And wouldn't choosing between saving one life versus many be even more engaging than that? I don't see the point of talking about a premise rather than the execution, at least in this point of discussion.
it would, and it can be done along with saving an actual character with a name.
i've said this in my first post, in any other story calla would have been our sister instead. the entire point about cait is how she has the nobler if not better written motive than we do and adds to the whole "we aren't the real protagonist" feeling the whole game radiates. hers promises an emotional reunion at the very least, a surprise act or plot twist at most in the form of calla's fate, who's essentially been CoC1'ed and can turn out in so many ways. there's an extra emotional thread and a layer of mystery in her story that can and in my eyes should have been worked into the MC's main plot instead. or at least not sitting besides it as glaring misplaced potential.
she lives in the world as well and kas doesn't just threaten to corrupt the MC. nothing the MC has as a motive she doesn't. but her story has so many more toys to play with and so many more paths to go down.
gonna skip this topic at this point. maybe it's because i'm used to living in foreign cultures, i don't feel disrespected and unwanted by the kitsune community at large and am not overly bothered by kinu, her resentment and all. ultimately i can't deny other people's experiences, i can only confirm my own, and my own is that there is no shortage of friendly interactions, including with takahiro and both post-orb kinu outcomes, to have me enjoy the kitsune side of content, bloated as they are. i appreciate the historical inspirations and the grit it adds to what's otherwise a soft and inoffensive setting.
i think an RPG is just as much about what's not in my control as what is, and under the influence of this view i don't think i can understand the other side enough to provide any insightful commentary to further this discussion.
To the first sentence: Those two are essentially the same thing. Regardless, those companions will not ever reach her level of content. That would require a bevy of content to match the temple, to be involved in content that doesn't concern them(Marrying Atani), have their own quest that ties into the main story, have as many different character interactions as she does, ability to have multiple TFs, etc. Maybe if she were to never get content again most companions would be able to catch up, but we all know that isn't happening.
the difference depends on whether they have plans for the rest of the cast, or whether they aimed to give cait more presence to begin with. that marks the difference between it being a growing pain or blatant mismanagement.
i have my doubts about the companion content too. i have my doubts about whether the game will reach full release at all or implode as these things usually do. in the end it's all speculation and not something i'm willing to hop off the fence for. Brinne's content is on the right track, ryn has some interesting foreshadowing, kiyoko is frontloaded but don't lose in terms of word count at least, if only because TOBS is one of those writers in need of an editor.
and who knows, maybe savco will bite the bullet and give even more companions the berwyn treatment if they don't feel like fleshing them out further or don't see any narrative potential. i can think of a big green example off the top of my head. we only have spot for 2 at a time with a full roster of - fuck me - 10, if brint/enne count as two. and they didn't have the foresight to give them all drastically different archetypes either. if i had a dollar for every frontline beefy warrior i'd have enough money to buy a coke, or at least store brand fake doctor pepper.
i'm not one for tempting time itself, so a decently balanced roster content wise isn't something i'm writing off.
...By adding a 2? You have to be joking, right? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
by changing the name entirely.
"they are better off doing it" means they should have done it or should do it eventually, not that they've already done it which seems to be the misinterpretation.
No because the input of the creator can completely change the perspective of the content. The context of scenes and the entire narrative can change if the writer explains their thought process behind things. It is also much more luck-based if those theoretical discussions are fruitful in terms of helpfulness if the creator isn't present. Maybe nobody says anything in response, maybe it just becomes one big shitpost fest. The chances of the discussion actually being a boon increases so much more if the creator takes part in it.
i'm a firm believer of the death of the author approach, all the way down to how media should be studied and how artists should behave themselves. the theory runs deep and it's a dry read on the best of days, but the relevant portion is this: what is intended by the author is often not the same as what is done, and what works in the author's mind may not work for the audience.
if something about a piece of art works, it should work without explanation for the majority of the intended audience. to let an author explain put them at risk of being blind to their own mistakes. either by letting them colour the feedback or simply by allowing them to reaffirm their conviction.
call for someone to justify themselves and they will often assume themselves just, that's how you end up with delusional creators. i've dealt with enough unfruitful critique sessions marred by artists justifying their absurd decisions with artist intention. too many to put any faith in your method. should ring a bell in this community.
beyond that, the portion of the audience that are willing let alone able to interact directly with the artist is small and falls under a category of their own, even with the presence of social media. they are often not representitive of the general audience at large.
the gathering of feedback is a form of research, and research is best done when controlled for response bias. this is reflected in my prior description of critique etiquette. it is the path i've been taught and a path i'm unwilling to stray from over a forum discussion.
all of this is to say i think the more accurate reflection of the work is one unperturbed by the presence and input of the artist.
there comes a time when the author gets to join the discussion. in panels, biographies, director commentaries; after the work is done and the audience, as an entity at large, have formed their perspectives already. that's when an author can safely add to and alter perspectives without having it leak into the work at hand.
