Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

nice game I guess but is that cat a girl or a guy?

Too much dialogue.

From the author of Air Pressure, comes "The Life Of A Pacifist Is Often Fraught With Conflict." I love the oxymoronic title BUT, the title is a misnomer, really. The description tells the truth in that this game is "a game about games" not really a game relating to pacifism. An opposition to fictional violence just isn't the same as a rejection of actual human aggression and violence. And pacifism doesn't mean that you can't defend yourself, at least verbally. Just look at non-violent protest.

So now that the straw man is out of the room I'll address the actual conflicts the game presents.

1. Shock value in video gaming and desensitization. How far will we go? What's "too much" or is there "too much?" Games like Dead Space capitalize on those gritty feelings of putrid fear and disgust off vehement gore. Games like Gears of War like to take violence into near cartoonish levels and will use violence in a comical way. But do these diminish real world exposure? These are a few questions provoked.

2. The value of dissidence v.s. the value of compromise. Even when you wanted to speak out you didn't (as a clever element of the game) and it begged the question, how much are you willing to compromise? Based off how much you were willing to compromise internally, you got different levels of outcome. But you never externalized your opinions.

Other than my gripe with the title and the fact that you don't influence the dialogue of the other characters at all (which may have well been a choice) I thought this was, while not polished, aesthetically pleasing and fun to replay. Oh and the music doesn't work past the first finish. 3.5/5

Thank you for making this game.
-Squidy

Not this one's

If you take a look at games across all genres, age groups, etc. or for that matter any type of media, you will notice a distinct lack of standing around doing nothing, their is almost always a conflict, internal, or external, that occurs throughout the game, and when the conflict is internal, it often expresses itself, or is expressed through an external experienced median, in this game, you stand around and do nothing, even the choices you make are decidedly arbitrary, is their much of a difference between "that's standered", and "that's stupid"? At least on any meaningful level? Is either less objectionable from a practical, or moral standpoint, all the decisions seem to boil down to a choice between "I'll do it, but I don't want too" full stop. Maybe you just missed you're mark, and I'm one of the horrible people you object to so much, and would appreciate the game if it was a bit more servior, seriously, I will grant that that is a possibility.

I guess part of the probalem is that our hero never gave any input, and it is clear that her input could have been valueable, saying things like "making trashed versions of all the furniture will approximently double the file size, but adds very little value to the game, I understand maybe doing it a little bit with selected items, but we should consider spending the time and effert on making new enviroments to keep the player ingaged, and add to the depth of the game." Or "aren't we getting a little off topic here? isn't this meeting supposed to be about the plot, not the game mechanics? if we just add things to the game on impulse without thinking it threw, I doubt we will get anything but a hodpodje of half developed ideas, we should structure any additional game play features around the story in a well thought out manner", in other words, she should take her objections, and ask how they can be beneficial to the project, while not neccarly stepping on toes, bringing the legitamint concerns she has to the teams attention.

I loved the game. It's too bad that your choices only effect the ending (which, for all you people who are impatient and click through looking for it, starts after the meeting ends). Also, the four endings are each individual and are exactly as they would be had the person actually be somebody who answered them the way you made them. Make them not have a problem with it, the ending shows they don't have a problem with it. I also like the meaning behind the game (which is interpretted only by you, so if you don't get it don't look for it through other's comments). I enjoyed the game and happily replayed to get all four endings. I also like the touch that as your character has more distaste for what is being said, the people look more and more... dark. The graphics are EXTREMELY well done, especially for an art game, known for being simplistic. All in all, a great interactive game. 5/5!