hav you ever played a game you stopped playin' pure lee because of teh message(s) conveyed within?

sooo... you liked teh game(play) itself but bailed / bye-bye'd just out of principle?

explain wut 'n' how x

Once I started, no, but there were games I refused to have an interest in even if the gameplay would have been interesting, Tyranny and Inquisitor come to mind, due to the character's role.
For example played Driftmoon, was rather rubbed the wrong way by the proselytism, but finished the game, complained about that in the review, moved along.
Can't really think of games I did play, not being forewarned of such issues and staying away entirely, that required me to actually do things that I'm firmly against. I mean, for example remember being bothered by how the wife was treated in King's Bounty: The Legend, basically as an item with item slots of its own, and only being able to interact to tell her you wanted to have children or divorce, and as a militant antinatalist the first option was clearly off the table even in a game, so... But just frowned at that, since I wasn't required to obviously didn't have children, finished the game like that, complained about it in the review and moved on...
I seriously dread one particular choice in The Witcher 3, if/when I'll finally get to it, though. Based on everything up to that point, considering games as being added on to the books and summing it all up, not having "both" as a perfectly valid choice (obviously if done right, not shallowly), if not actually the recommended/rewarded one, seems all sorts of wrong and I quite seriously doubt I'll be able to go ahead and make a choice there.

lol no, they are games so why would i apply principles to how and why i play them. Have fun and play or don't that's all i need.

Etrian Odyssey SPOILER in this post.

I don't think I have stopped playing a game because of this, but I remember one incident that made me uncomfortable.

In Etrian Odyssey (a Wizardry-like where you explore a forest that takes the form of a dungeon), you encounter some people who live in the forest, who are called the "forest folk". Essentially, these people can be seen as the natives of the forest. Once you progress further, you are eventually given the mission to exterminate the forest folk, and you basically can't continue without doing so; there's no peaceful option here. So, essentially, the game enforces you to take part in what might be referred to as colonialism, or perhaps more accurately as the genocide of an indigenous tribe.

The sequel, fortunately, doesn't make you do this, but unfortunately the gameplay, and in particular the game balance, isn't as good.

Friend request sent since it seems there aren't many folks like us out there. Re: the topic, on a similar note, I didn't play but avoided Children of Morta (wanted to support the devs until the pregnancy in the trailer bothered me). Avoided Rogue Legacy until I saw it was possible (albeit very difficult) to beat the game without heirs. On a different bent, avoided that Not Tonight game because my political views (or lack thereof) fall outside the spectrum and it seemed to me, for lack of a better phrasing, a way to cash in on people who share the political views of the developers (I have avoided a lot of other media where similar phenomena is occurring).

Let's say I can't remember ever quitting a good game because its message bothered me. If I did quit a game it was usually for other reasons as well. I have played mediocre shooters though just because I liked the setting or was interested in the story; I see no reason to do it if the latter condition is not met. So, for example, I quit Homefront, because I didn't like the story, the setting and the writing, but also because I perceived it as a very mediocre game that didn't have anything else to offer that I had not seen before.

Theoretically I can totally imagine quitting a game out of principles, but it would have to be a game that initially hides what it's really about in order to draw me in with nice graphics and gameplay and then convey a really despicable message in a serious way, something hateful and racist or something. It's possible but not very likely to stumble across something like this. Games with such messages are usually recognizable right away and often pretty shitty in all other regards, too.

Sorry, don't add friends here. (Or anywhere, for that matter, unless we actually are already.) But yeah, sadly all too few, though there is an obvious increase lately, and one of visibility too. Huh. I'd have expected you probably more than anyone on here to take a moral stand against a game. But I guess you research them first and don't even start if there are issues.

And yeah, that one you described would have been one nasty moment. Not keen on the choices you had to make regarding elves in The Witcher (1) either. Or with needing to remove the item keeping a city safe in one of the Two Worlds games (I think first one?) and coming back up to see everyone slaughtered...

