Recommending Story-first games

[Vasin]

I'm surprised that "This Time" is not in the list? (well maybe not surprised, I just found out about it) The early game is a bit generic and can be offputting to some but it develops into a very strong thriller with heavy focus on storytelling instead of porn.

Is that the one where MC learns he can stop time and the first thing he does is pinch his friend's tits? That game did not give me the story-first impression, no, lol.

 

[EndlessNights]

Is that the one where MC learns he can stop time and the first thing he does is pinch his friend's tits? That game did not give me the story-first impression, no, lol.

I definitely remember trying This Time out at one point, but I must not have gotten that far into it as I don't recall the time stopping part at all. I'm not sure now exactly why I quit...I probably either found it too generic or ran into a bug. Perhaps it is worth another try now that it is being remade. Fitgirlbestgirl (of "Simp Jesus" fame) wrote a scathing review while Éama wrote a very positive one.

 

[jufot]

Fitgirlbestgirl (of "Simp Jesus" fame) wrote a scathing review

That's a beautiful review, damn!

 

[bacienvu88]

I definitely remember trying This Time out at one point, but I must not have gotten that far into it as I don't recall the time stopping part at all. I'm not sure now exactly why I quit...I probably either found it too generic or ran into a bug. Perhaps it is worth another try now that it is being remade. Fitgirlbestgirl (of "Simp Jesus" fame) wrote a scathing review while Éama wrote a very positive one.

Ok, I have played partway through the second chapter now and this game is weird. It is a mix of pretentious nonsense, random juvenile porniness and a base story that is actually interesting. It is a very strange combination.

 

[MidnightArrow]

It is a mix of pretentious nonsense

What sort of "pretentious nonsense" are you referring to?

 

[bacienvu88]

What sort of "pretentious nonsense" are you referring to?

Well, I may have exaggerating a little. Not everything is necessarily pretentious, but merely tryhard. A few random examples:

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Éama]

The developer certainly tries to be philosophical. It might come across as pretentious but I don't like the word to describe it, because it's essentially disregarding the effort that someone is putting into his or her novel to say something profound. I'm not familiar with prejudices and sensitivities between the North and the South of the US, so if that depiction of Annie is offensive it went way over my head. Her coming to terms with her own identity seemed rather relatable.

 

[bacienvu88]

The developer certainly tries to be philosophical. It might come across as pretentious but I don't like the word to describe it, because it's essentially disregarding the effort that someone is putting into his or her novel to say something profound.

The thing is that in order for something to be profound there needs to be some point behind the words. And I have difficulty to find any point behind most of it. Or it boils down to some triviality. The reason I call it pretentious nonsense is that the writer seem to be trying to be profound without actually having something profound to say. It just becomes an overly verbose and flowery text.

It may be me who isn't witty enough to understand the profundity of the writing, but this is my impression of the game. Others may have a different impression. And it is nothing wrong with that.

There is another point and that is that all this philosophy or what you want to call it makes the text stiff and especially some of the dialogues doesn't flow naturally (the whole conversation with the bartender feels strange for example). That said there are some dialogues that are actually good and it mostly shows when they talk seriously. The talk with Sarah about that stopwatch is pretty good (although ruined by the option to grope Sarah when comforting her ...).

 

[Éama]

The thing is that in order for something to be profound there needs to be some point behind the words. And I have difficulty to find any point behind most of it. Or it boils down to some triviality. The reason I call it pretentious nonsense is that the writer seem to be trying to be profound without actually having something profound to say. It just becomes an overly verbose and flowery text.

It may be me who isn't witty enough to understand the profundity of the writing, but this is my impression of the game. Others may have a different impression. And it is nothing wrong with that.

There is another point and that is that all this philosophy or what you want to call it makes the text stiff and especially some of the dialogues doesn't flow naturally (the whole conversation with the bartender feels strange for example). That said there are some dialogues that are actually good and it mostly shows when they talk seriously. The talk with Sarah about that stopwatch is pretty good (although ruined by the option to grope Sarah when comforting her ...).

