- Jan 13, 2019
- 406
- 500
im really confused. the updated got flooded with comments so im not sure if its the volume8 added for add-ons or an aditional chapter was added to the main game. can someone tell me whats new with the game?
You're excused, but like I've already said, literally all of that could be achieved in any number of different ways. You could replace Hunter with even a non-character and have the same outcomes, if you really wanted to.EXCUSE ME, Hunter is ESSENTIAL to the plot and the themes of this game, what the fuck do you mean he's NON-ESSENTIAL, dude is literally the fucking engine that gets the story running, he is quintessential to the backstory of the MC's father being abusive, he's needed to implement those mechanics and ploys that other, lesser stories would saddle the MC with thus ruining his good image like this very fucking What If underlined with the Big Brother segment, we need a fucking VILLAIN so the plot can continue so the plot can fucking start so the plot can fucking end, otherwise this is just a bunch of disconnected sequences with no fucking correlation between each other.
You remove Hunter from the equation the MC isn't fucking ANYONE, we need him to spike the food build the air conditioning and act as a negative, encroaching, active figure to spur the passive, positive, respectful MC into action, we don't have that we don't have a fucking story we don't have a fucking Harem and we don't have fucking Porn.
"Remove the grandfather from the game" yeah and let's remove fucking Sauron from the Lord of the Rings too while we're at it let's read a 5000 pages long treaty on Hobbit Husbandry at that point, no stakes, no story, no interactions, nothing, just boring, motionless, trite grey slob you've been seeing A DIME A DOZEN.
I fucking swear, let's destroy the central confict of this story, the nerve of some people.
Whether it would be the same game is a sort of ship of theseus problem, and it's also largely irrelevant. My argument hinges on that it would be a better game, which should be more important than whether it's the same game or not.Speaking of false dichotomies, you've repeatedly suggested that everyone who doesn't hate Hunter like you do must love him. Perhaps we're simply not bothered by him?
I hear what you're saying. You don't want to see Hunter because he's so repulsive to you, that's a valid point of view. But then you try to construct a logic-based argument to support your subjective opinion, and this is where I have to disagree. Of course there are an infinite number of alternative ways this game could be made, but then it wouldn't be this game. Whether or not it'd be easy to create, and whether or not it would fundamentally alter the experience, in the end what you're asking for is a different game. It reminds me of the argument that FromSoftware should make an Easy Mode; they could, and some people would appreciate it, but then they're not experiencing what the creator intended.
No it wouldn't. You want to get rid of a character because you hate the character. Not because it takes away from the story, but because you don't want to see him again. Saying the story would be would be better without him is just what you think and subjective. There are almost 300 reviews for this game all mostly positive. It's just you and a minority who don't like this game.You're excused, but like I've already said, literally all of that could be achieved in any number of different ways. You could replace Hunter with even a non-character and have the same outcomes, if you really wanted to.
Whether it would be the same game is a sort of ship of theseus problem, and it's also largely irrelevant. My argument hinges on that it would be a better game, which should be more important than whether it's the same game or not.
And because the story could be constructed to have the same effects but without including specifically Hunter, the only reason to include Hunter, or defend his inclusion, is if you want specifically Hunter to be there. If the character of Hunter himself and his appearances, NOT his impact on the story, but solely the character itself, is in any way a net negative on the experience of playing the game then there's no reason not to argue for his removal.
When writing a story, every single tiniest piece is fundamentally interchangeable. Specifically because its fiction. Fiction gets to be literally whatever it wants. So why make do, or settle for, a piece that is less than good, less than enjoyable?
No, you wouldn't, because Hunter is the driving force behind the story. Everything the MC does is in reaction to Hunter's actions. If you take out Hunter, you won't have the same story. You can't get the same events, because in order to have them without Hunter, you have to change the characters, which means you'd have a different story.You could replace Hunter with even a non-character and have the same outcomes, if you really wanted to.
