CoalPhelps

Active Member
Aug 19, 2018
550
1,767
Lena's path is literally based on the corruption path of GGGB. Eva couldn't implement that part into Ian's path so she put all of it into Lena's. She does not have much control over her situations because that's how those kind of narratives are structured, Mark Olsen is right in pointing out that she lacks much agency. I don't know why ppl are trying to act like this is wholeheartidly "realistic", or that it's not happening, even Eva admitted that Lena has too little "good" options hence why she rewrote Stan. I mean don't get me wrong, dudes in general don't treat women well, but the game is obviously designed to put Lena in desperate situations so "getting corrupted" becomes a more feasable option.

I don't necessarily agree that games like these are the cause of mysogony, cause lets face it's been around way longer than "porn games", but obviously it's going to validate mysoginistic idiots even more(ppl who can't tell that porn is not real life). Do i think corruption games should dissapear? no, but they defintely could be written in a way that actually explores something, or makes the female character more than just the village bicycle(give her agency and have her choices make sense for her character). In the care of ORS Eva does try, GGGB showed that she is straight capable of this(an the women in this game are written pretty damn well), i think the dual protag thing just took her for a ride, and that we will probably see her take a more nuanced approach going forward.
My dude, of course, this game has an obviously corrupt narrative for Lena. Perhaps I went too far with my "realism" thing. What I meant was that the female perspective wouldn't have anything to do with if Lena wanted to fuck every living thing in the game (oops, that's practically a case of ORS already). For a truthful perspective, what matters is how she would react to it, for example.

As for agency, I agree that sometimes Lena should have more control over the situation. For example, in the case of Axel. And it would be good if the next chapters highlighted this. But right now, I don't think this narrative seems too deliberate. I mean, who does she have to deal with? Robert? She's using him anyway. Mike? He has no control, only Lena falls in love with him for some reason. Seymour? Nah, that's not possible yet. Jeremy? Well, she uses him, but really I wish there was more to it than the clichéd BBC pornish "go black never go back" corruption path, yeah. As for the good guys, yeah, we've discussed that more than once. But I doubt that the main cast of characters will expand, or at most one or two characters will be added, because branching out for existing characters is already becoming very difficult.
 

MinkoSvk

Member
Sep 1, 2020
200
173
Nah, what I mean is that there should be a corruption path without a full succumb Axel. When for Lena it's flinging for fun, not something serious with feelings
I think it would be hard to keep it in "Only Fun" with Axel. He is pure manipulator and wants to keep Lena for himself as fuck toy and dont share with others. Yeah with enough Lena's willpower they can have fun for some time but her willpower would have to deacrease after every their "session".
 
Last edited:

fishbrain

Engaged Member
Apr 9, 2018
3,139
3,809
Man, that whole prologue is a tonal mess...
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
What the f***ing f*** is going on here? Is this a belated April fools' edition of ORS?

***Update 1:*** Furthermore, nothing (of significance) in chapter 1 was changed to accompany the remade prologue... so far this release feels like a significant disimprovement / injection of story inconsistencies.

***Update 2:*** Okay, in chapter 4 now ...the rewrite of the Stan's arc is adding sth. to the game -- however, still haven't seen anything which would require/justify a 6 month long overhaul process.

***Update 3:*** And there we (still) have it, in chapter 5 -- the phone conversation between Emma and Ian:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
...which renders the remade prologue completely useless. What a waste of everybody's time.

***Update 4:*** Chapter 7, and -- finally -- sth. new which on my scale counts as a (minor) improvement. -- But then again, shortly after, here we go: 1990's white-washed Billy enters the scene, "Yo-yo-yo! Wassup, my dude! Long time no see!" -- Seriously, has anybody lately checked on Eva Kiss' mental and/or physical health? I mean, if you have sth. that's perfectly fine, and you delibaratly change it to sth. much worse... that's called "self-sabotage", not "progress". [< Self censorship, slightly too "toxic".]
sth??
 
  • Like
Reactions: sava75

Dabi22

Member
Jul 23, 2019
188
111
totally love the Ren'Py error totally didn't expected it
hopefully thr will be lots of happy endings.
 
Last edited:

Michael Westerwind

New Member
Apr 10, 2022
10
198
Just a quick question since I'm just getting into it, I'm not against having some fun but obviously more interested in some characters than others. Just so I can have it in the back of my mind for the first playthough; does getting involved with some people lock out the possibility to get involved with others? (I'm thinking in terms of someone snitching and others losing interest etc)
 

CoalPhelps

Active Member
Aug 19, 2018
550
1,767
Just a quick question since I'm just getting into it, I'm not against having some fun but obviously more interested in some characters than others. Just so I can have it in the back of my mind for the first playthough; does getting involved with some people lock out the possibility to get involved with others? (I'm thinking in terms of someone snitching and others losing interest etc)
Well, the full Alison path overlaps the Holly path. Just as Holly and Cindy path are impossible at the same time. There is a loss of interest, but not a permanent one. But keep in mind that just because something hasn't had a consequence now doesn't mean it won't in new chapters
 
  • Like
Reactions: Homemade
4.60 star(s) 337 Votes