1.70 star(s) 3 Votes

Supreme_Evil

⸸ БѢСЪ ⸸
Uploader
Oct 16, 2020
1,330
12,471
cover.jpg

Overview:
Meet a girl who makes an interesting bet! If she wins, a part of her will grow bigger!
Her breasts? Her butt? Her height? And, she's never ever lost at this game. Just how big is she gonna get?​

Thread Updated: 2024-03-16
Release Date: 2021-06-13
Developer: SGA Audio -
Censored: No
Version: Final
OS: Windows, Linux, Mac
Language: English
Voices: English
Other Games: Big Candy Collectathon
Genre:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Installation:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.


DOWNLOAD
Win
: - - - -
Linux: - - - -
Mac: - - - -


Thanks to Ryahn for the share!

smpl2.jpg smpl3.jpg smpl4.jpg smpl5.jpg smpl6.jpg
 

Iblis2150

Member
Sep 14, 2017
314
500
This game reminds me of the first time I've seen art by Kuribayashi Chris, and initially thought it looked pretty good, but then found tons of grotesque body modification stuff that's hard to unsee :')
 

HaughtyStick

New Member
Aug 24, 2023
3
31
First of all: the following is not an objective review and should not be treated as such.

With that out of the way:
OK art, OK audio...
But the fact that the "game" was unwinnable NOT because the AI is insanely good at it, but because the game literally cheats, ruined it for me.
Spoiler/mathematical explanation: You lost the game the second you end up in a position where the remaining amount of coins is a multiple of 4. That's because, if there are 4 left, you can only pick 3 max and there's one left to take for her, making her win (a cycle the AI makes sure repeats meaning it doesn't matter whether there are 4, 8, 12 or whatever on the board, you lost, that's it).
You might, at the beginning, think that who, between you and the AI, starts playing, is random. And that would be fair, because the game wants you to believe that. But it is not.
The number of coins at the beginning of the game is (as far as I know) random. In most cases, when the number of coins isn't divisible by 4, she plays first (you don't get a say). Meaning she puts you in a position where there are 4 times X coins and you've already lost.
But then you might think "oh, so if she starts when there are 4.X coins, and I play right, I win". NOPE! Then, and only then, YOU start playing. Metaphorically speaking, when she's in a winning setup, she just decides she's playing first before you can say anything, and when she's not she just gives you the first turn instead, with a big smile on her face. That kind of shit might work with your 5 years old sibling/child, but to me, as an adult with enough neurons to understand what's going on, it can't NOT feel like a massive insult.
I know this is an erotic game, I know that the mini-game isn't supposed to be important. But no game that just baits the player into thinking there is a point to trying, when it just fakes randomness, is and ever will be enjoyable.
Coding an AI that calculates all possibilities in a mathematically solved game, meaning coding an AI that never makes a mistake and wins every time, wouldn't have been difficult, yet it would have felt hundred folds less frustrating, because as a player, I would have thought: "OK, this is a complex game, I could win by doing a perfect run but the AI is just insanely good and I'm not smart/motivated enough to beat it, that's fair."
But the author did not make that effort and what happened was:
"Hum... This is an insultingly simple game, yet I keep losing... What's the winning strategy? OK, I should force her into a multiple of 4, alright... Of course, she usually starts so she just puts me in that losing setup, fair enough... So if she starts when in a multiple of 4, and I play correctly, I win! Well here's a multiple of 4, perfect! Oh! Oh... NOW I'm the first one to play. You're just faking randomness to make me lose. You fuck."

It's dishonest, it's lazy, it's infuriating. They could have made the game such that winning was extremely difficult and unlikely, but possible, and added a very rewarding cutscene in that event; they didn't bother to. They decided to just create a mind-numbingly simple game and cheat - the end, get my game, enjoy your illusion of consequentiality and fuck off.
Bonus: The game has 4-5 different endings, which of course can only be reached by playing ALL of the game again - y'know, all of the mini-games that you've already understood are completely useless, the same uninteresting TF sequences, the whole thing. And don't go thinking those endings have different art, it's the same pic every time.
Pretty useful, when you want to trick people into thinking your whole 2 minutes worth of actual content have 2 hours of life expectancy.

Pissed me off so much I ended up needing to write a review to process.

Overall, I do NOT recommend that game. The art is, as far as I'm concerned, below average, the transformations nothing more that a lazy fade, there isn't even enough unique dialogue for me to rate it, and the gameplay doesn't stop at being nonexistent, it even makes you the insult of tricking you into thinking it's not.
Fucking lazy/10, talk to me when you don't disguise your 2 minutes visual novels into actual games and sell them for 10$.
 
