Others Corruption of Champions II [v0.7.32] [Savin/Salamander Studios]

[Raf-Raf]

They didn't like the whole idea of you being the protagonist in your life.

Yeah, they kinda went full 180 of what the first one created.
It is really diappointing.

 

[Biostar]

Cait's with you because your goals align. Brint is just bored. Atugia is ordered to by the person she works for. Agni is also bored. Azzy is ordered to by her Queen (though she wants to anyway). Quin's goals align with yours. Berwyn is with you because your goals align.

Ryn, Kiyoko, and sub Arona are the only one's who could be construed to be "devoted" towards you, and I'd argue Arona barely counts.

Let me put it this way if your character decided to straight up leave the Frost Marches, head to some other corner of the world to fuck around...who'd follow you? Because I'd say most of your party wouldn't.

If there was a corner of the world to fuck around in, and the devs didn't change the game mechanics, then yes I could bring anyone in my party there and literally spend years doing nothing and they'll happily stick around. There is no occasion where they refuse to go to some area or time limit where they'll stick with you until they forcibly disband.

That...doesn't really change anything? I could add probably Komari and Lady Evergreen in there. You aren't the strongest character in the setting. Nobody treats you or acknowledges you as the strongest. The plot doesn't treat you that way.

Except the game does treat you that way by making every conflict resolved by you. You're not competing against anyone and the story ends if you die. It does change things because it's all about who is functionally the strongest. The gods, Komari, or Evergreen do not fight so they don't matter when considering the strongest character. The sun is a greater force than everyone but you don't count it as the strongest.

The story is what we're talking about.

The gameplay is part of the story. That's what a RPG is. How you decide to fight and build your strats is part of your character. If you're generally a loner, the specific times where you're made to have a quest companion doesn't invalidate the way you played for the majority of the game.

It HUGELY changes that. A character who is just good at everything just because is not at all the same as a character who is good at things because of an accident. One of those two things is generally called a Mary-Sue, one isn't.

That's a difference without distinction. We are special just because. We didn't earn an uber soul that everyone wants a piece of through hard work. That's not even mentioning how we can master any skill whether it's weapon or magic just because. Our character is the type you would see in isekai with an OP cheat.

They don't have to matter beyond flavor text. It's not real. Pretty much all world-building, in any work, is an illusion.

If it is just flavor text then it's not a good illusion. Good worldbuilding is like in One Piece where you know that stuff is still going on outside of the main cast because it has actual effects on the world and story.

Of course it seems like we have a connection with every NPC, because you're the view point character - you only see people you can talk to.

Which is my point. Characters like Spider-Man, Frodo, Saitama, etc. don't work like that because they're not intended to be the central focus in the world. Our character is.

Honestly, I'm a little confused as to what we're even discussing here - the original post was just me outlining my tastes in games and stuff I like. Are you trying to convince me I don't actually like this game?

More like convincing you that you don't actually mind the stuff you claim to dislike. If you like the game then you like being the center of attention and having a harem because that is the majority of the game.

 

[sskrx7]

Huh. That's interesting.

Who do you self insert as watching the Avengers movies?

Tony Stark

You might just be because I have no problem conceptualizing a character based off all the choices in the game and my own ideal in this setting. They don't all have to be pivotal choices to fit what my character would do. And I already said the problem is when they do take choices and force dialogue on you, which we see a lot with Tobs and why his content gets lambasted so much.

I really have to wonder why you bother playing games where you are expected and inevitably will have a harem then. Even despite the push to cut you out of things, the majority of the game still have you the center of attention. You're still the go to guy for settling problems, you're still the best lay in the land and most meaningful relationships involve you, you're still the strongest because otherwise it's a Bad End, and the main villain is focused on you. Just because some characters might fuck other people sometimes doesn't change that.

Your post reminded me of Katawa fox, I believe her name is Lind. Whoever wrote her just took a shit and shoved how we're supposed to feel about it down our throats, I legit felt violated by that giant fuckload of BS.
I reckon that she's supposed to be some kind of defective Kinu to appease those who want to lewd the OG but if I'm right, it didn't work.

 

[Skandranon]

If there was a corner of the world to fuck around in, and the devs didn't change the game mechanics, then yes I could bring anyone in my party there and literally spend years doing nothing and they'll happily stick around. There is no occasion where they refuse to go to some area or time limit where they'll stick with you until they forcibly disband.

