>>719228991
>You have to realize that for most people, videogames are a form of escapism, a chance to do things they never could in real life.
I completely agree, but I don't see how this is supposed to be an argument against sex. If there are people who don't have sex or can't have children (accidents for example), easily finding a girl and having children is just as valid for escapism as killing a platoon of enemies.
>And even then, games like the latter example do exist, they are just fringe titles because there isn't that big of a market for them.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here now. Are games centered around sex aimed at a possibly smaller audience as opposed to games centered around violence? Sure, but that's not what was discussed.
Why are you bringing this up out of nowhere?

For example, just because poison as a tool of murder is more complicated or less straight forward than shoving a sword into someone, doesn't mean it isn't important at all.
Poison requires subterfuge, but that doesn't mean it's less important. Not every player will be interested in subterfuge, stealth and backstabbery but that is no sane reason to discredit that audience that is interested in that.

Not all games have to target the exact same audience.