VN Ren'Py Friends in Need [Ch.1 Remake v0.25] [NeonGhosts]

[Ragnar]

It’s more like, “A handful of people are being willfully obtuse, and demanding explanation for things which don’t actually require them.”

There’s a bit in the comic Watchmen, where the antihero Rorschach takes his mask off before confronting Doctor Manhattan, and being killed. Now, throughout the comic Rorschach has viciously fought to keep his mask on, referring to it as his face, and generally seeing it as his true self. Why then, would he remove it at the moment of his death?! It makes no sense, based on the textual evidence!

Or I can apply my own personal interpretation. Maybe he didn’t want “Rorschach” to die, but he was fine with his human alter ego Walter Kovacs being killed. Maybe at the end he rejected the identity of Rorschach, and chose to die not as a mask but as a man. Maybe he wanted Manhattan to look him in the eyes when he killed him. Maybe his nose itched.

These are all possibilities, because the author trusts the audience to connect the dots on their own, and didn’t feel like he needed to spoon-feed the narrative to anyone.

Worth noting, in the long form interview An Evening with an Extraordinary Gentleman, Alan Moore was asked why this event transpired as it did. His reply? “I don’t know, it just seemed like what he’d do at the time.”

Your example is moot because readers of Watchmen didn't see Alan Moore rewrite that scene years later.
You can write rape like a random act, like an incest thing among family members, etc, etc...but some actions will work better in some scenarios than others. Like if you're writing about a dysfunctional family incest rape would make sense.
To me personally that scene is worse than the og, not because now you can't write all over Nicki (that was stupid in the OG) but because now Guy actions are more random than before.
Of course this is your story and you should pick whatever works better for you.

 

[Pixillin']

The irony is hilarious. "Some people might feel better if they can convince themselves that Nicki did something wrong"? You're trying to insult people (a shitty thing, by the way), but you're making their point for them. The point is that he should justify it to himself. You know, like bad people do? Very few people who do horrible things don't justify them to themselves in one way or another.
And it doesn't matter about the later ones, they are completely irrelevant to the discussion. They happen after the character development everyone is talking about. Once he's already on that path, he doesn't need the same motivation to continue. People call it "comic book mentality", but comic books are better than this; supervillains may not have justification for every crime they commit, but they usually have an origin story that does have motivation. You see how that works?

But there was no non-shitty justification in either version. Maybe guy just realizes that now that he's wealthy he can do things that he couldn't do before and get away with it. I don't know. Yes bad people usually have a "justification" for doing bad things but that's all it is. It's not something that makes any sense to most people, and certainly not something that excuses their behavior. People are basically asking Neon to hand them a reason to be " shitty, misogynistic, and gross" (his words) on a silver platter. The reality is that he never did. He just made it clear, with the remake, that Nicky does not give you any reason to treat her that way.

 

[Bad Wolf]

NeonGhosts just started the remake and...
hodl the line?
Not:
hold the line? Or am I missing something here?

 

[dreddhead]

NeonGhosts just started the remake and...
hodl the line?
Not:
hold the line? Or am I missing something here?

'Hodl' is crypto-bro meme talk.

 

[ffive]

I feel like I'm arguing with people who lack the basic ability to read into a situation and draw their own conclusions. It's like I'm arguing with people whose media consumption is filtered entirely through Cinema Sins.

"UMMMM, actually it simply makes no sense that this character would suddenly do harm to someone they considered a friend. As the narrative provided no explicit justification, you must have simply overlooked it! *sniff, sniff* Now, please sit back for my treatise on why we should know what was in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction."

Like, do people realize that the gross majority of assaults happen between two people that are known to each other? Like, what the fuck are we doing here? I feel like I'm arguing with people who are just really bummed I toned down the first chapter, and if they wrap their frustration up in the most spurious of arguments, I'll eventually concede.

