Talk:Babysitting Cream

This article doesn't cite any "sources" because there is very little discussion of the game on the web. Most are comments from random users who may or may not have played the game.

This article is mostly "original research", but it is research that can readily be duplicated by anybody who will go to the trouble of finding the game and playing it. In short, it should meet the criteria for publication in a peer-reviewed journal: it tells you how to replicate the research. The only matters of opinion in this article are in the section on "Problems" that I added to make the article less like an advertisement. I suppose somebody could disagree with my assertion that certain changes would be improvements, even though this seems to me to be self-evident to anybody who spends 15 minutes playing the game.

Note: I have no connection with the game's creator. I found it, played it, and was impressed with the depth of choices offered even though it's nowhere near finished.

If other format changes are needed, please specify them and I will make them as best I can. Bgoldnyxnet 07:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Babysitting and (child) porn game?

Sonic is asked to babysit an underage character (Cream), per the series canon. The object of the game is to seduce Cream the Rabbit into as many sex acts as possible.

• Slept with Cream
• Groped Cream
• Cream gives you a blow job
• Jerked off on Cream
• Had sex with Cream
• Used the Carrot toy on Cream
• Used Vanilla's toy on Cream
• Showered with Cream...

I don't think this article is appropriate for furry historical site such as Wikifur - Spirou 14:28, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Yeah a furry historical site that also has information on Softpaw Magazine, a well known Cub publication, within the furry community. This article is appropriate for the fact that the game is very famous in multiple furry sites and within the community, sure it caters in general to the cub section of the community, which is looked down upon by the purist section of it. Regardless it is an article that should be within the wikia, and given proper maintenance.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.248.70.164 (talk • contribs) .

The fact that some might object to the topic of such a game is not grounds for removal. To be blunt, porn is part of our fandom's history, it is present today, and it is likely to remain prominent in years to come. Judging by search and access statistics, information about this topic is also in great demand; to be precise, this topic brought 8,401 unique visitors via Google in the past 30 days, and resulted in 2.68% of English WikiFur page accesses, just slightly less than High Tail Hall (2.82%) and the front page (3.29%), and over twice as many as furry (1.23%). --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:11, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Then why can we not bring about change from within? Prospective furries and their mothers, as well as trolls, DO view this page. (For more information and my views on this matter, read the brief monologue on my user page.) Porn MAY be a part of our fandom's history, as you say, but is that what we're about? Are we the "child sex" fandom? If so, then by all means, let this page stay. We are FURRIES. We are fans of anthropomorphic animals, and we celebrate the artists and writers that made us who we are today. Is there a sex fandom, of people with all kinds of fetishes that get together and talk about it? That's what we call an orgy. An insignificant flash game that will fade into obscurity where it belongs does not merit a page.--KaliPaige 23:06, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Our responsibility as a trusted reference is not to effect or advocate for change in the fandom, but to accurately describe its past and present. This includes topics like Softpaw, vorarephilia. Tapestries MUCK and Tumbles the Stairdragon, just as it does Move Your Dead Bones, charity, Furcadia and the Funday PawPet Show. On your user page, you mention the need for a neutral point of view. Understand that that covering the "bad" topics, as well as the "good" ones, is key to this policy. WikiFur is trusted in part because we talk about the things which would never make a convention's press kit. If we chose to cover only topics which place the fandom in a positive light, our integrity would rightly be questioned. --GreenReaper^(talk) 03:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Encyclopedic coverage

The coverage of this topic could be better. Information about the history and impact of this game is more important than how to play it. While I'm loath to cut out anything that might be of use to our readers, I encourage development of the more encyclopedic areas of the article. --GreenReaper^(talk) 03:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Agreed. It seems terribly unprofessional to tell you how to play a game about seducing an under-aged girl in any case... the article should be everything you stated above, not an instruction manual of sorts. Plus, as this article is, it risks irking people who are against cubs and cub sex. I'm not naming names, but the article should be less about the acts performed in it and more about the overall premise, as well as (any) popularity this may have amongst the furs and impact upon the fandom.

Personally, I really don't see either. This all seems more like original research to have an article on it for the sake of having an article on it. --KaliPaige 17:27, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Kalipaige makes some valid points. While I wrote the original version of this article, I can see that the emphasis might be wrong for an encyclopedia. Under the circumstances, I would not oppose a motion to remove it -- although I would like to see, instead, the kind of encyclopedic material that GreenReaper asked for.