I'm obviously not talking about game mechanics. Game mechanics don't shape perceptions of characters. If they did, people in this very thread wouldn't be irritated by how the game treats them in the story because the mechanics treat them the same either way. Mechanically, literally everyone is an unthinking unfeeling doll when you aren't around - that's not how anyone, in this topic or any other one, actually perceives them, because mechanics don't shape character perception.

Except the game does treat you that way by making every conflict resolved by you. You're not competing against anyone and the story ends if you die. It does change things because it's all about who is functionally the strongest. The gods, Komari, or Evergreen do not fight so they don't matter when considering the strongest character. The sun is a greater force than everyone but you don't count it as the strongest.

You can fight Kas, and she's still stronger than you. In winter City, you fight some demons, who you can't beat and who a god has to step in to beat. Some conflicts in the game are fought by Gweyr. A few are resolved by Kinu.
Just a few examples of things that are not resolved by you.

And only YOUR story ends if you die. Noone else's. Everybody would keep doing their own thing independent of you. You can even see that in the bad ends where you get enslaved or whatever - the world keeps on spinning.

The gameplay is part of the story. That's what a RPG is. How you decide to fight and build your strats is part of your character. If you're generally a loner, the specific times where you're made to have a quest companion doesn't invalidate the way you played for the majority of the game.

The gameplay is almost invariably completely independent of the story. If there's a cutscene where your character gets beat, it doesn't matter how high you level up - your character gets beat. You can't level up high enough to beat the ghosts in the sidequest in Winter City. You can't outlevel Kas and the game treats you as stronger than her, or the Gods, or the thing you fight in the Winter City plotline.

Story trumps gameplay, always, when it comes to shaping perceptions and personal taste in how characters are handled. Almost nobody's personal tastes take gameplay into account.

That's a difference without distinction. We are special just because. We didn't earn an uber soul that everyone wants a piece of through hard work. That's not even mentioning how we can master any skill whether it's weapon or magic just because. Our character is the type you would see in isekai with an OP cheat.

That's a different with a VERY important distinction. How a character "earns" what they have is an important piece in how they are perceived. Both Batman and Spider-man live in universes with people far stronger than them. Both characters will always win at the end of their story. Neither will ever die or experience any permanent setbacks.

Yet Batman is often considered "OP" to the point where there's memes about it, and lots of people dislike him on that fact alone, while Spider-man is often seen as a scrappy underdog. It's because of the difference in how the two are handled.

If it is just flavor text then it's not a good illusion. Good worldbuilding is like in One Piece where you know that stuff is still going on outside of the main cast because it has actual effects on the world and story.

Nah, that's just not true. Good worldbuilding can happen without a character ever encountering any of the elements that worldbuilding suggests. Even in One Piece, it alludes to stuff we'll never actually see. Specifics about the history of Gold D Roger and his clashes with the contemporaries of his time? We'll never see that. We hear about it, but we'll never see it.

One Piece often alludes to ancient legends, historical figures, civilizations, etc that go beyond where the story will ever go, because that's what worldbuilding does. It's the illusion of depth. You can fill out that depth to a certain degree if you are writing a story that encompasses an entire world, but the world being bigger than your character's story is integral to the process.

Which is my point. Characters like Spider-Man, Frodo, Saitama, etc. don't work like that because they're not intended to be the central focus in the world. Our character is.

Spider-man is definitely the center of his comic book. He's definitely the center of his movies, his games, and his shows.
Saitama is definitely the center of the comic literally titled after him. And I hardly think anyone would agree that Frodo isn't the central focus of LotR.

More like convincing you that you don't actually mind the stuff you claim to dislike. If you like the game then you like being the center of attention and having a harem because that is the majority of the game.

Yeah, that's not gonna happen. I have a pretty firm grasp on things I like and why.
More importantly, I've played a million games on this site that actually have the things I dislike, and I generally hated them.

 

[Raf-Raf]

Saitama is definitely the center of the comic literally titled after him.

I think I'd agree with all aside from this.
Saitama's storytelling is the storytelling I WISH they did with this game, PROPERLY.

They made us a bland Mary Sue / Gary Stu who will inevitably beat Kas (or join) later on anyway with the cliche' "Lose first, win after" storytelling that most bland stories are so fond of especially in this damn setting and genre...


That "handled" by Kinu? She won't, WE will end the story SHE started, I can already see our lord and savior Tobs doing that or heck, maybe even create a scene where we'll fight Budget Rafael then Kinu will stop us 'coz morals.