Since so many VNs have those creepy options I tend to just ignore them. Like it's some sort of compulsive disorder. I only rate the VN based on the path that I am choosing. I wouldn't say for example that my experience of "Friends in Need" is ruined by the option to be a monster. It's just something I don't do, because it's not my story.

In my opinion most people don't have anything profound to say. If that was my criteria to rate a novel, adult or otherwise, I'd probably disregard all VNs without exception. I don't think there is any AVN that has anything profound to say. I can appreciate the effort though. Interim Domain is another example that is judged very harshly because of it, and I find it somewhat unfair. What is written in "This Time" is not necessarily something that I would consider wise, but it's a person trying to make sense of things. Be it the developer or the protagonist. And I find it interesting to observe someone having these thoughts for us to read and observe. It's not necessarily about having the right thoughts, thoughts that I agree to, or a successful thought experiment. It's the actual exercise to try to make sense of things that is appealing to me.
Obviously we have different tastes. That we agree upon. It's a given. But I think "pretentious" is very harsh choice of words in this context because it doesn't leave much to discuss. Anyway. I don't have anything else to say. Good night.

 

[bacienvu88]

Since so many VNs have those creepy options I tend to just ignore them. Like it's some sort of compulsive disorder. I only rate the VN based on the path that I am choosing. I wouldn't say for example that my experience of "Friends in Need" is ruined by the option to be a monster. It's just something I don't do, because it's not my story.

In my opinion most people don't have anything profound to say. If that was my criteria to rate a novel, adult or otherwise, I'd probably disregard all VNs without exception. I don't think there is any AVN that has anything profound to say. I can appreciate the effort though. Interim Domain is another example that is judged very harshly because of it, and I find it somewhat unfair. What is written in "This Time" is not necessarily something that I would consider wise, but it's a person trying to make sense of things. Be it the developer or the protagonist. And I find it interesting to observe someone having these thoughts for us to read and observe. It's not necessarily about having the right thoughts, thoughts that I agree to, or a successful thought experiment. It's the actual exercise to try to make sense of things that is appealing to me.
Obviously we have different tastes. That we agree upon. It's a given. But I think "pretentious" is very harsh choice of words in this context because it doesn't leave much to discuss. Anyway. I don't have anything else to say. Good night.

First, I have no problems with not having anything profound to say. The problem I have is trying to sound like you are profound without having anything to say.

Second, the reason I react is mainly because there is so much of it. If it just had been an occasional thing I wouldn't have mentioned it. Being pretentious sometimes is perfectly ok.

Third, it's not like I choose the creep options either. I react on the creep options because they differ so much in tone compared to the rest. The MC is lethargic except when he has a chance to be a creep. It becomes jarring and makes the characterization of MC worse.

Fourth, the word pretentious may be a bit too harsh, yes. But it is the word that most fit what I mean. The other word I thought of is ostentatious but that is hardly less harsh.

EDIT: Regarding Interim Domain, I actually find that pretty interesting. I should get back to it, since I have not played that last 6 episodes yet.

 

[boobsrcool]

EDIT: Regarding Interim Domain, I actually find that pretty interesting. I should get back to it, since I have not played that last 6 episodes yet.

just did earlier today liked it a lot

 

[MidnightArrow]

First, I have no problems with not having anything profound to say. The problem I have is trying to sound like you are profound without having anything to say.

[...]

Third, it's not like I choose the creep options either. I react on the creep options because they differ so much in tone compared to the rest. The MC is lethargic except when he has a chance to be a creep. It becomes jarring and makes the characterization of MC worse.

I'm biased (because I wrote the game) but your criticism is contradictory.