I still argue there's no objective measure for what would make this a "better" game. Removing one element or adding another; each change can have proponents and detractors. And honestly it's a slippery slope... what if someone can't stand Catherine? Should she be removed also? Should WWG have to create a multitude of branching routes so that every player can have a customized experience? Maybe that would be a better game, or maybe it would be an impossible-to-manage mess.Whether it would be the same game is a sort of ship of theseus problem, and it's also largely irrelevant. My argument hinges on that it would be a better game, which should be more important than whether it's the same game or not.
And because the story could be constructed to have the same effects but without including specifically Hunter, the only reason to include Hunter, or defend his inclusion, is if you want specifically Hunter to be there. If the character of Hunter himself and his appearances, NOT his impact on the story, but solely the character itself, is in any way a net negative on the experience of playing the game then there's no reason not to argue for his removal.
When writing a story, every single tiniest piece is fundamentally interchangeable. Specifically because its fiction. Fiction gets to be literally whatever it wants. So why make do, or settle for, a piece that is less than good, less than enjoyable?
Again, you're confused. I like this game and I've repeatedly stated as much. I wouldn't be here offering sincere critique if I didn't. And yes, my critique is my subjective opinion, that's what that means. I'm not on here speaking anyone else's subjective opinion. Speaking my opinion is one of the purposes of this forum, as we've already been over. And it doesn't take a lot of insight to understand that having an overall favorable opinion of the game doesn't mean that you agree with every last thing in it. In fact, people who uncritically accepts every little thing in media that they enjoy are weirdly undiscerning to me. There's no good reason to be that way.No it wouldn't. You want to get rid of a character because you hate the character. Not because it takes away from the story, but because you don't want to see him again. Saying the story would be would be better without him is just what you think and subjective. There are almost 300 reviews for this game all mostly positive. It's just you and a minority who don't like this game.
Yes, and you can make literally anything the driving force behind the story. It's an unusual example that people who aren't that into storytelling might not get, but a villain doesn't need to be a character. Circumstances can be a villain. The milieu or the setting could be the villain.No, you wouldn't, because Hunter is the driving force behind the story. Everything the MC does is in reaction to Hunter's actions. If you take out Hunter, you won't have the same story. You can't get the same events, because in order to have them without Hunter, you have to change the characters, which means you'd have a different story.
People like this story because it's not your run of the mill story. It's not an MC doing dubious and underhanded things to get what he wants, but an MC trying to stop a character from doing dubious and underhanded things. If you take out the villain, you end up with an MC who's the villain, like in so many stories.
Again, you're confused. I like this game and I've repeatedly stated as much. I wouldn't be here offering sincere critique if I didn't. And yes, my critique is my subjective opinion, that's what that means. I'm not on here speaking anyone else's subjective opinion. Speaking my opinion is one of the purposes of this forum, as we've already been over. And it doesn't take a lot of insight to understand that having an overall favorable opinion of the game doesn't mean that you agree with every last thing in it. In fact, people who uncritically accepts every little thing in media that they enjoy are weirdly undiscerning to me. There's no good reason to be that way.No it wouldn't. You want to get rid of a character because you hate the character. Not because it takes away from the story, but because you don't want to see him again. Saying the story would be would be better without him is just what you think and subjective. There are almost 300 reviews for this game all mostly positive. It's just you and a minority who don't like this game.
Yes, and you can make literally anything the driving force behind the story. It's an unusual example that people who aren't that into storytelling might not get, but a villain doesn't need to be a character. Circumstances can be a villain. The milieu or the setting could be the villain.No, you wouldn't, because Hunter is the driving force behind the story. Everything the MC does is in reaction to Hunter's actions. If you take out Hunter, you won't have the same story. You can't get the same events, because in order to have them without Hunter, you have to change the characters, which means you'd have a different story.
People like this story because it's not your run of the mill story. It's not an MC doing dubious and underhanded things to get what he wants, but an MC trying to stop a character from doing dubious and underhanded things. If you take out the villain, you end up with an MC who's the villain, like in so many stories.