"If you killed him, you won't be the dad / mum I looked up to." yada yada boring cliche moral dilemma bullshit.


Either that or Tobs will just do a Savin move and cuck is again by leaving us out of it 'coz why not, we're an extra after all.
This is HER character arc right? More character development for our dauteru.

It's not like the story told by her happened in the past and we in the present can probably change the course of it by interfering or just be a true MODERN parent and just leave our kids to deal with their own problems then blame them for their own failure.

Much story, such character development, really deep character writing right there.

 

[Lord Kentus]

and just leave our kids to deal with their own problems then blame them for their own failure.

Ahhhh it makes me proud to be a papa to mock and scold my children for their failures, Kinu let the homestead be obliterated, her siblings near murdered and she got a hug for her fuckup

._. And of course because TOB writes obvious tropes she doesn't want the forgiveness offered because she is Punished Kinu or some shit or whatever the fuck, meanwhile the prior game had you granted the ability to make light or even mock such sad sack tragic bullshit

 

[Rango20]

WE will end the story SHE started, I can already see our lord and savior Tobs doing that or heck, maybe even create a scene where we'll fight Budget Rafael then Kinu will stop us 'coz morals.

"If you killed him, you won't be the dad / mum I looked up to." yada yada boring cliche moral dilemma bullshit.


Either that or Tobs will just do a Savin move and cuck is again by leaving us out of it 'coz why not, we're an extra after all.
This is HER character arc right? More character development for our dauteru.

I'm willing to bet a small sum of money that this is exactly what's gonna happen.
Either kill bad fox and become evil in your daughter eyes or let him live because thats what good guys do.


alternatively if we get kicked out of this again, then she'll kill him and champion will admolish her for it.

As if killing this obviously unredeemable arsonist/murderer/rapist, hellbent of exterminating all kitsune is not the only correct course of action.

 

[Biostar]

I'm obviously not talking about game mechanics. Game mechanics don't shape perceptions of characters.

They do for me.

You can fight Kas, and she's still stronger than you. In winter City, you fight some demons, who you can't beat and who a god has to step in to beat. Some conflicts in the game are fought by Gweyr. A few are resolved by Kinu.
Just a few examples of things that are not resolved by you.

And only YOUR story ends if you die. Noone else's. Everybody would keep doing their own thing independent of you. You can even see that in the bad ends where you get enslaved or whatever - the world keeps on spinning.

A literal drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the game.

Except the game literally ends, which means everyone's does. It doesn't move on to another character after you die because you're the center of attention. No one else's story gets resolved if yours ends.

That's a different with a VERY important distinction. How a character "earns" what they have is an important piece in how they are perceived. Both Batman and Spider-man live in universes with people far stronger than them. Both characters will always win at the end of their story. Neither will ever die or experience any permanent setbacks.

Yet Batman is often considered "OP" to the point where there's memes about it, and lots of people dislike him on that fact alone, while Spider-man is often seen as a scrappy underdog. It's because of the difference in how the two are handled.

Memes and opinions aside, Batman is just a dude with a lot of money. He didn't earn the money he got from his parents the same way Spider-Man didn't earn that insect bite. They are still special because of those things.

Nah, that's just not true. Good worldbuilding can happen without a character ever encountering any of the elements that worldbuilding suggests. Even in One Piece, it alludes to stuff we'll never actually see. Specifics about the history of Gold D Roger and his clashes with the contemporaries of his time? We'll never see that. We hear about it, but we'll never see it.

One Piece often alludes to ancient legends, historical figures, civilizations, etc that go beyond where the story will ever go, because that's what worldbuilding does. It's the illusion of depth. You can fill out that depth to a certain degree if you are writing a story that encompasses an entire world, but the world being bigger than your character's story is integral to the process.

If you don't encounter any of the elements involved in lore, then it's not good worldbuilding because it's not part of the world. I don't know how far you are in One Piece but none of that is true. We see things all the time through flashbacks and the events in those shape how the present is ongoing. We've seen specifics about the history of Roger, even had a flashback arc specifically about a part of it not too long ago. The allusions One Piece makes actually have an impact on the story. The poneglyphs, the ancient weapons, ancient civilizations like the Shandians, the Void Century and how it effects the world today still, etc are integral to what's going on. If we just went through the journey without knowing the history we wouldn't understand why things are happening or what needs to be done to resolve them. It's not an illusion, it's actual depth because it actually matters.

