Filipis
Engaged Member
- Nov 15, 2022
- 2,557
- 4,674
- 386
This is a very astute observation about the game. And you are right, the game is rife with choices, but there are no terrible consequences just yet - and that could be mainly because accounting for them could make the game 'un-developable'.Another reason why I can't give the Isis/Aurora comparison as much weigh is that both are used underwhelmingly in the story. They are forced on the MC due arranged marriage, instead of coming to him organically and naturally. As outsiders, they have no knowledge and effect on the internal family politics, which the game tends to focus on. And regarding romances, they are fairly impersonal and secondary to the four incest choices, the main love interests in the game.
Could change if MC travels and interacts with the North and South, but as of now, they are very much trophy wife's and breeding machines in every aspect.
It's the old tale of my main discontent with the game, that it gives not so much the illusion of choice, but the illusion of consequences and danger. The only one being able to ruin lives is almost always MC. People praise the game with the Game of Thrones comparison, a ruthless brutal political plot of backstabbing and betrayal, but rarely anyone dies outside of MCs control. If he refuses to work with Cass, she very much asks MC to kill her and at worst she imprisons MC, which is ultimately an inconsequential punishment. Iris also talks a big game, but it can only unfold if MC gives her permission to. Man, what a dangerous and unpredictable character indeed.
The game would take the player, used by power fantasy harem games with effectively no opposition, out of their comfort zone, if the NPCs would actually have agency.
Say, Iris always kills Cass if MC decided to marry her and gets imprisoned. A bunch of people would seethe, but wouldn't that give your choice weight and the NPCs give agency? And instead of losing your mind over it, players can either take the loss or try again and marry Aurora or don't get imprisoned on the next run. That would be more in line with making choices that matter and interacting with characters that make decisions not entirely in our control.
But meh, who wants to be challenged, face difficulties and possibly LOSE in a video game???
The example with Isis poisoning Cass is actually a fantastic idea I might incorporate into my IC: Definitive Edition remake, but you are right on the money that it would make a LOT of players uncomfortable.
I think Isis/Aurora stuff will become more important as time goes on, but it can never be too important, as they represent and require drastically different scenarios to fully explore (one is North, the other South) - imagine if LM decides to make an update solely based on MC visiting the North/South areas of the Continent... that would be a dangerous precedent I would not be comfortable with (an update dedicated only to one path).
Do you recall the fiasco of the Coup update? If you avoided the Coup entirely, you were shit out of luck and didn't get to play a whole-ass update. I don't want that to happen to anybody ever again.
It may result in a more "sterile" environment in the end, but such is the nature of following along with the development of the game.