I don't know if this is supposed to be intentional misrepresentation of what people are saying for the sake of misguided mockery, or if it's genuinely how you fail to understand what is actually being said, but don't worry -- i doubt if after display like that anyone will still bother to provide their take on this.

I get the frustration of having your work criticized and watching swine fail to appreciate the subtly polished pearls you've thrown their way, but this was rather poor way to handle it.

It’s more like, “A handful of people are being willfully obtuse, and demanding explanation for things which don’t actually require them.”

Are people willingly obtuse, or maybe they genuinely think what they're saying, and what you've written isn't actually reaching them in the way you thought it would? Either because the presentation is lacking, or they're indeed less intelligent or operating from different sensibilities than you'd presumed, or some combination of those? Or maybe there's some other reasons for it. Could be worth a thought...

Just kidding, your mind is clearly set on this.

But there was no non-shitty justification in either version. Maybe guy just realizes that now that he's wealthy he can do things that he couldn't do before and get away with it. I don't know. Yes bad people usually have a "justification" for doing bad things but that's all it is. It's not something that makes any sense to most people, and certainly not something that excuses their behavior. People are basically asking Neon to hand them a reason to be " shitty, misogynistic, and gross" (his words) on a silver platter. The reality is that he never did. He just made it clear, with the remake, that Nicky does not give you any reason to treat her that way.

No one is saying that Guy's justification for his behavior should be, or that it even could be non-shitty for a normal person. What people are saying is that where previously such shitty justification could be induced pretty clearly, in the current version, as you acknowledge yourself, this was removed and there isn't anything in the story as it's presented that could be interpreted as Guy having some shitty self-justification for his behavior in that particular moment. Even though, as you recognize, having shitty excuse is generally part of shitty actions, even for psychopaths.

You admit yourself that in the current iteration you can't even begin to guess why Guy could feel self-justified to act the way he does -- you can only throw up your arms and conclude "i don't know". And that's because the circumstances which previously were present (never mind if they were served on a silver platter or otherwise) are no longer here, as you also note yourself. That is a change in the game's narrative if any --even flimsiest-- doubts/excuses the protagonist could make were excised from it.

Now, some people feel this makes the revised iteration worse, and given this is largely about tastes than objective qualities i think they're entitled to it, instead of getting told "no, you don't need it and if you think you do then you're just dumb". Which is, well. A bit conceited, perhaps?

 

[Pixillin']

No one is saying that Guy's justification for his behavior should be, or that it even could be non-shitty for a normal person. What people are saying is that where previously such shitty justification could be induced pretty clearly, in the current version, as you acknowledge yourself, this was removed and there isn't anything in the story as it's presented that could be interpreted as Guy having some shitty self-justification for his behavior in that particular moment. Even though, as you recognize, having shitty excuse is generally part of shitty actions, even for psychopaths.

You admit yourself that in the current iteration you can't even begin to guess why Guy could feel self-justified to act the way he does -- you can only throw up your arms and conclude "i don't know". And that's because the circumstances which previously were present (never mind if they were served on a silver platter or otherwise) are no longer here, as you also note yourself. That is a change in the game's narrative if any --even flimsiest-- doubts/excuses were excised from it.

Now, some people feel this makes the revised iteration worse, and given this is largely about tastes than objective qualities i think they're entitled to it, instead of getting told "no, you don't need it and if you think you do then you're just dumb". Which is, well. A bit conceited, perhaps?

I didn't see the justification in the old version either, and spend a fair amount of time arguing that there was no justification for Guy treating Nicky that way. The rewrite just confirms it by taking away something that people were misinterpreting anyway. If people really want to have a shitty excuse to justify their behavior, I'm sure they'll find a new one.

 

[DogSwordWhychm]

If people really want to have a shitty excuse to justify their behavior, I'm sure they'll find a new one.

Conflating the players with the characters in the game? Come on, Fox News. Let's all take a breath.