Spider-man is definitely the center of his comic book. He's definitely the center of his movies, his games, and his shows.
Saitama is definitely the center of the comic literally titled after him. And I hardly think anyone would agree that Frodo isn't the central focus of LotR.

But Spider-Man is not the center of that world. If he died, the story of that world would continue because it's set in the Marvel Universe where there are hundreds of comics detailing how life still goes on after him. Even characters taking up his mantle and becoming Spider-Man have happened. And Saitama definitively is not. There have been large swathes of the manga where he's not even on panel the majority of the time. He's basically a side character at this point.

And I don't think Frodo is the central focus of LotR. He is one story we follow along with multiple others.

Yeah, that's not gonna happen. I have a pretty firm grasp on things I like and why.

If you say so.

 

[Quoo]

One Piece's world building being an "illusion of depth" has to be the worst take I have seen about anything, also I cant tell if Skandranon is a troll or Savin himself

 

[Lord Kentus]

hellbent of exterminating all kitsune is not the only correct course of action.

I mean to be fair, that's a very understandable position as they currently exist I think

 

[Skandranon]

They do for me.

They don't for most people. Like I said, if what you were saying is true, we wouldn't have people in this very thread complaining that the game treats you like a side character, because mechanically, the world revolves around you and that never changes.

And more importantly, this entire conversation is specifically about my personal opinion, so thats what we're talking about here.

A literal drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the game.

Except the game literally ends, which means everyone's does. It doesn't move on to another character after you die because you're the center of attention. No one else's story gets resolved if yours ends.

...this is true of every game in existence where you have to play a single viewpoint character. Taking it that literally makes no sense except for semantics.

If I made a game about being a janitor, technically you could say the janitor is the center of the universe because if he fails at whatever he's doing, the game ends.

But that would be silly.

Memes and opinions aside, Batman is just a dude with a lot of money. He didn't earn the money he got from his parents the same way Spider-Man didn't earn that insect bite. They are still special because of those things.

This whole conversation is about opinions.

Batman trained, invented, and worked for a long time to get what he has. It's a hell of a lot more than just "has money". Spider-man was just in the right place at the right time.

If you don't encounter any of the elements involved in lore, then it's not good worldbuilding because it's not part of the world. I don't know how far you are in One Piece but none of that is true. We see things all the time through flashbacks and the events in those shape how the present is ongoing. We've seen specifics about the history of Roger, even had a flashback arc specifically about a part of it not too long ago. The allusions One Piece makes actually have an impact on the story. The poneglyphs, the ancient weapons, ancient civilizations like the Shandians, the Void Century and how it effects the world today still, etc are integral to what's going on. If we just went through the journey without knowing the history we wouldn't understand why things are happening or what needs to be done to resolve them. It's not an illusion, it's actual depth because it actually matters.

I've read all of One Piece, but that's neither here nor there.

But let's give another popular example: Star Wars, specifically the original trilogy.

When they first meet Han Solo, he brags that his ship can do the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs.

What's the Kessel Run? Where is Kessel? Why is it so popular? What's a parsec? How fast is the fastest time, for comparison?

None of that is answered. None of it is referenced again (besides the fact that the MF is fast). It doesn't matter, because we don't need to know. That moment builds out the universe: it lets us know that Star Wars uses an alternative measurement of distance, it lets us know that somewhere there's a place called Kessel, it lets us know that the Kessel Run is a popular enough benchmark that Han assumes the reference is impressive to everyone, and it lets us know that the Falcon is fast (but gives no point of actual comparison).

Or when Han meets Lando, they, in a short period of time, reference several events in their shared past that we get no detail on. Just vague references that let us know that there are things and places outside of the scope of this story.

That's all worldbuilding, and good worldbuilding.

But Spider-Man is not the center of that world. If he died, the story of that world would continue because it's set in the Marvel Universe where there are hundreds of comics detailing how life still goes on after him. Even characters taking up his mantle and becoming Spider-Man have happened.

...this is my point. My original statement was "you can be the main character and not have the world revolve around you."

Spider-man is the main character of everything titled "Spider-man". Yet, the world does not revolve around him. That's exactly what I'm saying, the world is bigger than the story about Spider-man being told in it. And even in the context of his own story, he fails a lot.

And Saitama definitively is not. There have been large swathes of the manga where he's not even on panel the majority of the time. He's basically a side character at this point.

