Ren'Py Desert Stalker [v0.19.4] [Zetan]

[Paz]

I'd also point that at basically every interaction he can be belittling and dismissive and always comes out on top. Guards, priests, whatever. It never backfires, nobody ever has an issue with it. Contrary to what is suggested here even with the Queen you can play "eh whatever little girl, I'm Chad McAwesomeguy" (though there's at least some slightly respectful choices ... although that never holds though an entire scene of dialogue ^^).

That is sometimes a conscious choice, for various reasons. Be it the whole ethos of the setting, or the scene we want to show, or simply time/effort constraints.
We also have quite likely dropped the ball in certain low-hanging fruit opportunities. Tunnel vision is a bitch.

The issue aside from this coming across like some insecure teenager is that choices never feel like you really need to worry about anything. The setting kinda plays at being sorta harsh, sorta survival-ish, but ... it's just not for this guy.

Tangential to the previous point, what would you consider an actual risk?
The MC dying? Obviously the game can't continue after that, so it's at best a quick "game over, choose again". Which, by the way, exists in some capacity and existed in other cases but iirc has been removed for now because it didn't really work nicely (the Queen could have you executed), but it might make a comeback.
The MC losing girls to someone else because of his attitude? Very, very unlikely to happen. Both because of the whole premise and the fact that it is quite an overhead to account for such possibilities.
The MC getting beaten and brushing it off a bit later?

I am genuinely curious because I think you make a potentially fair point.

 

[PyoT]

That is sometimes a conscious choice, for various reasons.

Obviously the society is portrayed as very much hierarchical (and valuing certain things etc) but I wasn't going to write an essay on every single interaction of the game. Still, the overall impression remains ^^;

Tangential to the previous point, what would you consider an actual risk?

This issue ultimately applies to very-nearly all classic hero adventures (or just stories) ever. The reader knows they are going to defeat the big bad evil in the end. Or solve the mystery. Or get the love interest. Or all those things. Obviously getting captured or incapacitated or whatever is always going to be a temporary inconvenience of some shape or form.

But that's also bluntly put the difference between good writing and poor writing. In a well-written story the reader isn't going to sit there and think, eh, all the struggle to get to the goal is whatever, there's no jeopardy after all, I know how this is going to end ...

For me a lot of it is just the presentation; it's simply not presented as difficult or challenging or anything ... assuming for a moment that I had some Magical Editorial Powers by which to change the game just casually to my subjective preferences, I don't think I'd even substantially change much of the actual content. Tone some of the most exaggerated instance down a bit and already there'd be a notable improvement (even if the main beats of the scene are by and large the same).

And, sure, going a little bit further it's still relatively simple things - like going into a fight surprised by a development and forced to react to something unexpected, out of a disadvantage, whatever. Completely different atmosphere already. But, naw, he always sees through everything immediately ...

I'd also agree with somebody above mentioning other characters. I'm definitely not saying there needs to be a rival or even anybody excessively interfering with the story, but just, whatever, "balancing" the guy against other people and what they are up and whatever, what somebody then might be talking about in the market or anything would also contribute to making the protagonist seem less extreme in the context of the setting.

And, sure, if we talk actual consequences; get injured, struggle to convince people, make people hate him if he's being too much of an idiot and force him to fix that, other temporary set-backs; plans not working out and needing an alternative, all options as appropriate. Heck, even screwing up so other people get screwed over - if he actually cares - is an option.

I don't think it needs to be super complex and fundamentally change the gameplay/story/characters. As far as I understand the goal here is still to be a porn game so to some extend porn game logic must apply, and I'd agree that any choices that just lock you effectively out of porn content (or lead to direct Game Overs) is more or less a waste of effort. But it's NOT about the character being fundamentally competent and reaching his goals. It's about how it's presented; there are ways to "disguise" what's going on, that "porn logic", better.

 

[Cynicaladm]

And, sure, if we talk actual consequences; get injured, struggle to convince people, make people hate him if he's being too much of an idiot and force him to fix that, other temporary set-backs; plans not working out and needing an alternative, all options as appropriate. Heck, even screwing up so other people get screwed over - if he actually cares - is an option.

in a way, part 1 of the hive mission is pretty much a failure... we could argue that it might be seen as Fang's failure and not the MC's, but MC's presence de facto does nothing to improve matters. of course, the emotional payload is minimal because MC isn't really personally invested in the destiny of specific mutant redshirts... so I get your point.
That said, there are going to be a few instances that will challenge the mc in a much more direct way... but of course we can't quite elaborate further on that. will he get through those events? of course, this IS his story so one way or another he will be with us until the last chapter is written... but it won't always be plain sailing. as to what is considered sufficiently challenged to make the story interesting, that's going to be different for each reader and, to an extent also for us. fingers crossed, we can make it still worth reading through without stretching the suspension of disbelief too much (I myself find the continued existence of pantyhose more challenging, in that regard ... but the sexy times do come with their own challenges and requirements.)