This reminds me of Dragon Quest 5 (SPOILERS), which from a feminist point of view is actually significantly worse than its predecessor. Specifically, in this game:
* The main character is forced to be male, unlike in Dragon Quests 3 and 4.
* At one point, you *have* to get married (though you get a choice of bride). From that point onward, it feels like the wife is only there to be the mother of your children (and having children is part of the plot and can't be skipped), and to be kidnapped and not freed until late in the game. She isn't even that useful, due to phyiscal attacks being better than magic (you even get weapons that hit multiple enemies), and her being a specialist in offensive magic, until you get the Echoing Hat (that was removed in the remakes; though at least later remakes have a third wife choice who is a bit more of a fighter).
* You have two children, a son and a daughter. Guess which one gets to be the legendary hero! (Hint: It's not the daughter.)
* The only other playable female character is with you for only one dungeon.

Really, that game, which for some reason became many people's favorite in the series, is garbage from a feminist perspective. For comparison, here is how Dragon Quest 4 handled its female characters (minor spoilers, but none for Chapter 5 or 6):
* The main character can be made female; you choose at the beginning of the game, though you won't get to play as her for a while.
* Chapter 1 and 3 don't have any female playable characters (too bad they didn't have Torneko's wife join you, though at least Torneko is of an unconventional age and class for a playable RPG character (middle aged merchant).
* Chapter 2 features princess Alena as the main character, who is a strong woman who escapes her castle by kicking down her bedroom's door. Granted, she has a couple friends who accompany her (and provide gameplay diversity, as not having the option of magic is boring), but she ends up fighting on her own in a tournament. Alena is the only playable character in the DQ series (not counting generics in DQ3 and DQ9) who is not able to learn magic. Oh, and she rescues a fake princess during her chapter.
* Chapter 4 features a couple girls, Mara and Nara (or Meena and Maya in modern translations), who are seeking vengeance for the death of their father. The *only* reason that there's a guy in the party at all is that the game balance isn't favorable to a party of two spellcasters; even then, you need to find him at the bottom of a dungeon, and he's an uncontrollable character. (In fact, he can't even level up or be given equipment, and if he's the only one alive at any point, the game will declare your party dead and take you back to the priest minus half your money.)

As you can see, from a feminist standpoint, DQ4 > DQ5, and it's not even close. This sort of reminds me of SaGa 1's plot where, after finding the item you need to progress in a world that's basically lost to evil, you go on to the next world, only to find it in even worse shape. Granted, you aren't the cause of what happened, but it's still enough to leave the player with a very strange feeling. That game's plot, once you get into it, is surprisingly shocking for a game of the time it was released, and certainly much more than its sequel. (Also, a direct quote from the (English version of the) game: "This child looks dead....".)

No.
I never stopped playing a game because it went against my core principles.

But - I refused to buy (and play) a few games in the past, because I didn't like what I would have been required to do in these games.
Thankfully, that kind of info was always made publicly available, before I could purchase the games in question.

Mind you: I'm not talking about games that give me the option to do things in a certain way.
I'm talking about games that don't give me an option, but rather want to force a certain way upon me, in which I have to do things.

No worries, hope I didn't bother you with that!

# Short version:

There are games where the only way of winning is not to play. That includes games that are mathematically rigged, but also games that will not provide, or cease to provide, any kind of pleasure, be it in a fun, exciting, melancholic, inspiring way, or helping to release steam, or sparking the player's curiosity, or providing sense of achievement, satisfying power fantasies or in any other way (whatever makes the player tick).

# Not so short version:

A game can make the player bored, and playing comes to a stop. Can a game make the player reject it by inspiring other feelings? Why not. A game may appear to a player as unfair, rigged (like in pay2win games or when MP cheating is allowed, for example, but also when the player is given fake options, none of which would describe the feasible choice that the player would take in the gameworld) or badly done, or too difficult and making some players frustrated or angry. Also a game may strike the player as disgusting, or based on a "wrong" premise (whatever that means to each particular player), etcetera.

Normally a player will avoid games that do not look to be their cup of tea. That may include games that might include interesting mechanics and whatnot, but that have a premise that the player will not like. In other cases, it might happen that the player stops being OK with the game while already playing.

# Examples that come to mind right now:

An example of a game that surely must be nice and all and maybe even with interesting mechanics, but that will not be bought by anyone who has no desire of going killing whales for fun and (gameworld) profit, even if Moby Dick is a beloved book. Nantucket is the name of the game.