As for the whole “justification” thing, I don't think anyone is actually trying to defend Guy’s actions as if they’re morally right. It's more about giving him a believable reason for doing what he did. In real life, people make bad choices for all kinds of reasons. Giving that kind of motivation to a character just makes him feel more realistic and nuanced.

That said, it's one decision in one chapter. I don't think it's a huge deal, and most people will probably move on as soon as the next chapter comes out. The conversation has kind of spiraled, and it’s really not worth people throwing insults over.

So I guess what I'm saying is...

Neon Ghosts, please release the next chapter so we have something new to argue about.

(JK take your time)

 

[Bad Wolf]

'Hodl' is crypto-bro meme talk.

Ah ok. I got into crypto back in the day when it first started but never paid attention to lingo. Now, I don't mess with crypto.

 

[RC-1138 Boss]

Conflating the players with the characters in the game? Come on, Fox News. Let's all take a breath.

As for the whole “justification” thing, I don't think anyone is actually trying to defend Guy’s actions as if they’re morally right. It's more about giving him a believable reason for doing what he did. In real life, people make bad choices for all kinds of reasons. Giving that kind of motivation to a character just makes him feel more realistic and nuanced.

That said, it's one decision in one chapter. I don't think it's a huge deal, and most people will probably move on as soon as the next chapter comes out. The conversation has kind of spiraled, and it’s really not worth people throwing insults over.

So I guess what I'm saying is...

Neon Ghosts, please release the next chapter so we have something new to argue about.

(JK take your time)

There never was any flimsy justification in the game, either now or in the older version of chapter one. I call it flimsy because after all there is no such thing as a believable reason for Guy to commit rape. Anyway, Neon never put any in Friends in Need.

Some people simply decided to headcanon that Nicki asking money to deal with her boyfriend's debts was enough of it but now they can't do that anymore because Nicki comes to Guy for confort first, to forget her troubles even if just for one night. A emotional and maybe even sexual confort (depending on Guy's choices).

If anything the new chapter 1 puts Evil Guy's profile more in line with what he does in later chapters as a sociopath/psycopath who can barely holds his ugly impulses in check when he sees a person in a position of power inbalance to him.

 

[DogSwordWhychm]

There never was any flimsy justification in the game, either now or in the older version of chapter one. I call it flimsy because after all there is no such thing as a believable reason for Guy to commit rape. Anyway, Neon never put any in Friends in Need.

It is believable that a terrible person would use flimsy justification for their terrible actions.
As for it not existing, I believe these are the lines most people remember:

^ Actual dialogue of Guy trying (and failing) to justify himself ^

Again, I don't think it's that big of a deal. People will get over it as soon as the next episode comes out.

 

[RC-1138 Boss]

It is believable that a terrible person would use flimsy justification for their terrible actions.
As for it not existing, I believe this is the line most people remember:

No idea why you are rearranging what you said in you previous post.

Anyways looking at the picture you posted, it is as i said: people decided to headcanon what was never there.

 

[DogSwordWhychm]

No idea why you are rearranging what you said in you previous post.

Anyways looking at the picture you posted, it is as i said: people decided to headcanon what was never there.

Okay, I'm not gonna bother arguing with someone who refuses to read what's in front of them.

 

[Dessolos]

I haven't played the new Dark Path but tbh without playing it I feel like it would be better in this one. Since you always had to give Nicki money and fuck her. I never liked the idea of Guy doing as a form of punishment or revenge because to me there is no justification no matter how much someone wronged you. As there is such a thing as going to far.

I imagine with Nicki actually acting like a friend it makes the Dark scene , darker and more fucked up. Which to me if you are going to be playing that path anyways would be the better option. As I feel now it's more about him showing his true colors than trying to find a reason to do it. Which I think it's better to as I hate it when games tries to justify doing dark things for the sake of revenge or punishment I rather the MC is just an evil bastard than trying to find justification.

 

[armond]

Spoiler: LMAO

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Master of Puppets]

If anything the new chapter 1 puts Evil Guy's profile more in line with what he does in later chapters as a sociopath/psycopath who can barely holds his ugly impulses in check when he sees a person in a position of power inbalance to him.