Again, this is my whole point.
If it didn't show up, everyone would die. The comic is titled after him. No one is stronger than him. He is the solution to almost every problem.

Yet, we can have an interesting story where he's not the focus. That's literally the exact point I've been making.

And I don't think Frodo is the central focus of LotR. He is one story we follow along with multiple others.

He isn't the central focus, he's the main character. Like I said, you can be the main character and still not have the world revolves around you.

 

[LandBeach]

Speaking of worldbuilding and lore in general, I feel the characters do exposition dumps a bit too much.

 

[Fikedever]

Does a guy playing Tomb Raider self-insert as Lara Croft? Do people "self-insert" as Arthur Morgan when playing Red Dead Redemption 2? I'd say not usually.

Some people, yeah.

Self-insertion isn't ubiquitous to all video games , its usually restricted to a certain subset of them which lack well defined personalities to get in the way of thinking of "yourself" as the person in the game. I simply play all games the same way you'd play a fighting game, or Mario, or a TMNT game or something: the PC is just an entity I'm controlling.

If it is a blank slate RPG it is definitely the intention to self-insert. I'm also talking about the context of a RPG porn game, not necessarily all games. I don't think a well defined character stops self-insertion, just makes it harder for some people.

There's a big difference between being a viewpoint character and being the center of attention. One doesn't necessitate the other. I don't like stories where it feels like one single character is the only active force of the entire universe, it makes that story seem artificial. The MC can be the focus of some scenes. The MC shouldn't be the focus of EVERY scene. I think that some stuff should happen independently of the MC's control.

I may have misinterpreted here. I was thinking about being the center of attention relating to porn scenes in a porn game, not necessarily the non-porn scenes. I see the benefit in balancing the focus of scenes.

If a character is introduced in a sexual way in a porn game, then they should be focused on the player character. I don't think it follows that because in a normal RPG a shift of focus at times to another character can be good means that it is a good idea to shift the focus to another character having sex unless the intention is voyeur, cucking, open, or polyamorous relationship.

For example, I think the PC being able to "deny" other character's relationship is silly. It should be something you either encourage or ignore, but not forbid. It gives you an outsized amount of control for the purpose of stroking the player's ego at the expense of the veracity of the in-game universe (and, to add, an amount of control that can't possibly be consistently replicated throughout the game).

Stroking the player's ego isn't a bad goal for a porn game. I have different expectations for a porn game. An ignore button is the easy way for the writer to not write a path they aren't interested is doing, which isn't a bad thing. If there are characters that are intended for polyamorous, open, voyeur, or cucking content then that should be made clear early on so that a player is able to invest as little time in them as possible if they aren't interested in it.

I don't really think this is true. Self-insertion is at direct odds with an interesting character, I really don't think it's possible to do both.

It's not a requirement for me. Generally, I don't self-insert as exactly me. Sometimes its someone who I wish I could be. I think it depends on the person, though. There is likely variability in ability or desire to self-insert that is affected by similarity of the character. So, the more concrete you make a character, the more you decrease the proportion of people who would self-insert. but its certainly possible.

I've seen people complain when, say, the PC declares their love for a character and the player doesn't feel the same way. I've seen people complain about the PC's tone in certain scenes, that its too angry when the player hasn't directed them that way. I myself have disliked scenes with Gweyr, where the player is sympathetic to her estrangement from her family despite me thinking she kinda deserved it.

There are too many shackles in place caused by people expectations of a self-insert character to give them an interesting personality. Gotta pick one or the other.

You can have a concrete characterization within the choices the player makes. For example, having the PC declaring love for a character after choosing to have sex with them is probably a bad idea, worse if they haven't even had sex. Generally, love is related to a pursued romance option. I think the bigger issue with those complaints is a lack of build up to the declaring of love. Generally, most players who wouldn't love the character would have stopped pursuing the progression and wouldn't have an issue. If of course, they went through the scenes until the PC declared love and the player was convinced they didn't love them, and then complained, I could see what you mean, but I don't think that's generally what happens.

I'm not really sure the context of anger you are talking about. For me, when it comes to the PC being angry in responses, the issue I have with it is that theres really nothing you can do. It is actually worse when I'm self-inserting and also personally would be angry, because now I'm resonating with the anger the PC feels and I can't do anything about it. This usually happens in Tobs content for me, and is part of the reason I've not played a single Kinu quest. The big issue with Tobs content is the PC lacks agency because of the linearity of the narrative, which comes out as the player character being weak. This doesn't cause issues with me self-inserting, it just isn't interesting to me. The whole Kinu stepping out of the parents shadow theme doesn't make up for that lack of interest.