To imply a writer taking maybe 30 minutes out of their day to respond to criticism is the same as a college course is a tad silly.
you are quite right.
to imply high quality education can only be found in a college course is also rather absurd. especially when it comes to creative industries.
i think you've vastly underestimated the difference between two individuals interacting and a crowd interaction, even if savco is comparatively small-time.
how many 30 minutes do they need to take out and how many days do they need to take them out of? the press release is constantly expanding and the auditorium has a rotating door. not every guest that comes through has the good graces to pay the archives a visit.
Getting insight as to how and why a creator does things, even if those things are bad and the reasoning flawed, can be a good example of what NOT to do. It allows people to learn how to avoid the same mistakes the creators in question made. That and even a broken clock is right twice a day. All the writers do get some things right which would only make their thoughts on the matter all the more interesting.
good insights worth having, and once again insights avaliable elsewhere in better forms. this time i'll add the fact that case studies, analysies and other dedicated study material are easily accesible outside of a college course.
How is this not the same thing? You're saying we should not bring the criticism to them and that they should only seek it out themselves but what if they just never see said criticism? What if they're not lucky to be big enough(which most writers definitely are not) to have a separate forum discussing their works? What then? And why would them experiencing said criticism in a separate forum suddenly make it okay?
they are different the same way going to a restaurant is different from being force fed steaks on the street. if they don't have the good judgement to eat without being fed then the fault falls on them and it's they who will starve, but it's still not a reason to start firing mashed potatoes at their mouths.
i didn't say you shouldn't give critique directly under any circumstance, if an artist actively seek them then they are presumably prepared for change, if after that they still react poorly the fault falls firmly on them, and i've had no qualms calling savco out for doing this. confrontation doesn't describe every type of direct feedback.
gonna assume we've all had unwanrranted advice from family members and have all asked for advice from them when we are in need. the difference should be clear.
when i say forums i include the official forums too, the only thing i'm really targeting is discord where direct and live interaction is expected.
Again, I would agree. The thing I'm curious about would be who is pressuring them to do it in short order? I don't think I've ever seen a case of someone blatantly asking for their criticism to be replied to, nevertheless quickly. It's solely on the creator in question if they feel this way without prompting.
blatant? no. implied is a different story. a static forum post is one thing but a live discord discussion comes with a different set of expectations, both for the audience and for the creators present. the biggest instances of writer drama came from this. if your impression of those interactions are different then feel free to assume i stand corrected and i'll concede the entire point.
i will preface this by saying savco still shoulders responsibility for the way they respond and whether they respond at all. as a matter of fact i think them being openly active in the discord is a mistake, which is why i mentioned how most teams don't do it. the point of contention i want to present is the way the community, here at least, make attributions to character flaws. i think that's an unfair approach, not because they aren't as flawed as we say, but because calling out creators for not reacting well to constructive criticism is, paradoxically perhaps, not constructive at all. eliminate personal flaws is not as actionable a piece of critique as it might seem to be, and if by some miracle smut writing becomes a sort of self improvement pilgrimage, it's hardly the most efficient course of action.
more flawed people have been less contentious than savco, so the problem lay somewhere else. my take is it lies in their team structuring which goes back to their direct presence in the discord. feedback filtering and PR are specialist tasks and should be given exclusively to people who are qualified or at least better acquainted.
if i have to say it out loud, yes, the artist's ego should be protected. not coddled, but bypassed. one way of doing that is relaying critical feedback via a messenger they can't shoot. taking away even the possibility to bite back lets them focus less on defending themselves and more on the feedback itself. if nothing else having a filter both ways reduces friction between creator and audience.
it's done pretty much everywhere else besides little internet projects like these, because i guess a discord server makes a decent patreon reward. for details and an example, see the story of how no man's sky was engoodened, by googling those exact words. i'll not be convinced all the patreon money can't afford them a dedicated and qualified community manager capable of shutting their writers up.
with that said, if members of the community want to march under the banner of constructive criticism, they are better off steering away from shit talking individual creators, even if they have a point.
i can't make the call to get savco a community manager, but i can make the call to add nuance to discussions and direct my critcism in a more useful direction. it's the only action available to me so i've taken it.
bottom line, personal virtue cannot be relied upon to manage a team, and pointing out the lack thereof does not make constructive criticism. if the community cannot be expected to self moderate when it comes to critique then neither can the individual artists when it comes to their reactions. the direction of cashflow has no influence over human impulses.
these posts are only getting longer, i've done all i've come here to do, and by the looks of it we've just about reached an amicable middle ground, i'll read the reply if one is posted but i think any further active discussion will yield diminishing returns for all of us.
. Is extensive side content in a porn game that focuses on family and sexy times really a bad thing?