You say the monologues are pointless and have nothing to say. Then you criticize the game for "jarring" characterization that's explained by the monologues, like the allegory of fire as a metaphor for the compulsion to commit sexual misdeeds, which is a way to rationalize both paths of the moral choice system (virtuous and depraved) while still seeming like the same character.

Granted, I didn't write the original version and I had to rewrite around the original renders, so I tended to rely on monologues as "glue" to make everything fit together. But the monologues all have a "point" -- to explain why characters act a certain way.

 

[Tlaero]

I haven't played the game, but MidnightArrow, that review from FitGirlBestGirl must have been hard to read. As a writer who has received similar reviews in my past, I feel for you. Things like that tend to wreck my weekend, or more. <hugs>

Bacienvu, as I said, I haven't played it, but I caution against mixing up, "Writing style that I don't like," and "Bad writing." When I read the examples you gave, it sounds like a writer going for a unique (or at least different) style more than a writer trying to be pretentious. Of course, it's totally fine to say, "I don't enjoy this style of writing," but it's best to recognize it as a style rather than a skill. It's similar to saying, "I don't like westerns" or "I don't like science fiction." No problem at all with not liking those types of games, but I suspect you'd review the game differently if you saw it as just a genre you don't happen to like.

Tlaero

 

[MidnightArrow]

I haven't played the game, but MidnightArrow, that review from FitGirlBestGirl must have been hard to read. As a writer who has received similar reviews in my past, I feel for you. Things like that tend to wreck my weekend, or more. <hugs>

It didn't really bother me. I'll defend my work if I need to, but I don't get that bothered by random people on message boards.

Besides, at that point I'd only rewritten 1/3rd of the game, and many of the things they criticized were already fixed in the dev branch for chapters 2/3. I'm more baffled they didn't seem to realize there were two completely different writers working on the game.

 

[Vasin]

I just want to point out that characterization and dialogues are not the same thing. You can have characterization with atrocious meaningless dialogue, and it can still be inconsistent. What turned me off from playing the game was not the dialogue but specifically the way MC acts which I found to be highly immature and unfit for the situation, I'll admit though, it has been a while since I've played and I don't remember much of anything about the game, except for the general impression that I got. I hope that the rewrite turns out better than the original.

As for the quotes provided, putting them being out of context and maybe not even in the game anymore aside, I didn't read them as meaningless per se, but sifting through that verbiage to get to the meaning was not particularly engaging. It's obscure for no other reason that to be obscure and wordy for the sake of wordiness. Internal narration is notoriously difficult to pull off convincingly, and even good movies often elect not to go with it (good example of that would be Blade Runner). I think there's a way to convey the same impression without being too ornamental and onerous to read.

 

[MidnightArrow]

As for the quotes provided, putting them being out of context and maybe not even in the game anymore aside, I didn't read them as meaningless per se, but sifting through that verbiage to get to the meaning was not particularly engaging. It's obscure for no other reason that to be obscure and wordy for the sake of wordiness. Internal narration is notoriously difficult to pull off convincingly, and even good movies often elect not to go with it (good example of that would be Blade Runner). I think there's a way to convey the same impression without being too ornamental and onerous to read.

Ironically Blade Runner was based on a Philip K Dick book, the author who inspired the tone and writing style I used for the monologue sections in the first place.

 

[Vasin]

Ironically Blade Runner was based on a Philip K Dick book, the author who inspired the tone and writing style I used for the monologue sections in the first place.

Not ironic at all, I brought it up as a specific example of talented people choosing not to use the book's narration style. Come to think of it, I don't recall off the top of my head any noir movies that use the narration. Even in books, it's mostly in author's speech, not characters'. (I don't remember Deckard waxing philosophically in the book either, but it has been a while since I've read it)

P.S. I looked at the change log and I've definitely played it before the rewrites. I have decided to give it a second chance and see if things have improved, especially since I don't think I've gotten past chapter 1 originally. I'm looking forward to seeing the changes.