(SPOILERS for two other games below)

One, a free, very short, artsy adventure-like browser game of which sadly the name cannot be recalled at this time (maybe you know it?). Maybe some of you have played it. In a science fiction setting, the main character wakes up in an old spaceship. The short plot of the game owes a lot to the movie "Pandorum" (Christian Alvart, 2009) and Harlan Ellison's story "I have no mouth and I must scream". The gist of the game is forcing the player to take rigged choices and live with it. Unless you find out that you do not need to keep playing. Once you see the intent, there is little reason to proceed anymore.

Second, Spec Ops: The Line. Available in GOG. This game is best enjoyed without reading about the plot. The game starts as an average FPS. Then the gist of the game is taking the player to ethically less and less solid ground, in a nightmare that borrows a little from Apocalypse Now (1979, "The shit piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it"). All while denouncing some of the evils of modern wars. The game arguably wants you to either wake up to what is happening before your eyes and quit or drink your cup to the dregs. But really, again, when you see the intent of the game, there is no reason to keep moving forward. Unless you really, really, want to see the end of this game so loaded with morals. Not a bad game, all in all (YMMV).

It occurs to me that there's a certain type of game, which appears as though it's trying to torture the player, but can actually be quite fun(ny) if you're in the right mindset, that you could be describing. Basically, there's a type of game I now call a "troll game", where the idea is to punish the player for doing reasonable things, or to waste the player's time in humorous ways (but be careful with this!). I happen to like these sorts of games, but you need to be in the right mindset and be willing to not get too upset when you die.

Two examples:

1. Syoban Action: Basically a parody of the original Super Mario Bros.. You go along, jump into the first ? block, only for it to avoid you; then you go down the pipe, thinking there might be a secret area, and the pipe blasts off with you in it, killing you. There are more trolls like this in the game, including some that strike when you think you've beaten the level.

2. https://userinyerface.com/ This is a game where you have to fill out a web form, only it's designed to troll you and make things difficult. (If you don't feel like giving your real information, you can of course make things up.)

Most uncomfortable I've been playing a game was when I tried the first Sniper Elite. You start disguised as a german soldier in a city being taken by russian soldiers, who obviously think you are the enemy if they see you. Even having some idea they were pretty bad too when they got the upper hand in the eastern war, you know nothing whether the ones you are killing did or not. I'm planning to go back to the game, but I'm in no hurry.

Never tried Syoban. About userinyerface, the title says it all! :-) Just tried it. It is indeed humorous, like a practical joke that helps reflecting on bad design and practices (IT and customer assistance professionals ought to check this one).

Dark humor can be rather pleasant for many. Sadly, the browser game mentioned in the other post had no humorous component at all. It leaves the terrain of drama rather quickly to stay firmly in the grounds of tragedy (and gore). Like I have no mouth... but without any kind of redeeming acts at all. It may appeal to fans of gore, though. It was more of an "artsy" game. Just tried to find it: no way :-/

About Spec Ops: The Line, no humor was present (IIRC), not even of the darkest kind (but maybe some of the voice over remarks on the loudspeakers that are heard now and then are sarcastic?). It starts plenty of action, then swiftly starts introducing elements that go from denouncing the role of developed countries in modern wars to fighting US troops gone rogue under the command of a Kurtz-like commander, to situations resembling Eddie Adams' infamous photo of Major General Nguyen Ngoc Loan in Vietnam (Vietnamese speakers will kindly pardon the inexact spelling). But again, a game that defied expectations, bravo for that. The upside-down flag right at the start menu gives its own clear message, too, like in the movie In the Valley of Elah (2007), featuring Tommy Lee Jones.

IMO, a game that doesn't want you to play it to the end and enjoy it in some way or other, kind of is a bad game. I don't really buy into the "you have a choice to not play" bullshit. Playing Spec Ops: The Line only up to a point and then quit would have been an even worse experience than seeing the story to the end, in my eyes. Totally pointless, you wouldn't even have been able to actually discuss the game, but they would still have taken your money. If they'd have been consequent in this, they could have offered to donate the proceeds from everyone who stopped playing and returned the game to a war victim related charity or something. I agree that is not a bad game, but I find parts of the design philosphy a bit hypocritical.