Is the issue with Gweyr the lack of ability to self-insert because of Tobs writing the player character with more definite characterization? What I've gathered from the complaints about Gweyr I've seen is that the player character is railroaded into acting stupid because Tobs wanted to write a good reason for Gweyr to have been exiled, but then couldn't figure out how to justify why the player character, and the player, should be sympathetic, and just decided to force the player character to be sympathetic no matter the choice?

From my understanding, you don't self-insert as the player character, but you disliked the Gweyr scene anyways. Wouldn't this indicate that the issue is outside of self-insertion?

This is pretty much what I'm saying. There's not enough interesting choices to make your blank slate character take the hit in personality. And the dev team is too small to give you the amount of choices that would make it worth it, at least to me personally. Hell, multi-million dollar companies have struggled with this same thing.

I don't think the issue is that the team is too small, I think the issue is that focus is deliberately on writing more content for less choices and branching paths for extended word count on a single path.

Coincidentally I agree with Sav here. Characters that make the PC the center of their whole lives make me uncomfortable, because the player can't logically reciprocate, which makes the relationship seem massively unequal. I can't take the PC pretending to have a deep, lasting relationship with a single character, then turning around and saying basically the same thing to 20 other chicks while the first one waits back at home for the PC to give them some attention again. Harems kinda creep me out.

Which is why I enjoy when NPCs do their own thing sans the PC.

Would it make you comfortable to create a single character that you devote only to Brienne then? That way, that PC would be reciprocating and fully focused on Brienne, and there wouldn't be any hypocrisy or unequality?

You might just be because I have no problem conceptualizing a character based off all the choices in the game and my own ideal in this setting. They don't all have to be pivotal choices to fit what my character would do. And I already said the problem is when they do take choices and force dialogue on you, which we see a lot with Tobs and why his content gets lambasted so much.

I guess I have an issue of coming up with a head cannon and running away with it, so I'm good at coming up with a character, but then I get frustrated when I get off the rails. That's also mostly related to Tobs content though.

The main villain is focused on you due to sheer happenstance (literally just standing in the right place at the right time) as opposed to you just being generally super awesome.

In a way, the main villain is focused on you because you happened to be in the right place at the right time. But, the reason you are in the right place at the right time is because you do possess a special quality no one else in the tavern does: courage. I would have said empathy as well, but its possible to want to help Cait for selfish reasons (like a reward) if you are playing that kind of character.

I'm obviously not talking about game mechanics. Game mechanics don't shape perceptions of characters. If they did, people in this very thread wouldn't be irritated by how the game treats them in the story because the mechanics treat them the same either way. Mechanically, literally everyone is an unthinking unfeeling doll when you aren't around - that's not how anyone, in this topic or any other one, actually perceives them, because mechanics don't shape character perception.

What you see shapes your perception. What you don't doesn't tend to. That's why, mechanically, characters being unthinking unfeeling dolls doesn't affect how people perceive them. This is why sequels can alter people's enjoyment of an older work, unless they haven't seen or heard about it from other people. The less you see, the easier it is to compartmentalize it. People generally can separate game battle mechanics from story using suspension of disbelief, but there are cases when there is such a disconnect between game and story that it causes ludonarrative dissonance. The fact that that phrase exists indicates that probably someone experienced a change in perception of story based on gameplay.

The gameplay is almost invariably completely independent of the story. If there's a cutscene where your character gets beat, it doesn't matter how high you level up - your character gets beat.

I don't think automatic defeat cutscenes are good game design. They might be the best way the writer has of moving the story along, but its more a concession due to limitation of paths.

Story trumps gameplay, always, when it comes to shaping perceptions and personal taste in how characters are handled. Almost nobody's personal tastes take gameplay into account.

I think that story is a more important factor than gameplay for characterization, but an ideal would be to use gameplay to strengthen characterization. Usually though, fun gameplay is more important than that so concessions are made, and the story can make up for any dissonance. Go to far in the gameplay, though, and it can start overriding suspension of disbelief.

None of that is answered. None of it is referenced again (besides the fact that the MF is fast). It doesn't matter, because we don't need to know.

...

Or when Han meets Lando, they, in a short period of time, reference several events in their shared past that we get no detail on. Just vague references that let us know that there are things and places outside of the scope of this story.

