I'm glad that you're willing to give the game a try, but you're not going to end up liking it this way. It feels like you're just trying to find problems or inconcistencies. All (expect for 2) of the things you mentioned are non-issues in my opinion.
- I get the point about naming your character without knowing anything about him/her. I'll see if I can find a way to naturally introduce her age and gender. But plenty of games do this and to me it still feels like this is more an issue because the protagonist is female than an issue with not having enough information. If the protagonist was a boy instead, I doubt people would have complained. And that's what I don't like about it. But my dislike shouldn't be a reason to ignore this critisism
- About the game starting with "BOOTING UP SYSTEMS"... Are you serious? Have you ever see a visual novel that uses a loading screen? If you honestly said there waiting, than you're beyond my help. If it had said "LOADING", sure. But "BOOTING UP SYSTEMS" clearly isn't a loading screen message
- Sure, the spelling errors complaint. Thanks for pointing those out to me
- How the hell is "no underaged students are allowed" not clear? Underaged is not an ambigous term. It's a legal term with a static, defined meaning to it. And how does that not fit in the story? Obviously a school like this would get into huge problems if they allowed students are underaged. How would it look if the school had 14, 15 or 16 year old boys and girls and they'd encourage them to masturbate and fuck? That would look very legally wrong indeed
- The one about how long Michelle and MC have known each other was the most ridiculous of all. The game clearly states that they have met before going to Lilium Academy, AKA they know each other when they arrive at Lilium Academy. The game also clearly state their first meeting wasn't too long ago, so they don't know each other well. There is no unclarity here. You're just assuming things and then thing the game is wrong when it contradicts those assumptions
- The same thing goes for the last one. The opening speech never said the government was paying anything. You just assumed that. And then you complain about that assumption being contradicted by the statement that the parents paid for it. There isn't an inconsistency here, you just assumed wrong. The opening speech didnt imply the government paid for anything. It simply implied the students themselves would not be asked for money
I welcome all forms of critisim, I really do. But these 'issues' can hardly be counted as critisism. I know I might have sounded a bit harsh here, and if so, that wasn't my intention. There are a few good points in them, but I don't like how they are burried in a pile of non-issues.
