- May 16, 2019
- 1,917
- 2,515
If you're talking about Ian and Lena cheating on each other, Cherry and Jeremy won't be available. Ian can't go far with Cherry while Lena has to choose between Ian or Jeremy.
- Thread starter Eva Kiss
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2dcg anal sex bdsm big ass big tits cheating corruption creampie dating sim exhibitionism female domination female protagonist group sex handjob interracial lesbian male domination male protagonist masturbation milf mobile game multiple protagonist netorare oral sex point & click romance sex toys stripping teasing titfuck turn based combat vaginal sex
Agree. A big part of Eva's success/draw in her games is the plethora of paths that hit so many varying preferences. Though, fair enough, it's also a reason for the challenging development time, her following and resources would likely be a smaller fraction of what they are without that. Could all/most of those preferences have been hit in a more streamlined way with better planning from the beginning & more condensed archetypes? Sure. But a variety of fans all followed for their own reasons too and shouldn't be so easily ignored.
The dismissal of other preferences shown here often means "it wouldn't affect me, so she should just ditch/ignore that path because I don't like it." I don't care about Stan either, other than for some comic relief with old Stan, but he was one of the highest rated male characters in one of those polls a while back & Eva seems to think he was important enough to keep/rehash.
Last edited:
- Oct 29, 2017
- 3,257
- 14,880
And what was rehashed? Other than the slight add-on of his interest in photography? Not a damn thing. Unless you want to add the laughable as fuck confession and claim 'I'd be better than Ian' if Lena is shacked up with Ian. But then again, polls can be one sided and should be taken with a grain of salt. The "reason" she "reworked" him was because she was, according to her, wasn't a fan of how Stan was written at the time. ... ... ... AND who exactly is the writer for him Eva? Oh, right... you.
You're latching onto one little part of my post though when I'm talking about dismissing a path as a whole. Defending a rehash wasn't really a big part of my comment. The Stan rework, sure, was clearly much more about Eva's personal satisfaction as a creator. But a lot of other items got reworked beyond Stan, several of which I personally liked (several of which I didn't). I can understand her need as a creator to be satisfied with her work, as much as it's our right to not like the changes or the time it took.
- Oct 29, 2017
- 3,257
- 14,880
Sure, somethings being changed were nice (Jeremy now only getting a brief handy if he isn't with Louise anymore), but at the same time some changes don't make sense at all and should be questioned. Eva has done reworks without any sort of feedback to speak of or even asked for peoples thoughts on the matter, other than her inner circle most likely. Like Wade for example. Out of the blue Wade was reworked to having a job yet not being active in his relationship to now being jobless and not being active in his relationship and likely more at risk of Cinders breaking up with him. Did we really need that change? Not really, as the possible break up could very well have happened naturally with Wade having a job at the time with either them breaking up naturally or Ian and Cinders cheating. Much like the prologue as well, which was entirely fine to begin with, but did we get any mention or post saying she was going to change the prologue? No, we didn't.
My point being, feedback can be a good thing and can help sometimes with developers with certain things or quirks with characters. And sure, this is Eva's game and she can do whatever she wants. Yet to do reworks out the blue without any explaination other than 'I wanted to change X' without user feedback until it's pushed out can get you a lot of flak and issues from fans. Eva lacks in transparity at times, and it can back fire at times. While else would see many people here raise their hands and press the issue?
I think you may be counterpointing the wrong person on this, unless the reply was just a way to get that opinion out. "I can understand her need as a creator to be satisfied with her work, as much as it's our right to not like the changes or the time it took." It's a forum. We're meant to share opinions. 100%. Feedback is important. You have a right to your concerns too and to voice them. This isn't (or shouldn't be) an "agree with Eva 100% all the time or you're out" fascist board.
My only beef was where people routinely dismiss others' concerns or preferred paths to an excessive degree, so I'm actually with you on that one.
Last edited:
- Aug 30, 2017
- 113
- 92
Don't quite understand the controversy surrounding Stan. Stan isn't a bad character. He's just unattractive, overweight, and hides in a dark room masturbating. I imagine most guys on this forum are like that...
- Aug 28, 2019
- 98
- 140
That's why I like him, He is literally me.
I'll have you know my room is very well lit.
- Apr 25, 2020
- 5,078
- 14,088
RGB all over the room, am I right?I'll have you know my room is very well lit.
- Dec 23, 2018
- 5,192
- 20,078
Yeah. But since i hate myself, is just natural i hate him too
Her initials are RBG and my sexy supreme court justice pinups are my own damn business, thank you very much.RGB all over the room, am I right?
(You don't wanna click the spoiler).
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
- Apr 15, 2019
- 124
- 239
Can confirm. Doctor’s orders really. Apparently, being a professional Stan is terrible for the eyes when executed in a poorly lit room. Stay safe, kids.I'll have you know my room is very well lit.
- Nov 25, 2021
- 625
- 1,497
Well then you clearly have not read their posts. All the Stan haters are 6'4" tall, built of solid muscle, have 12" dicks, and spend their free time making paper mache with supermodels using $100 bills and semen. I mean, none of them would be exaggerating... right?
I mean, masturbation alone is known to negatively affect eyesight, don't need to add to that with the poor lighting.
- Aug 30, 2017
- 113
- 92
I had to look this one up. Turns out it's debunked. Over doing it might cause pain on the genitals, or give you some form of joint pain on the wrist, but your eyes will be fine.I mean, masturbation alone is known to negatively affect eyesight, don't need to add to that with the poor lighting.
Well, obviously. After all if it was true then, like, 95% of human population out there would be blind by the age of 20 :vI had to look this one up. Turns out it's debunked. Over doing it might cause pain on the genitals, or give you some form of joint pain on the wrist, but your eyes will be fine.
- Jun 12, 2017
- 1,259
- 1,408
I don't need the lights on.I'll have you know my room is very well lit.