No, I agree there is no objective measure for what would make this game better. Even in the most studied and well understood applications of art, we can only be objective in the most niche ways. I'm only offering my opinion and have never really proclaimed to have done anything else from the start. It's an attempt at constructive critique and a suggestion on how the game could be improved as I see it, not how anyone else necessarily sees it, because I cannot and do not pretend to speak for others.I still argue there's no objective measure for what would make this a "better" game. Removing one element or adding another; each change can have proponents and detractors. And honestly it's a slippery slope... what if someone can't stand Catherine? Should she be removed also? Should WWG have to create a multitude of branching routes so that every player can have a customized experience? Maybe that would be a better game, or maybe it would be an impossible-to-manage mess.
Perhaps you're right about one thing, that on some level people do want to see Hunter. This could be for various reasons: they could just have a twisted sense of humor, or they could be ugly old men themselves that appreciate the representation. Also there's a type of humiliation fetish where men enjoy seeing beautiful women get plowed by ugly bastards, but the thing is it's about degrading the women and enjoying their humiliation. If that sounds fucked up and misogynist, well that's because it is, but I try not to judge people's kinks, particularly in a fictional setting where no one gets hurt.
Lastly, on reducing a story to its constituent parts: some pieces are more important than others when given context by the rest of the story. Sure, they can be changed, just like a house can be lifted to pour a new foundation; the point is it's not so easy. Hunter isn't just a MacGuffin that gets the story going, he's an integral part.
P.S. I'm trying to debate in good faith and I've actually enjoyed our exchanges to some degree. Even if neither of us influence the other's opinion, it's nice to have an intellectual debate to keep the brain sharp.
Oh, now you're just talking out of your ass. Yes, you are correct, but in this particular case, it would change the story. As I said, everything is in reaction to Hunter's actions. Everything happens because of him. Take him out and there's nothing that will happen.Yes, and you can make literally anything the driving force behind the story. It's an unusual example that people who aren't that into storytelling might not get, but a villain doesn't need to be a character. Circumstances can be a villain. The milieu or the setting could be the villain.
The villain could for example be some shadowy organization that only reveals themselves to the MC. We wouldn't even ever have to see a character from them but they're the one responsible for all the hormones and chemicals that changes appearances and behavior, pays for the house and everything but only given that the MC acts the way they want, with the threat of replacing him and maybe other threats if he acts out of line. Every single one of the plot-necessary actions that Hunter makes could be explained this way, and this is just the first example that sprang to mind in a few seconds.Oh, now you're just talking out of your ass. Yes, you are correct, but in this particular case, it would change the story. As I said, everything is in reaction to Hunter's actions. Everything happens because of him. Take him out and there's nothing that will happen.
But sure, give me one example of something that Hunter did but altered in your way, without changing the other characters.
That has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. What would even be their motivation to do this? And having a hidden shadow organization just obfuscates the threat. At least with Hunter clearly in the picture, the threat is real.The villain could for example be some shadowy organization that only reveals themselves to the MC.
Yeah, obviously. Keep thinking for some more examples, because this one is shit.and this is just the first example that sprang to mind in a few seconds.
That's just your opinion. IMO, Hunter is a weak storytelling piece because there's literally no reason to keep him around anymore. The MC has already, pretty early, shown the ability to make large amounts of money with minimal effort, so the "excuse" that Hunter is being kept around because he's paying for the house is particularly nonsensical. Not to mention the family could just move. His entire existence and tolerance by the rest of the family is based on flimsy grounds at best, I'm not going to insult you by pretending that you think it's convincing storytelling that Hunter could get some hair, put on the MCs clothes and there would be ANY situation where Brenna or Catherine could mistake him for the MC. No one thinks that's reasonable. It's silly in the extreme.That has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. What would even be their motivation to do this? And having a hidden shadow organization just obfuscates the threat. At least with Hunter clearly in the picture, the threat is real.
