No. The only thing you'll miss out on is an extra sex position with Erato.
- Nov 14, 2017
- 66,657
- 33,594
don't think so and preggos will be shown in epilogues only so even if you remove that spell don't have to look big bellies until then.
hey belle, just wanted to say great game and fantastic effort on the ending overall.
Just one question, will you go any further with the woman who blew the MC as payment for her dress at the tailor shop?
Just one question, will you go any further with the woman who blew the MC as payment for her dress at the tailor shop?
Nah, she was never intended as more than a one-shot character. In fact, you don't even want to see that model naked (she looks horrible underneath that dress). She works for that scene and that scene alone.
- Nov 14, 2017
- 66,657
- 33,594
Agreeing with this.I've been one of them and I'm happy to continue to debate this with all due respect to your great writing.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
And man, if a game can spurn such convos then it's a really well-made one in my book. Again, you rock, Belle. (both in-game and here
)I can kinda know the feeling here. For ex if the Harem route (which I usually prefer) exists and includes Samarra, I'll refuse it as I always considered Samarra to be a pure mentor figure, to the extent that I even slightly disliked seeing essential Charisma points being locked in her route, which involves engaging in sexual stuff with her. So yeah I can get behind that. Though I also understand Belle's pov.
Imo the maximum we can go in the game "realistically" is what lonelyk suggested, with quasi-harem being that scenario he and Belle were debating. Maybe "types". The "incest-royal" one with the princesses and cally, the "fairy" ones with the queens, erator and maybe Lea, then the pure single ones. Imo.
I think it helps to understand my point of view for the epilogues if you consider me to subscribe to Sid Meier's philosophy of game design. Sid Meier has been a huge inspiration to me for years due to his economical and practical approach to every single gameplay choice in the games he supervises. The XCOM remake is a perfect example of this. He wasn't the designer for that game but he did help supervise the design.
In that game, most missions are received in pairs (or worse). Accepting one mission means abandoning another. Veterans of the genre will know that this was not part of the design philosophy of the original XCOM, so how come it was added here? This was a direct result of Sid Meier's influence. He advocates that any decision a game offers the player needs to be interesting. If a decision is not interesting, the player should never see it in the first place. What does "interesting" mean? It means that no choice you can make would be easy or obvious. Each option comes with pros and cons, requiring you to sacrifice something to gain something else. This feeds the addictive quality of the XCOM remake in a way that the original couldn't.
Each time you choose a mission in XCOM, you gain a benefit for doing so (assuming you succeed). But because you also had to turn down another mission to do this one, you suffer negative consequences from the mission you chose not to do. The magic here comes from the combination of positive and negative consequences. If all the difference between the two mission choices was in what positive effect it offers you, the choice would usually be quite straightforward: pick whatever you need the most for your chosen overall strategy. But because the negative consequences are so dramatic, sometimes, the need to avoid one of those might outweigh your desire to pick the positive outcome that would most directly benefit you. This is an interesting choice. Your decision is not a given beforehand, and you'll easily end up second-guessing yourself even after you have made your choice. I cannot overstate just how much more satisfying the gameplay loop becomes once you challenge the player's decision-making in this way.
You will see this school of game design in many aspects of LLtP, both in obvious and not-so-obvious ways. This is why most dialogue choices in the game will increase one variable while decreasing another. This is why I give you the option to threaten Nell with a breakup. This is why I offer alternate paths for some characters (with more to come, hopefully).
Sure, I don't always handle the consequences properly for opinion variables (something I wish to address in a future update), but the concept is there for the fleshing out. These things were done quite purposefully when I designed LLtP, years ago.
And this is why you will never see an ending in this game that is objectively better than the others. The more desirable an outcome is, the bigger the negative consequences of picking it. I don't want my players to have their cake and eat it too, even if there are decent enough arguments for creating scenarios where it could happen. Once decisions become obvious, why offer choice at all?
I want LLtP to be a good game. I want you to feel as if your decisions while playing it have weight to them. I want you to be invested in the choice you make while simultaneously regretting the ones you couldn't.