 

[Idontsniffpanties]

I'm not endlessly going to belabor the point, but it's not about the guy being reasonably competent. It's about moments like when the sister's husband first appears and he's like "hey, Stalker, whose literal job definition is working for the Queen, how is it working for the Queen?" and the MC goes "ME NO WORK FOR NOBODY. HOW DARE YOU SAY SO YOU PUNY WORM" and that sort of moments. It's just embarassing.

I'd also point that at basically every interaction he can be belittling and dismissive and always comes out on top. Guards, priests, whatever. It never backfires, nobody ever has an issue with it. Contrary to what is suggested here even with the Queen you can play "eh whatever little girl, I'm Chad McAwesomeguy" (though there's at least some slightly respectful choices ... although that never holds though an entire scene of dialogue ^^).

The issue aside from this coming across like some insecure teenager is that choices never feel like you really need to worry about anything. The setting kinda plays at being sorta harsh, sorta survival-ish, but ... it's just not for this guy.

And I disagree that it's got much to do with any of the power fantasies on here. Plenty of games on here aren't this bad about it. Some are I'm sure but they usually are low quality rubbish anyway so easy to ignore ^^

I don't know about you, but I had my dick bitten off and I was stabbed to death when I was an ass or tried to dominate the situation when I shouldn't.

 

[Cynicaladm]

I don't know about you, but I had my dick bitten off and I was stabbed to death when I was an ass or tried to dominate the situation when I shouldn't.

is that when you decided to come play AV games?

 

[DogBeersHadOne]

I don't know about you, but I had my dick bitten off and I was stabbed to death when I was an ass or tried to dominate the situation when I shouldn't.

RIP the homie

 

[Idontsniffpanties]

is that when you decided to come play AV games?

I got this little electro shocker that I put right on my nerve, and it almost feels like before the "accident" when I still had flesh down there :'(

 

[Mfka5]

I got this little electro shocker that I put right on my nerve, and it almost feels like before the "accident" when I still had flesh down there :'(

Ayo bruh, nah youre lying
Proof or it didnt happen

 

[Hildegardt]

Also, if the player did not unlock the Raiders faction, then the MC is not able to take control of the highway settlement without the support of the Raiders i.e. he is not able to oust the General on his own. In short, there are specific examples in this game that counters the opinion that MC is a Mary Sue.

I don't think this is a good example. The raiders would take the settlement either way and Zaton's role is supposed to be the diplomat, who prevents more bloodshet. But in the end it turns out your choices don't actually have any serious consequences for Zaton's quest or the fate of the raiders. It simply comes down to if you want to play the good guy or stroke it to the settlers suffering. There's nothing more to it, which was pretty disappointing to me honestly. The quest played out like an oldschool rpg at first, but in the end it shied away from disturbing the power fantasy even slightly.

On the one hand you can miss whole chunks of content depending on your choices, but on the other hand there are never really any bad consequences at least for Zaton and the characters close to him (unnamed side characters can be gored for fun, though). I don't think it would be a bad move to have players reload a save, if they fuck up somewhere. It would only add to the danger purported by the setting.
For example, the zone would have been pretty disappointing, if it wasn't for the one bad outcome, where Shani could get trapped. I'm not even sure what in the zone required extensive stalker training and a truckload of equipment (that weirdly enough vanished somewhere before Shani even entered the zone).

 

[ksatnod]

She had to avoid the looters/stalkers that arrowed the one dude in the head

There was a storm/blowout or what ever its called in the stalker series that would've gotten her if Ivy's friend was more suspicious of others.

And finally just because things are quiet most of the time, doesn't mean the area is safe.

 

[Kellermann]

I don't think it would be a bad move to have players reload a save, if they fuck up somewhere. It would only add to the danger purported by the setting.

