, greed and corruption, etc., I think the "primitive sex" you describe is appropriate. As I said, I think as far as the series goes, it's just unnecessarily distracting when it seems like they try so hard to force it every few scenes. Nevertheless, I love the series overall and I appreciate how the characters are fantastically three-dimensional, with phenomenal dialogue. I'm especially partial to "The Imp," who I think steals the show. Close second to the leader of the Lannister house, I forget his name at the moment.

@Smokescreened84 The issues are varied and complex, and that's part of the problem (and I'd argue, the intrigue) of the situation. I rambled on and on, but the bottom line was: sex is a part of who we are, and I don't ever think we should be barred from acknowledging that fact. As a semi-creative person myself, I also recoil at the thought of censorship.

That being said, another huge problem is that the whole media reinforcement thing is a Catch-22. Do the masses crave base violence and meaningless sex because it's crammed down their throats 24/7, or does the media cover it because people crave it? (Understand, I use "people" as a generality.) It's difficult to know. I often decry how pathetic music has become, and how empty some of the genres like hip-hop and rap are nowadays, when they're all about getting drunk at the club, making those bills, and having one-night stands. Are those the values of today's youth, or simply what they are taught to value? It's a very difficult distinction to make.

Thus, the only reasoned answer I can surmise is to believe, as I always have, in the "Marketplace of Ideas." The theory being that the kind of environment that allows every idea to proliferate will ultimately serve all of our interests, because over time, only the worthy ideas will rise to the top, while the rest are lost to time. The problem, of course, is that sometimes it takes a LONNNNNG time for people to realize the error of their ways (e.g. slavery).

@mlcarter815 Admittedly, I have not. I assume the reason you ask is because they likewise contain a lot of sexuality. If that's where you were going, I'd respond that, as I stated above, I have no problem with sexuality being featured, even prominently. I do have a problem when it's forced in so artlessly that it ruins the whole experience (snicker). If the books are alike in that respect, then I would have the same problem with them. I'd venture to guess it's not as awkward though. The printed word rarely hits you as artlessly as a cut from an emotionally intimate scene 5 seconds before that cuts roughly to a shot of a man's rear as he's mounting some woman. Even that would be okay as a gimmick to toy with the show's pacing, if it wasn't used so damned often.