However, I would point out one thing about the "how to play" section. You can go to fchan and find dozens of games that just load and show the (fe)male giving head, getting fucked, giving a foot job, whatever. Or in which you just have to push a few buttons or engage in some dialog to get to that point. (And if you get the dialog wrong, you can just try again until you blunder into the right answer.) This is a real game. If you want to "get to first base" with Cream, you need to manage your alignment, RWC,etc. If you want to get farther -- especially various sex acts that would be considered "third base" or a "home run", you need to husband your resources carefully, building up your stats without using up too much time (energy) and money (rings). Play well, and you can get almost everything (and a high score). Play poorly, and you'll end up with few points or a "game over" trip to jail. That's another reason (besides its popularity) that I think this game is notable enough to deserve coverage in Wikifur. If you don't like the article I wrote, rewrite it. That's what a wiki is for. Bgoldnyxnet 01:56, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Let's see new pedophilic furry bullshit, Green Reaper endorsing it and saying It's Awwwwwright Eh nothing out of ordinary in the wonderful world of Jackasses dressed as magic rainbow weasel or hermaphrodite whale princess. God im glad im not a furry- La Resistance N'Ayez Pas Peur Don't Be Afraid

Latest version

"Somebody changed the latest version to V094. I haven't found this version anywhere on the net, so I set it back to V093. If V094 is, in fact, the latest version, please provide a URL for it." Bgoldnyxnet 16:12, 19 January 2012 (EST)

"As of February 5, 2013, the latest version is Babysitting Cream v1.01. The game, originally created in Flash, is being remade as a standalone program with GameMaker to resolve maintainability issues." Babysitting Cream - WikiFur Page ← (Not the talk, the WikiFur Page). --AlexiaWinter (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

v1.01 has 2 spelling errors. (EDT)

Appropriate for the Wiki?

I'm noticing that there's buzz on this page that this article isn't really appropriate for Wikifur, and I'm compelled to agree. It's not necessarily because this is a cub porn flash game, but that the article makes absolutely no argument for its notability. SoftPaw Magazine was a highly controversial publication that put out multiple issues. This is just a single flash game that reads like what its info booklet would look like if it was made for the DS. The article doesn't necessarily need to be gotten rid of, but someone really needs to edit this to explain why exactly this deserves its' own wiki article. --Benchilla 00:24, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

I'm not sure exactly what would constitute "notability" in this context, but I'll call attention to GreenReaper's comment on 5 August 2011: this article "resulted in 2.68% of English WikiFur page accesses, just slightly less than High Tail Hall (2.82%) and the front page (3.29%), and over twice as many as furry (1.23%)." That suggests a lot of people care about it, which is one indication of "notability".

In addition, this game stands out from others of its genre. Most porn games are just that: porn. Maybe a little foreplay, or a few questions to answer (and no penalty for getting them wrong, just try again), then Wham, bam, thank you ma'am. This is a real game. You need to use your head, figure out what works and what doesn't, etc. In short, what's important about this game isn't its content (drawn "child" porn), but its structure (a moderately difficult adventure-style game). In that respect, it stands out from most other porn games, furry or otherwise. Bgoldnyxnet 20:39, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Because a lot of furries apparently like it, and want to write (and read) about it? We don't require "notabiliy" in the same way that Wikipedia does because we don't rely on sources in the same way. What Bgoldnyxnet said is true, too; this is apparently a game to which the concept of strategy can be applied, not a one-minute diversion where you just "click through to the porn". --GreenReaper^(talk) 00:26, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Reasonable Wiki Page

Figured I'd add in something contrary to the comments above, the wiki page is accurate, and straight to the point, nothing judgemental and gives people wanting to know about the game, what it is. All these comments demanding some sort of declaration of controversy and people who simply want to protest the specific fetish. As if the fetish doesn't already have that, it doesn't need to be cited on every cub page that cub is controversial. Declaring your offense to the fetish that other people enjoy would be as ridiculous as looking up scat porn in order to tell everyone how disgusted you are with it. The only issue people have with cub, originate from a symbolic representation. I could write "Jesus Christ" on a piece of paper, and burn it in from of a religious crowd and they would react negatively and aggressively, despite me literally burning a piece of paper.

If you can't draw a parallel between furry and bestiality than you can't try to draw a parallel between cub and cp. Seriously people get over it. Tackle real problems. There's a long list. I don't go around telling people that I'm sexually aroused by furry pictures of anatomically correct horse genitals. I don't think it's reasonable to attempt shaming people enjoying their harmless fetishes. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.68.161.149 (talk • contribs) .