That's all worldbuilding, and good worldbuilding.

That worldbuilding has a direct explanatory effect on elements directly affecting the story. They serve a purpose, and as you indicate are usually one liners that aren't overly expositing. The issue with CoC2 is that it has large exposition dumps.

 

[Fikedever]

You must be registered to see the links

You can try out Drifa, written by Jstar and coded by mod anon.

Full release probably tomorrow. There may be bugs.

Edit: Also, save compatibility is not guaranteed.

You must be registered to see the links

Edit 2: That changelog is wrong. Correct one will be edited in to the current post.

 

[Raf-Raf]

You must be registered to see the links

You can try out Drifa, written by Jstar and coded by mod anon.

Full release probably tomorrow. There may be bugs.

Edit: Also, save compatibility is not guaranteed.

You must be registered to see the links

Level 20 cap...
Looks like I'll lose my sanity throughout the grinding experience.

 

[Skandranon]

If it is a blank slate RPG it is definitely the intention to self-insert. I'm also talking about the context of a RPG porn game, not necessarily all games. I don't think a well defined character stops self-insertion, just makes it harder for some people.

Yeah, that's the subset I'm talking about.
I'm simply saying I personally regard blank slate characters the exact same way I'd regard any other character, which means in my eyes its just a character with no personality. Boring.

If a character is introduced in a sexual way in a porn game, then they should be focused on the player character. I don't think it follows that because in a normal RPG a shift of focus at times to another character can be good means that it is a good idea to shift the focus to another character having sex unless the intention is voyeur, cucking, open, or polyamorous relationship.

Eh, I think this is up to personal taste.
But I will say that in this particular game, pretty much all the relationships are open and polyamorous, because your character is canonically polyamorous.

Stroking the player's ego isn't a bad goal for a porn game. I have different expectations for a porn game. An ignore button is the easy way for the writer to not write a path they aren't interested is doing, which isn't a bad thing. If there are characters that are intended for polyamorous, open, voyeur, or cucking content then that should be made clear early on so that a player is able to invest as little time in them as possible if they aren't interested in it.

I get what you're saying here. I think it all comes down to a push-and-pull between the porn and the plot. I think such options hurt the plot (at least for me), but I can see as to where they'd improve the experience of the porn part. The call would come down to where you want your game to focus on; there are plenty of games on this site where the porn is subservient to the plot, and vice versa.

It's not a requirement for me. Generally, I don't self-insert as exactly me. Sometimes its someone who I wish I could be. I think it depends on the person, though. There is likely variability in ability or desire to self-insert that is affected by similarity of the character. So, the more concrete you make a character, the more you decrease the proportion of people who would self-insert. but its certainly possible.

Like I said, its not something I can quite relate to, but the mechanics of it and how it differs between people is an interesting topic.

I think the bigger issue with those complaints is a lack of build up to the declaring of love. Generally, most players who wouldn't love the character would have stopped pursuing the progression and wouldn't have an issue. If of course, they went through the scenes until the PC declared love and the player was convinced they didn't love them, and then complained, I could see what you mean, but I don't think that's generally what happens.

Yeah, lack of buildup is an issue that I've seen come up a decent amount between this and TiTs.
An example of this specific thing for me is Brienne. After you transform her, if you sleep with her, it pretty much immediately goes full steam into your characters acting very much in love. A bunch of her scenes fire automatically, too, upon stepping into the Wayfort; she'll basically tackle you and get you to knock her up as soon as she's done with her previous litter. My characters had to start taking blank powder to get out of the cycle. She doesn't really have any buildup at all.

Of course, most people do really really like her, largely because Wsan is a goddamn wizard at pretty much anything he does, so its not really a problem that comes up much, but for me personally, it was bit offputting. Evelyn, another Wsan character, also has the issue of a lack of buildup I think, but for a different reason.

I'm not really sure the context of anger you are talking about. For me, when it comes to the PC being angry in responses, the issue I have with it is that theres really nothing you can do. It is actually worse when I'm self-inserting and also personally would be angry, because now I'm resonating with the anger the PC feels and I can't do anything about it. This usually happens in Tobs content for me, and is part of the reason I've not played a single Kinu quest. The big issue with Tobs content is the PC lacks agency because of the linearity of the narrative, which comes out as the player character being weak. This doesn't cause issues with me self-inserting, it just isn't interesting to me. The whole Kinu stepping out of the parents shadow theme doesn't make up for that lack of interest.