To use the example of Big Brother, Eric was also supposed to be the NTR threat, but because he was so inactive, he became a non-issue. Hunter, on the other hand, is pro-active, so the threat is more real. In Big Brother, it was the MC who drove the story forward, but he was a little shit (his actions would make Hunter proud). Because Hunter is the villain who drives the story, the MC is the good guy.
Yeah, obviously. Keep thinking for some more examples, because this one is shit.
That would be the biggest mistake ever made, the dev made a point that the NTR will always be non-canonical and "outside" of the main game, that's why he started to make the what-ifs, because the majority of Patrons love NTR, but there are also tons of patrons (even if they are on lower tiers) that will leave immediately if NTR will become a non avoidable thing. So it would backfire in an horrible way.I hope the dev drops some forced NTR in the main game at this point, because people are going to bitch regardless. So might as well.
I'm just following the lead of everyone complaining about the game. Everything revolves around MY whims and desires. Duh. lolThat would be the biggest mistake ever made, the dev made a point that the NTR will always be non-canonical and "outside" of the main game, that's why he started to make the what-ifs, because the majority of Patrons love NTR, but there are also tons of patrons (even if they are on lower tiers) that will leave immediately if NTR will become a non avoidable thing. So it would backfire in an horrible way.
Yes, because if you have enough money to buy a new television, you have enough money to buy a house. No wonder you know so much about story telling, it's because you live in a fantasy world.The MC has already, pretty early, shown the ability to make large amounts of money with minimal effort, so the "excuse" that Hunter is being kept around because he's paying for the house is particularly nonsensical. Not to mention the family could just move.
No, because it's a dumb premise. How are they doing this? Hunter succeeds because he LIVES in the house. A shadowy organization has no way to enter unseen, so all of their ploys are "just for the story" and thus a non-issue. There's different ways to advance the plot and "a wizard did it" is a bad way since that's just advancing the plot to advance the plot. Hunter also advances the plot, but that's a reaction to his actual present threat. We can guess and try to anticipate what he does, but an unknown organization with unknown motives, there's nothing we can do against that, so all agency is taken out of our hands. It's obvious you play with the NTR switch off since your suggestion offers no choice. With Hunter, the player is forced to make a choice and based on that choice we either have the good ending or the bad one. With a shadow organization, there's no choice, because what will happen if we make the wrong choice? A bunch of men will suddenly burst in the house and fuck everyone? That will obviously never happen, so there's no choice. And if there's no choice, there's no agency.On the other hand, a shadowy organization is a MUCH more real threat because if they have the ability to get chemicals into you and your family's food without anyone noticing, how can you ever hope to escape them?
No but if you have enough money to pay a housekeeper $8000 a month just to NOT do something, all from acting in a porn video every two weeks or so, then yeah, you could pretty easily work harder to get the money to pay for the house and everything.Yes, because if you have enough money to buy a new television, you have enough money to buy a house. No wonder you know so much about story telling, it's because you live in a fantasy world.
No, because it's a dumb premise. How are they doing this? Hunter succeeds because he LIVES in the house. A shadowy organization has no way to enter unseen, so all of their ploys are "just for the story" and thus a non-issue. There's different ways to advance the plot and "a wizard did it" is a bad way since that's just advancing the plot to advance the plot. Hunter also advances the plot, but that's a reaction to his actual present threat. We can guess and try to anticipate what he does, but an unknown organization with unknown motives, there's nothing we can do against that, so all agency is taken out of our hands. It's obvious you play with the NTR switch off since your suggestion offers no choice. With Hunter, the player is forced to make a choice and based on that choice we either have the good ending or the bad one. With a shadow organization, there's no choice, because what will happen if we make the wrong choice? A bunch of men will suddenly burst in the house and fuck everyone? That will obviously never happen, so there's no choice. And if there's no choice, there's no agency.