Uh, yeah. That's what everyone has been saying. Now instead of a character with a realistic overreaction to bad behaviour by a friend, we have a cardboard cutout who is just evil just because. Congrats on catching up with the rest of the class.

 

[Boopadooparoop]

I'll preface this with the most dismissive of suggestions towards the argument for the evil path, people can just headcanon the original chapter one, if they're arguing for it then they've played it. Next, if you need any form of justification its arguable that Nicki comes to Guy with the intention of cheating on her long time boyfriend, which shouldn't be that far off the argument being made for the gold digger justification. Sure, one could suggest he's an awful, manipulative, abusive boyfriend and so Guy is the natural better choice, but its just as possible Guy is just her switching abuser.
Neon's assertion is correct, there shouldn't be a required justification, a person who acts nice from a position of weakness won't always act nice from a position of strength. There's entire discourse on this in politics, in fiction, in religion, in history. Obviously with many of those we have the benefit of hindsight, but its not altogether that uncommon a meek or downtrodden character or person who suddenly comes into wealth or power abruptly switches into a callous or torturous one. Sometimes those "justifications" can be seen as innocuous from an outsiders perspective, or they happen way back in childhood where this story doesn't occur. There is some level of implication through Guys sister that his familial relationship is complicated. The first scene already displays a character who, on a whim, funnels all of his wealth into a shoddy crypto-currency while drunk off his ass at the behest of someone apparently charismatic. That's bad and impulsive decision making. It would also serve to occasionally create people who believe that society owes them something, and who then go out of their way to justify bad decisions they make to gain their perceived dues.
The main disconnect as far as I perceive it seems to be an argument of "there is no required justification" and "there is always an original justification". Which I don't think need to be taken as exclusive assertions, the "there is no required justification" argument isn't necessarily suggesting that someone doesn't have a personal justification, just that any justification they make for themselves doesn't truly justify the action taken. Basically, if someone is going to do something they internally perceive as bad they're going to do it, then they'll search for a justification after the fact, rolling it back until one satisfies or ending on "It's in my nature". And for the "there is always an original justification", an initial justification isn't always shown, though it can still exist, sometimes it might only be inferred. To use the aforementioned Watchmen comic book as an example, the Comedian might have an original justification but that's never given. The Comedian is just a person who quite often uses his perception as a good guy to indulge in his basal desires.

 

[Pixillin']

Uh, yeah. That's what everyone has been saying. Now instead of a character with a realistic overreaction to bad behaviour by a friend, we have a cardboard cutout who is just evil just because. Congrats on catching up with the rest of the class.

Except that it wasn't a "realistic overreaction" or "bad behaviour by a friend" - Nicky came to her friend for help, and (if that's the path you're taking) he raped her - simple as that. It was a psychotic reaction to a friend asking for help. That people kept saying it was "an overreaction to bad behavior" is one of the things Neon cleared up because that's never what it was.

 

[Reafwalk]

The more I read this thread, the more I think that the A in AVN standing for Adult should preclude the petty reductive argument that so many people just don't understand what the dev and his white knights are saying, and that they're simply being obtuse, but hey, here we are.

 

[fleetp]

I'm patiently awaiting the updated chapters 2 through 11. I think Neon did a great job with the art and writing in the remade chapter 1.

 

[ffive]

OK, side-stepping the going in circles for a moment, NeonGhosts there's a bit in the remake script that's likely a bug, given it can produce a contradiction:

            if ch1_ni_crush_known == True :
                ni1b"And don’t act like tonight is any different! I put myself out there, {i}{b}again{/b}{/i}, and what did you do?"
                ni1b"Nothing! {i}{b}Again!{/b}{/i}"

The check should be probably for False because as it is, Nicki will claim Guy has done "nothing again" when he actually did admit he's got feelings for her and then they potentially kissed and maybe even fucked at his old place.