Funnily enough, the context was something to do with a Kinu Quest. I don't know what specifically it was, because, again, I've done basically no kitsune content still (lack of interest in Kiyoko, mostly) but it was just something I noted people had opinions about. Sounds like a recurring Tobs problem.

From my understanding, you don't self-insert as the player character, but you disliked the Gweyr scene anyways. Wouldn't this indicate that the issue is outside of self-insertion?

My personal issue with Gweyr was being misled. After she first gives you her story, you basically get to make a judgment call on how she behaved in her tale. You can say what she did was necessary, or you van say she's a monster, as well as a more neutral option.

The issue is that after that, no matter what you pick, as you continue down her questline your character comes down on the side of basically being 100% on her side and convincing her she deserves to go home.

I don't like choices that don't do anything.

Would it make you comfortable to create a single character that you devote only to Brienne then? That way, that PC would be reciprocating and fully focused on Brienne, and there wouldn't be any hypocrisy or unequality?

Eh. You run into a matter of practicality there: Brienne (or any other character} doesn't have enough content to hold up a game by herself. She wasn't designed that way, no character was. I wouldn't devote the time to run through the entire game just for Brienne scenes.

And then, as another consideration, she just doesn't hit any of my buttons. I don't like lactation or pregnancy, and I prefer my PC to play the sub if someone has to.

In a way, the main villain is focused on you because you happened to be in the right place at the right time. But, the reason you are in the right place at the right time is because you do possess a special quality no one else in the tavern does: courage. I would have said empathy as well, but its possible to want to help Cait for selfish reasons (like a reward) if you are playing that kind of character.

Sure, but that just makes you a decent person. There's a difference between a character being particularly brave and a character being The Chosen One. Heck, to bring back my earlier One Piece example that's a huge argument going on in One Piece about Luffy right now; that's he now way too special and it damages the story, despite the fact that he was already pretty damn special.

I don't personally like most stories that cross a certain line in putting the MC on a pedestal, no matter the medium.

I don't think automatic defeat cutscenes are good game design. They might be the best way the writer has of moving the story along, but its more a concession due to limitation of paths.

Oh, I don't either. I'm not saying they're good, I'm just using them as an example of how story trumps gameplay in almost all situations when it comes to characters and story.

I think that story is a more important factor than gameplay for characterization, but an ideal would be to use gameplay to strengthen characterization. Usually though, fun gameplay is more important than that so concessions are made, and the story can make up for any dissonance. Go to far in the gameplay, though, and it can start overriding suspension of disbelief.

Yeah we pretty much agree on this. There's kind of a fuzzy line drawn where story and gameplay affect each other, though, and I think where that line should be is going to be different from game to game.

That worldbuilding has a direct explanatory effect on elements directly affecting the story. They serve a purpose, and as you indicate are usually one liners that aren't overly expositing. The issue with CoC2 is that it has large exposition dumps.

Oh, I think CoC2's worldbuilding could use a lot of work; the Convocation of Mirrors for instance was a really sloppy way to tell an important piece of lore.

My comments on worldbuilding were to point out how it establishes that the Champ isn't the most important thing in the world and that there's other and possibly bigger stuff going on.

 

[sskrx7]

You must be registered to see the links

You can try out Drifa, written by Jstar and coded by mod anon.

Full release probably tomorrow. There may be bugs.

Edit: Also, save compatibility is not guaranteed.

You must be registered to see the links

I wish you could tell your foxy family to fuck off after Kiyoko and Kinu kindly inform you that your opinion doesn't matter at all, we shouldn't be forced to romance her just to get her out in the first place. I want Kohaku romance instead .

 

[Raf-Raf]

I wish you could tell your foxy family to fuck off after Kiyoko and Kinu kindly inform you that your opinion doesn't matter at all, we shouldn't be forced to romance her just to get her out in the first place. I want Kohaku romance instead .

Kohaku gang, best gang???

 

[Deleted member 1660801]

We demand more Kohaku content

Jokes aside, I'm a little afraid Tobs looks at this forum and he is gonna see all this Kohaku love and make her shitty out of spite

 

[KloneZone]

I wish you could tell your foxy family to fuck off after Kiyoko and Kinu kindly inform you that your opinion doesn't matter at all, we shouldn't be forced to romance her just to get her out in the first place. I want Kohaku romance instead .

I wish we could get Kohaku out of the Kitsune Den. She deserves better then to be in that place.