Winning vore

[Talrion]

I'm sorry if its been brought up before, but It still seemed like odd enough to bring up. I've seen a lot of vore games in this section, large and small with different types of modes. As I was playing one a while ago I just came to think, what is winning in vore?

Reason I wondered this was, if you win by getting eaten, do you loose? What if theres several possible endings, would you need to loose a lot to win all endings? It feels somewhat like a paradox, winning and loosing vore. Reason I brought it up was that I played one of those template jrpg's and... well it takes a lot of retrying to get to all vore endings.

Whats all your thoughts on this?

[Houyo]

Prey have the same problem in games as they do in real life. If they want to get eaten, they have to die. XP

Though, I perfer being pred. So for me losing is still losing.

[Talrion]

Oh thats a good point, should have said as prey. Playing as pred is more win if its quantity thats on the list ^^

[MissedIt]

it makes losing all the more fun ^^

[VixieMoondew]

See, here I thought this thread would have something to do with Tiger Blood.

[justaname333]

In roleplaying, it's all about whether or not all the parties involved are satisfied. Unless there's competition between the players, there is no true sense of victory or loss. In the games however, most, if not all of them are designed so that if you're eaten and don't escape through some means, you lose the game, even if getting eaten by whatever was your personal goal. But does it really matter? Not really, you're still being entertained, and that's what matters.

[Jahgo]

fulltour vore - getting eaten is just the start, you 'win' if you manage to get back out again while still intact!

...Seriously though, if we're talking about it in a gaming sense then perhaps applying the standard definition of "winning" is kind of missing the point. Not all games can be "won" in a standard capacity, often times it's more like you "complete" them, and the definition of "completion" can vary greatly therein. If a game has multiple potential endings you could say you've completed it after you've reached one ending, or you could say you completed it after playing until you got an ending that satisfied you, or you could complete it by playing it until you've seen every known ending, and of course even then someone might say that you haven't truly completed it until you've seen that secret room with the one easter egg about the purple buffalo that has nothing to do with any of the endings... and yet through it all the term "win" would never really feel applicable to the outcomes.

Of course this assumes you're playing a game that even has endings. Sandbox style games (is there a vore-specific sandbox game yet?) and some arcade style games are even more vague about winning or completion, and as such it just boils down to what you can get out of it.

[deletedaccount505]

The predator doesn't win if the prey has STDs.

[Houyo]

They do if they are an STD eater!

[divineBeast]

See, here I thought this thread would have something to do with Tiger Blood.

dude that was the same thing i thought!heh heh"vore... WINNING!" im keeping that line!XD

[M3M]

See, here I thought this thread would have something to do with Tiger Blood.

dude that was the same thing i thought!heh heh"vore... WINNING!" im keeping that line!XD

I think winning in a vore game has to be a lot like this game, but instead of driving a car, you eat people.


On a serious note, I am playing with the idea of a vore game where you are neither predator or prey. Rather, you are the emissary for some sort of creature or monster that must round up people for it to eat. It will play out somewhat like a dating sim so the player must convince the characters to go along with it in some way. You "win" by getting as many people eaten as possible. If you lose, you get eaten. So... for a vore fan it is win-win!

[George777]

Winning, by all terms and definitions, basically requires you to not get eaten at any point in the game, unless prompted to. Because generally, when you do, that results in death, and you can't actually complete the game.

That said, pretty much everyone here, myself included, generally "loses" on purpose. A lot. .___.;

[deletedaccount505]

They do if they are an STD eater!

[Houyo]

You can always find a way to win. You just have to belieeeeeeeeeeeve!

[Indighost]

I'm sorry if its been brought up before, but It still seemed like odd enough to bring up. I've seen a lot of vore games in this section, large and small with different types of modes. As I was playing one a while ago I just came to think, what is winning in vore?

Reason I wondered this was, if you win by getting eaten, do you loose? What if theres several possible endings, would you need to loose a lot to win all endings? It feels somewhat like a paradox, winning and loosing vore. Reason I brought it up was that I played one of those template jrpg's and... well it takes a lot of retrying to get to all vore endings.

Whats all your thoughts on this?

I am a pred so I don't quite have this issue--winning is eating other people, losing is dying like in any video game.
But for prey, it's possible to interpret it in a Freudian sort of way: wanting to be eaten is sort of a fantasy of self-effacement, ie in contrast to the real world, you 'win' by 'losing', it's about the eroticization of failure. If you want to interpret it that way

[Kamelagram]

They do if they are an STD eater!

"Oh great, I apparently got a free side order of crabs with my catgirl..."

[Bright]

Are sexual diseases transferrable if you eat the prey without having intercourse with them?

Also, who here has lost on purpose in the Duamutef VRPG?
(Personally, I did, but I also managed to defeat the dragon (or was it Definitely Eat)).

[Kamelagram]

Are sexual diseases transferrable if you eat the prey without having intercourse with them?

If I'm not mistaken, most diseases are transferred through bodily fluids. So while sex is the obvious way of contracting STDs, if you ingest any diseased meat without cooking it, you significantly increase the chance of getting it... However this brings up a fun side effect when we get into multiple species...

Basically, not all diseases effect all animals/people. Rabies, for example, only effects warm blooded animals (at least to my understanding) so a coldblooded creature like a lizard or snake wouldn't be effected the same way, if at all. On the other hand, while the snake isn't effected, there is a chance that the disease could remain dormant until it bites another warm blooded creature. This is why fleas and mosquitoes are typically considered "disease carriers", since they commonly carry/drink blood from multiple mammals, yet their biology is so different from ours they can carry an arsenal of diseases without any problem. (On this note, OH GOD VAMPIRES!)

TL:DR You could, but depending on the difference in species (Human/Naga/dragon/undead) you may not be affected by it...

Also, wouldn't a 'prey winning' scenario being the last one in a group getting eaten, since then you are the best prey... survival wise?

[empatheticapathy]

Generally speaking, I approach prey situations in vore games/interactives by asking "Which of these characters deserves to eat me? Which of them needs it?".
It's sort of like, if somebody gave you $10,000 dollars, and then told you that you could not keep the money, but rather that your only option is to give it to somebody who resides in a given apartment complex. Your mission becomes: "Find out who will benefit most from my self-sacrifice".

[xega888]

some games (not many) have an unlockable gallery of all the deaths if you win
but otherwise you know its a good vore game when you do the wrong thing on perpouse (not cuz your board of it)