May 19, 2020
28
25
First of all: the following is not an objective review and should not be treated as such.

With that out of the way:
OK art, OK audio...
But the fact that the "game" was unwinnable NOT because the AI is insanely good at it, but because the game literally cheats, ruined it for me.
Spoiler/mathematical explanation: You lost the game the second you end up in a position where the remaining amount of coins is a multiple of 4. That's because, if there are 4 left, you can only pick 3 max and there's one left to take for her, making her win (a cycle the AI makes sure repeats meaning it doesn't matter whether there are 4, 8, 12 or whatever on the board, you lost, that's it).
You might, at the beginning, think that who, between you and the AI, starts playing, is random. And that would be fair, because the game wants you to believe that. But it is not.
The number of coins at the beginning of the game is (as far as I know) random. In most cases, when the number of coins isn't divisible by 4, she plays first (you don't get a say). Meaning she puts you in a position where there are 4 times X coins and you've already lost.
But then you might think "oh, so if she starts when there are 4.X coins, and I play right, I win". NOPE! Then, and only then, YOU start playing. Metaphorically speaking, when she's in a winning setup, she just decides she's playing first before you can say anything, and when she's not she just gives you the first turn instead, with a big smile on her face. That kind of shit might work with your 5 years old sibling/child, but to me, as an adult with enough neurons to understand what's going on, it can't NOT feel like a massive insult.
I know this is an erotic game, I know that the mini-game isn't supposed to be important. But no game that just baits the player into thinking there is a point to trying, when it just fakes randomness, is and ever will be enjoyable.
Coding an AI that calculates all possibilities in a mathematically solved game, meaning coding an AI that never makes a mistake and wins every time, wouldn't have been difficult, yet it would have felt hundred folds less frustrating, because as a player, I would have thought: "OK, this is a complex game, I could win by doing a perfect run but the AI is just insanely good and I'm not smart/motivated enough to beat it, that's fair."
But the author did not make that effort and what happened was:
"Hum... This is an insultingly simple game, yet I keep losing... What's the winning strategy? OK, I should force her into a multiple of 4, alright... Of course, she usually starts so she just puts me in that losing setup, fair enough... So if she starts when in a multiple of 4, and I play correctly, I win! Well here's a multiple of 4, perfect! Oh! Oh... NOW I'm the first one to play. You're just faking randomness to make me lose. You fuck."

It's dishonest, it's lazy, it's infuriating. They could have made the game such that winning was extremely difficult and unlikely, but possible, and added a very rewarding cutscene in that event; they didn't bother to. They decided to just create a mind-numbingly simple game and cheat - the end, get my game, enjoy your illusion of consequentiality and fuck off.
Bonus: The game has 4-5 different endings, which of course can only be reached by playing ALL of the game again - y'know, all of the mini-games that you've already understood are completely useless, the same uninteresting TF sequences, the whole thing. And don't go thinking those endings have different art, it's the same pic every time.
Pretty useful, when you want to trick people into thinking your whole 2 minutes worth of actual content have 2 hours of life expectancy.

Pissed me off so much I ended up needing to write a review to process.

Overall, I do NOT recommend that game. The art is, as far as I'm concerned, below average, the transformations nothing more that a lazy fade, there isn't even enough unique dialogue for me to rate it, and the gameplay doesn't stop at being nonexistent, it even makes you the insult of tricking you into thinking it's not.
Fucking lazy/10, talk to me when you don't disguise your 2 minutes visual novels into actual games and sell them for 10$.
Damn, the devs straight up rigged the game. That's a new low blow.
 

evilution382

Newbie
Oct 17, 2018
82
149
but it's impossible to win, isn't it? She makes sure that the number of coins is a multiple of 4. And then no matter how many coins you take, you won’t win because she keeps this number a multiple of 4.
yup, it's impossible to win the coin game, I'm not as pissed off about it as HaughtyStick, but it's definitely annoying
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bakachiki

Kyaratheevil

Member
Sep 10, 2017
120
49
it's based on nim so if you don't know how to play it properly of course you will always lose it doesn't matter if it by an ai or a person kinda like blackjack you need to be aware of not only the mathing part but how close you are to the winning number which in nim the winning number is zero so if you can find a pattern to trick the ai then you can win that why it best to test different way before saying stuff like that about any game i liked it because it was setup in a interesting way and i came close to winning a couple of times
 