In that game, most missions are received in pairs (or worse). Accepting one mission means abandoning another. Veterans of the genre will know that this was not part of the design philosophy of the original XCOM, so how come it was added here? This was a direct result of Sid Meier's influence. He advocates that any decision a game offers the player needs to be interesting. If a decision is not interesting, the player should never see it in the first place. What does "interesting" mean? It means that no choice you can make would be easy or obvious. Each option comes with pros and cons, requiring you to sacrifice something to gain something else. This feeds the addictive quality of the XCOM remake in a way that the original couldn't.
Each time you choose a mission in XCOM, you gain a benefit for doing so (assuming you succeed). But because you also had to turn down another mission to do this one, you suffer negative consequences from the mission you chose not to do. The magic here comes from the combination of positive and negative consequences. If all the difference between the two mission choices was in what positive effect it offers you, the choice would usually be quite straightforward: pick whatever you need the most for your chosen overall strategy. But because the negative consequences are so dramatic, sometimes, the need to avoid one of those might outweigh your desire to pick the positive outcome that would most directly benefit you. This is an interesting choice. Your decision is not a given beforehand, and you'll easily end up second-guessing yourself even after you have made your choice. I cannot overstate just how much more satisfying the gameplay loop becomes once you challenge the player's decision-making in this way.
You will see this school of game design in many aspects of LLtP, both in obvious and not-so-obvious ways. This is why most dialogue choices in the game will increase one variable while decreasing another. This is why I give you the option to threaten Nell with a breakup. This is why I offer alternate paths for some characters (with more to come, hopefully).
Sure, I don't always handle the consequences properly for opinion variables (something I wish to address in a future update), but the concept is there for the fleshing out. These things were done quite purposefully when I designed LLtP, years ago.
And this is why you will never see an ending in this game that is objectively better than the others. The more desirable an outcome is, the bigger the negative consequences of picking it. I don't want my players to have their cake and eat it too, even if there are decent enough arguments for creating scenarios where it could happen. Once decisions become obvious, why offer choice at all?
I want LLtP to be a good game. I want you to feel as if your decisions while playing it have weight to them. I want you to be invested in the choice you make while simultaneously regretting the ones you couldn't.
- Nov 14, 2017
- 66,657
- 33,594
if you did all what wt said before end game and made right and obvious choices who helps on what task then until you reach demon then no choices and on that you just need to figure proper clues to advance (saving after each right choice is recommended).
- Mar 2, 2020
- 451
- 1,018
can confirm, was sad and guilt-ridden when i dumped nell preggers on her throne. reminder never to kowtow to a whiney fanbase or players end up with conflux instead of forge.
- Feb 12, 2019
- 231
- 1,024
Well I certainly felt invested but I regretted I could not have the ending I wished. I guess you have me where you wanted
You're making a different kind of argument and it makes more sense than strictly story reasons but I'm not a fan of those bittersweet endings. You can make tough choices over the course of the game but at the end of the journey, but I like my endings to be satisfying. Rewarding. Fulfilling. Having enjoyable, but different paths. Yeah, different is the right word. Sure most people probably wish for a harem but many have a favorite character and would likely prefer going a single route with a deeper story for that character. It does not necessarily mean the harem option is superior and kills the choice if every route is great in its own right and you get more content with the character you chose. I would also certainly explore every ending anyway. Like JustAPasserby suggested, I think having logical groupings that do not encompass everyone would be even more enjoyable than having every girl in a harem and would offer several good but different options, along the single romance paths. So that's still in the spirit of Sid Meier's meaningful choices but with more options.
A different suggestion if you discard my previous comment: do not show the ending of other characters than the one the player picked in that path. I don't know how others would feel about this, but I think that way you avoid the negative of having to let down many other characters although it's hinted/logical and the player would perhaps not feel bummed and only focus on the positive with the love interest of their choice.
Last edited:
So what is remaining to do in the game? And why don't we get more sex scenes with Belle? Maybe a spell or trinket to make us shrink into belle's size to allow us to fuck her whenever we want, just an idea.
- Nov 14, 2017
- 66,657
- 33,594
new game+ and what that brings and rest. there is size changing spell as you saw when "old witch" used it on mc but mc doesn't know that spell so he can't change belle's size or his size.
