Was about to answer to some other post, but seeing as
Runey decided to chime in, I will treat this as a priority.
To shoot your own daughter? Sure. To tell one of your - let me point out - armed and
armoured men to grab her and drag her out of the crowd - not so much.
Again, and don't get me wrong, I don't mean it as a way to gather sympathy, nor as some sort of "I am offended by what you wrote" statement, but I've seen the recordings of these sorts of protests. Where armed anti terrorists were standing across from 20-30-40-something adult
men, who were throwing cinder blocks at them. I remember stories my mother told me about how police were constantly using tear gas, how at one point one of the windows in her room got destroyed, and the tear gas from the street went into her room, despite not taking part in the fighting at all. How people were overturning tram cars, using them as barricades, and it's common knowledge how common were curfews, random identity checks of common citizens, how the police in APCs were using high-pressure water spouts against the protesters, and beating them - sometimes to death, more commonly just until they lost consciousness. And yes, sometimes the police even used live ammunition against unarmed protesters.
This was happening almost
daily for a good couple of years before the state finally decided that they are actually losing grip on the society, and decided to take a step back, and even now there is a suspicion that they actually subverted the movement from the inside in order to escape any sort of repercussions after the regime change.
And I might've exaggerated on the "teenage" front, but the truth of the matter is - they could be 30. Unless they've got a lot of strong, able-bodied men on their side, this little protest of theirs would've been over within an hour or so, assuming the state actually wanted to silence them - which, as you've stated, is clearly the case.
Would he shoot his daughter? Probably not. Instead, he'd just tell one of his men to forcefully drag her out of the group, shoved her into a police van, told the driver to take her back to the station, and
then he would tell the people to shoot the rest of the protesters - especially if we're talking rubber bullets, not live ammo.
No offence, but feel like you severely underestimate what an oppressive state is willing to do when they want to pacify groups of people that threaten their rule.
By definition, if it's authoritarian, then it's not a democracy. If it's a democracy, then it's not authoritarian.
But wait, let me get this straight. The society
wants slavery. The society
elects their representatives to introduce a law, legalizing said slavery. And then said representatives
censor the anti-slavery movement... So that... the people don't see the slaves wanting freedom? OK, I think I am getting a feeling for what you're trying to do here, but the problem is that, your presentation really does not convey this properly.
And I am kind of lost again. So humans
know about the anti-slavery notions within the Elven
strata. So the censorship is only aimed at slaves... Again, what is stopping a bunch of muscular,
armed men from... if nothing else, then just dragging Lin out of the crowd, shoving her into the van and dragging her to the station, where she would be interrogated? Any actions by other protesters to defend her would be treated as an assault against an officer on-duty, and within two-three hours, you'd have AT units, storming the place with riot shields.
And another thing, is the media being controlled by the state? Because if so, then they wouldn't be showing this live at all, instead they'd just report this
post-factum, with an adequate spin on the story. And if it is independent, then who is censoring the transmission?
I don't know, it could've been
the title.
But OK, Now I understand what the issue is.
It's the tone.
This story does
not read like a dystopian fiction.
I don't know
what is exactly at fault here, whether it's the light-hearted music, a bunch of colourful characters, or all these social issues just getting a mention from time to time, rather than actually being constantly in the focal point of the story - you may have intended to make them central to the story, but to me, they definitely do not come off that way - but this
definitely does not read like a serious, deep story about "poverty, power, greed, religion, and so much more". At least not until the halfway point, which is probably why I unironically felt like you suddenly woke up and got influenced by modern day US politics.
The darker storylines, I've always interpreted as you, trying to put an edge on an otherwise light-hearted story. Not as a central theme of said story.
And in case the point was to softly introduce feelings of uneasiness into the story, to make the player uncomfortable as he realizes the "true nature" of the world, the gradient is way too steep - this narrative hits like a truck, which just reinforces the feeling of "WTF did THAT come from?!", rather than the slow, uneasy "What is wrong with this world...?" that should be happening almost right from the start.
The only thing I can offer as criticism in this case is... To concentrate more on the world, rather than on the many waifus you
do bone in your hotel. Because this comes off as a
harem game, first and foremost.
I guess I should now change my expectations accordingly.
Unfortunately, like I said, this fails as dystopian fiction in my book.