HaughtyStick

New Member
Aug 24, 2023
3
31
yup, it's impossible to win the coin game, I'm not as pissed off about it as HaughtyStick, but it's definitely annoying
To be fair (just so I don't sound like I have serious anger issues and forgot to take my pills ^^), I'm not that annoyed that the game is impossible to win - that, in itself, happens (there are many games I know I'm not smart and/or experienced enough to win at, and will never be - at least not against a difficult AI, and I'm OK with that. For me at least, winning at go or chess against an expert AI IS impossible, and I can live with that).
What annoys me so much is that the author, instead of creating one such game, decided to create a really simple one, break their own rules when I would have had a winning chance (namely, that starting player should have been either random or always the same), and hope I wouldn't notice.
To return to my earlier "5 yo sibling/child" metaphor, let me exemplify:

In a difficult game against a really good AI, we, players, are the 5 yo, playing chess against the chess world champion. We will always lose, it might be frustrating but it's fair; they're just a better player than us.
What's happening here, however, is that we are also the 5 yo, this time playing a simple game (say a game of War) against the chess world champion, and at some point, they notice we're starting to win and switch the cards around - and worst of all, they're allowed to, but we are not.

In one, victory is, for all intents and purposes, impossible and that's fair. In the other, the opponent disregards all rules that make the game fair and there's nothing we can do about it.

At least, if the game was really complex, it could have been case 2 and I wouldn't even have noticed, so everything would be fine; but the author made the game incredibly simple and assumed the player was too dumb to realize it was rigged, which very much did not help with the frustration - I didn't even feel proud that I realized it was rigged, just insulted.

it's based on nim so if you don't know how to play it properly of course you will always lose it doesn't matter if it by an ai or a person kinda like blackjack you need to be aware of not only the mathing part but how close you are to the winning number which in nim the winning number is zero so if you can find a pattern to trick the ai then you can win that why it best to test different way before saying stuff like that about any game i liked it because it was setup in a interesting way and i came close to winning a couple of times
Partially true; in Nim, if playing the right way, the first player can setup a sure win situation - that's the definition of a solved game (but the other can turn it around if they make just one mistake, AND I believe who gets to play first is random, which is why it's interesting).
Here, however, I guarantee winning is mathematically impossible ("getting close" does not matter). That, because to ensure winning, there must be at least one coin left for your move, which means 4 for the opponent (hence the 4 pattern I mentioned - try it, you'll find the AI always puts you in a position where the number of coins left is a multiple of 4 on it's first turn, and all the following. There's no sum involved here because there's only one set of coins, unlike in true Nim).
A pattern which can only be broken when the AI starts the game and there is a multiple of 4 coins - but then YOU start (so you're the one stuck with a multiple of 4 and lose). There's no "tricking the AI" involved; it doesn't make mistakes (it's not actually an AI as in "machine learning" - it's just code that counts the remaining coins, gets the remainder from an euclidian division by four and removes that amount. No randomness involved). Meaning, it cannot be put in a losing setup. Trust the software engineer in training that I am, both the code and the math ensure this. If you don't believe me (which I am perfectly fine with), I respectfully encourage you to either try and win against it, or provide a mathematical demonstration that it is possible - but I don't recommend either, you'd be wasting a lot of your time.
 

HaughtyStick

New Member
Aug 24, 2023
3
31
Following the part 2 of the previous message:

In fact, if you're not a mathematician and don't want to bother learning how to play this game like a master, let me provide you with a practical test to prove whether or not I am wrong:

Set yourself some amount of time (5 min, 10, 15, 30, 1 hour, whichever you like) to play. If, at any point, your turn does NOT begin with an amount of coins on the board that is a multiple of four, take a screenshot, pick the choice that ensures the AI does have an amount of coins equal to a multiple of 4 until the end, and you will win (in which case, please also take a screenshot as I am very curious as to what happens in that case).

If that happens, I solemnly declare I will retract all previous statements, promote this as the greatest game on this website and declare that I suck at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Black Cat

Kyaratheevil

Member
Sep 10, 2017
120
49
Following the part 2 of the previous message:

In fact, if you're not a mathematician and don't want to bother learning how to play this game like a master, let me provide you with a practical test to prove whether or not I am wrong:

Set yourself some amount of time (5 min, 10, 15, 30, 1 hour, whichever you like) to play. If, at any point, your turn does NOT begin with an amount of coins on the board that is a multiple of four, take a screenshot, pick the choice that ensures the AI does have an amount of coins equal to a multiple of 4 until the end, and you will win (in which case, please also take a screenshot as I am very curious as to what happens in that case).

If that happens, I solemnly declare I will retract all previous statements, promote this as the greatest game on this website and declare that I suck at it.
that kinda what i was saying about the ai for the math part if you can trick her into messing up which sga audio and the other person who part of the game making idk which one set up the ai part but i think it was mainly to let you have a fun reward at the end with the girl once she to big
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bakachiki
1.70 star(s) 3 Votes