- Feb 27, 2019
- 569
- 1,411
In all respect I disagree. I'm really not a fan of that kind of gaming philosophy. I don't like it if one decission excludes another. After all it's a game, which is supposed to make fun. Tough choices usually aren't fun, because of missing out something and being forced to have several playthroughs in order to see most of the content. My time is precious and I usually don't like it being forced to play a game several times, if I want to see most of the content. I don't think a game should be easy, you should invest some effort in order to complete a game, but content restrictions because of in-game choices suck in my eyes and don't make a game more interesting, just more annoying.
I did play some Sid Meier games actually. While I'm not a fan at all of his Civilization franchise I did enjoy the remake of "Sid Meier's Pirates!" back in the days quite a lot. If I had to name the games, which I remember in a very positive way, there is no Sid Meier game on that list. Fallout 1 & 2 were great games for their time, just like Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 and the Neverwinter Nights successor. Concerning modern day games I have to mention Witcher 3 (Witcher 1 & 2 were also good, but Witcher 3 really set a new very high benchmark for rpgs) and some Total War and Paradox titles (but the last two are completely different genres). All the rpgs I mentioned did feature tough choices, where one choice excluded another, especially when romancing. But I must say I never liked it, I did enjoy these games DESPITE those mutual exclusive choices and not BECAUSE of those.
Please don't get me wrong, I like your game very much, the writing, the art, the atmosphere, the music - everything is really well done, but I'd very much prefer something like a real harem route instead of mutual exclusive romance choices.
Last edited:
- Jul 22, 2018
- 656
- 848
I FIND THIS DISCUSSION FASCINATING!
It illuminates the reason someone plays. . .
and what they're looking for . . .
and how the plot decision points play into what they're looking for.
BTW, well written critique of your position, Seewolf. Great job. Bravo. Very clear in your viewpoint.
You (and others) are looking for CONTENT in the game PRIMARILY. The Plot is a "ride" to all the content and therefore, having to exclude part of the CONTENT is the reason you don't want to "be forced to play a game several times"
(And yet you mention Sid Meier's Pirates. Hmmm...) I see your point that, IF CONTENT is your main enjoyment, Plot structure and WORLD BUILDING gets in the way. (like Sid Meier's Pirates I believe) CONTENT EFFICIENT, IE; "one play through gets it all" games are fun ONCE. But afterwards, there is nothing new and the player goes on to something else.
HOWEVER, the CONVERSE is ALSO TRUE. Other Players, (like myself) enjoy WORLD BUILDING (sometimes called 'sandbox') games with complex Plot structure and 'Difficult' decisions (or CONTENT EXCLUDING decisions) so it can become a WORLD we can revisit and try other paths/decisions and discover NEW content and possibly NEW PLOT Twists. Those are More satisfying if STORY, PLOT, and WORLD of the game are AS important, and AS FUN to the player as CONTENT.
The TWO positions are mutually exclusive...meaning we CAN'T HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.
I could go on with this comparison as it also involves the history of Computer Game building and that adds another variable. For example, Sid Meier was one of the first 'Adventure Game' creators when PCs were so limited that EVERY choice was do or die. I enjoyed his "Adventure Series", his "HellCat Ace" and of course his "Pirates" back in the 16bit days. They were all attempts to create World building games (yes, the "Adventure series" was limited) that could be replayed and replayed and replayed. The ones you mention came much later when PCs advances gave far more choice capability to Game Design.
To CONCLUDE: I observe, in "Long Live the Princess" the DEV decided to build a re-playable World style game rather than a straight through 'winner takes all' game from the beginning. Complaints for a harem ending and dislike for the individual consequence finishes are because the NG+ session is not 'in' yet, so the "World" is not complete...yet. When completed, this game will be one that can be played and replayed...and replayed for a long time with various endings (many not seen yet).
I sympathize with you players who wanted the other type. If you had been warned up front what kind of game this was, MAYBE you would have not been surprised/disappointed. Maybe. It seems to me that some of you want ONLY that tipe of game, But, then you could look at yourself and ask, 'why do I need only a 'quick-fix' ending in your games, in your life?" (Are games a 'drug' to you?) Not judging, that's for you to "know thyself." Life gives all of us 'hard choices' like it or not. We all adapt differently. I sympathize because this is not that type of game.
I agree with Seewolf's observation that "...the writing, the art, the atmosphere, the music - everything is really well done"
Long Live the Princess is an exceptional "world creation" type game and should be praised for what it is. OUTSTANDING!
I have said multiple times during the years of development that the ending to this game would be bittersweet.