I'd rather not if you are talking about constant game overs. Unless it is video game with mechanics and gameplay that support something like that (ex.Metal Gear Solid games or horror genre), then it just becomes annoying very quickly. I don't think visual novels lend themselves well to game overs. Reloading a save, yes I do that often (usually to grab a new lewd scene), but a game over screen mid-story? I haven't found one yet on F95 with constant game overs that doesn't royally piss me off. Fortunately here I think the zone is the only time we have approached something like a hard cut game over. To its credit the "bad end" there was easy to spot coming and avoid.

Rather than game overs, there could different outcomes (good outcome, ok outcome, undesirable but not deadly outcome). I quite liked the dilemma we were faced with during hive mission. But the problem with the previously mentioned different outcomes is it requires a lot more writing and rendering. The more outcomes, the more branching required. Great for players but a chore for developers and I would be sad to see DS become another once-per-year update game. 3 to 4 months is ideal, especially for kind of quality entertainment we receive in DS.


_somewhat unrelated section _
Recently a number people have called for changes to certain aspects of story or characters (I also asked from time to time, oops), or they have wondered why this game can't have a weaker "more realistic" MC, but it never seems to turn out well when a developer caves to the wants of the general public and changes their original vision. imo, this game has a high level of support and praise precisely because it has gone its own way and takes a different tack than most other games on F95.

 

[ksatnod]

I haven't found one yet on F95 with constant game overs that doesn't royally piss me off.

Only times I ever had game overs that didn't detract, were VNs that put in the effort to make the "game over" a scene unto it self, which I think has similar problems to decision trees.

 

[Filipis]

I don't think this is a good example. The raiders would take the settlement either way and Zaton's role is supposed to be the diplomat, who prevents more bloodshet. But in the end it turns out your choices don't actually have any serious consequences for Zaton's quest or the fate of the raiders. It simply comes down to if you want to play the good guy or stroke it to the settlers suffering. There's nothing more to it, which was pretty disappointing to me honestly. The quest played out like an oldschool rpg at first, but in the end it shied away from disturbing the power fantasy even slightly.

On the one hand you can miss whole chunks of content depending on your choices, but on the other hand there are never really any bad consequences at least for Zaton and the characters close to him (unnamed side characters can be gored for fun, though). I don't think it would be a bad move to have players reload a save, if they fuck up somewhere. It would only add to the danger purported by the setting.
For example, the zone would have been pretty disappointing, if it wasn't for the one bad outcome, where Shani could get trapped. I'm not even sure what in the zone required extensive stalker training and a truckload of equipment (that weirdly enough vanished somewhere before Shani even entered the zone).

Also... the Zone part is still on-going? It's not over, so Shani can still get in a serious situation. But I would like to see more... permanent consequences from some choices presented to the MC.

 

[Idontsniffpanties]

It's too early in the story to tell. I am sure there will be major changes down the line thatdirectly result from choices. It's set up like that.

 

[nccnnc09]

I don't think this is a good example. The raiders would take the settlement either way and Zaton's role is supposed to be the diplomat, who prevents more bloodshet. But in the end it turns out your choices don't actually have any serious consequences for Zaton's quest or the fate of the raiders. It simply comes down to if you want to play the good guy or stroke it to the settlers suffering. There's nothing more to it, which was pretty disappointing to me honestly. The quest played out like an oldschool rpg at first, but in the end it shied away from disturbing the power fantasy even slightly.

On the one hand you can miss whole chunks of content depending on your choices, but on the other hand there are never really any bad consequences at least for Zaton and the characters close to him (unnamed side characters can be gored for fun, though). I don't think it would be a bad move to have players reload a save, if they fuck up somewhere. It would only add to the danger purported by the setting.
For example, the zone would have been pretty disappointing, if it wasn't for the one bad outcome, where Shani could get trapped. I'm not even sure what in the zone required extensive stalker training and a truckload of equipment (that weirdly enough vanished somewhere before Shani even entered the zone).

from the first time open the game you can see they say that every choice matter but actually, every choice create work, which means if dev drilling into creates some consequence, he gonna waste a lot of time. So the solution normally be like stop you from the quest or changing a tiny bit in the character. we all know it, but this raider quest is just start and who know what will he add into it. Anyways, think like a dev for a bit and wait, if it bad, leave. But i think he made a good line of choice for sure. In my first run, I have missed half of scenes.

 

[Filipis]

from the first time open the game you can see they say that every choice matter but actually, every choice create work, which means if dev drilling into creates some consequence, he gonna waste a lot of time. So the solution normally be like stop you from the quest or changing a tiny bit in the character. we all know it, but this raider quest is just start and who know what will he add into it. Anyways, think like a dev for a bit and wait, if it bad, leave. But i think he made a good line of choice for sure. In my first run, I have missed half of scenes.

This. I was blown away by the fact that this was just 0.12b version of the game, and so much content was already in it. Main quests have barely even started, and most of the present choices in the game are character-building, rather than story-defining. This is a clear "wait & see" situation.

Off-topic, but I am a new player of DS, what has the developer's reputation & update cadence been like so far? Steady, small updates or larger, infrequent updates? How long did it take to get to 0.12b (from first release)?

 

[Kellermann]

This. I was blown away by the fact that this was just 0.12b version of the game, and so much content was already in it. Main quests have barely even started, and most of the present choices in the game are character-building, rather than story-defining. This is a clear "wait & see" situation.

Off-topic, but I am a new player of DS, what has the developer's reputation & update cadence been like so far? Steady, small updates or larger, infrequent updates? How long did it take to get to 0.12b (from first release)?

Great rep and regular updates (3 to 4 months). Not going to find much better for a highly rated game on F95. Amount of content is excellent for me, but I don't speed run and I read everything including all the lore pages. If you just fast forward to the bewbies then it might not last that long

 

[Hildegardt]

from the first time open the game you can see they say that every choice matter but actually, every choice create work, which means if dev drilling into creates some consequence, he gonna waste a lot of time.

But that's not the problem. The game is already full of choices and different outcomes, so it doesn't seem like Zetan sees this as a waste of time. The problem is rather that the choices never have any meaningful consequences for the PC.
Zaton goes around deciding the fate of the different characters he meets and there's never any conflict to it. Like for example in the aforementioned quest: How does he convince the savage sadistic raiders that building a shed for some braindamaged guy is a better idea than their original plan of pillaging and killing the settlement? How is suggesting to the raiders that they should help rather than doing what they do best not an obviously bad idea?

 

[JaxMan]

But that's not the problem. The game is already full of choices and different outcomes, so it doesn't seem like Zetan sees this as a waste of time. The problem is rather that the choices never have any meaningful consequences for the PC.
Zaton goes around deciding the fate of the different characters he meets and there's never any conflict to it. Like for example in the aforementioned quest: How does he convince the savage sadistic raiders that building a shed for some braindamaged guy is a better idea than their original plan of pillaging and killing the settlement? How is suggesting to the raiders that they should help rather than doing what they do best not an obviously bad idea?

I didn't get the idea that he expected the raiders to move into the settlement and run it administratively. My thought was that MC was trying to create a tribute giving settlement to the raiders and it would be run by the people living there. The raiders won't be the ones building a shed. The raiders would come by and collect tribute as payment for not attacking the queen's caravans or destroying the settlement. Can Kyra keep the more violent and destructive elements of the raiders in check, but she seems to be more reasonable? There may be an issue with that later, who knows?

 

[Walter Victor]

I'd rather not if you are talking about constant game overs. Unless it is video game with mechanics and gameplay that support something like that (ex.Metal Gear Solid games or horror genre), then it just becomes annoying very quickly. I don't think visual novels lend themselves well to game overs. Reloading a save, yes I do that often (usually to grab a new lewd scene), but a game over screen mid-story? I haven't found one yet on F95 with constant game overs that doesn't royally piss me off. Fortunately here I think the zone is the only time we have approached something like a hard cut game over. To its credit the "bad end" there was easy to spot coming and avoid.

Rather than game overs, there could different outcomes (good outcome, ok outcome, undesirable but not deadly outcome). I quite liked the dilemma we were faced with during hive mission. But the problem with the previously mentioned different outcomes is it requires a lot more writing and rendering. The more outcomes, the more branching required. Great for players but a chore for developers and I would be sad to see DS become another once-per-year update game. 3 to 4 months is ideal, especially for kind of quality entertainment we receive in DS.

Only times I ever had game overs that didn't detract, were VNs that put in the effort to make the "game over" a scene unto it self, which I think has similar problems to decision trees.

An obvious way to have game-overs that are not annoying is to have the game branch back to the decision point so that the player can make a different choice and continue on with the game without having to resort to save-spamming.

This would also allow for extra scenes for the game-over routes. There is a lot of opportunity for humor when such a solution is adopted. If the player doesn't want to see the ending scene, fast-forward is always an option.