 

[MidnightArrow]

(I don't remember Deckard waxing philosophically in the book either, but it has been a while since I've read it)

“Kipple is useless objects, like junk mail or match folders after you use the last match or gum wrappers or yesterday's homeopape. When nobody's around, kipple reproduces itself. For instance, if you go to bed leaving any kipple around your apartment, when you wake up the next morning there's twice as much of it. It always gets more and more."

[...]

"No one can win against kipple," he said, "except temporarily and maybe in one spot, like in my apartment I've sort of created a stasis between the pressure of kipple and nonkipple, for the time being. But eventually I'll die or go away, and then the kipple will again take over. It's a universal principle operating throughout the universe; the entire universe is moving toward a final state of total, absolute kippleization.”

 

[Canto Forte]

Hello and happy Easter Holy Days to everyone already cellebrating
or looking forward to doing so!

This is becoming a wonderful discussion about where and when feedback is actually heeded and
the emotional response gamers have after playing through some parts or the full game.

To the wonderful devs - writing buffs who have agreed to disclose some of their ideas:

Thank you so much for bringing into games the cringe and rather neauseating self parody that we see in big names like game of thrones/blade runner/westworld - where people who have little to no actual philosophy/psichology/writing/reading skills or hobbies that are ever refferenced on screen but tend to have all sorts a monologues and skewed mental gymnastics going on in their heads where they pretend they know anything about how arguments are constructed or become actual believable deterents or alibi for their actions.

The characters in blade runner and the games we are talking about here are not famous actors who
have extensive behind the scenes preparation for the roles they play, they are not anthony hopkins,
they are neither colin farel or any other actor with actual philosophy/psichology/medical or
law degrees to base their internal monologues on and have actual facts, deep actual research behind their thoughts. They are all trying to make sense in their minds of the motivation they tell themselves is there for whatever actions they undertake, they tell themselves whatever to make their hand steady and their mind committed to all the atrocities or the actions of selflessness they commit.

Speaking of game of thrones or westworld, most if not all characters are killers, actual cold blooded
killers, either by job, by design or by stature - rob beheads the soldier for bringing crucial info
to save the kingdoms, jaime sends young ned to his death for seeing something he does not understand, cersi starts wars she has no idea of winning/loosing/avoiding just to spite her peers,
board members go on killing sprees in westworld even tho it is murder, the guy in black wants to and kills humans and androids alike, the hosts are killing themselves and humans all throughout the series and that never phases them, it never even factors into why they are trapped in this never ending
cicle of violence and liking it, because it is what they do with impunity, exactly what the board members do and did in westworld and they never wondered how that made them trapped into
senseless killing morale or lack of it ...

The games we are talking about work for the minute scope they have - the lives of soldiers, or law enforcement, or firefighters, or corporate investigators/killers - there is little to no depth in their
minds about what they do - make people confess, kill, rape, have end of life thoughts, deprecating
ideas, have weird to no chops when it comes to women or courtship or human interactions as a whole array of complex emotions and arguments and conversations and activities.
They are not avid readers of any fiction, psichological, philosofical or romance novels and are not acting out the scenes in those novels or the conversations or dialogues in there or the ideas in there
to base their interactions or thoughts or actions on, a factual reason and a valid motive to go and act out similarly seeking similar results.

In that matter, your craft is well inside the parrameters of the scope of the games we are talking about, the characters are relatable, they are unreliable narrators, their argumentative thoughts are
most of the time skewed by their intent and tries to build themselves up into the monster
or the hero they think of themselves in any particular scene, most of the time not pitting their representation against that of the characters they interact with, to make a somewhat convincing conclusion outta the scenes.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Story first means MC has a motivation, a story, beyond the story of the other characters,
something that drives the plot from inside the MC, not meer reaction/mirror of others.

In that sense, games in general fall short, because we are thrust head first into the events,
the big action cutscenes and the reveals take us by surprise and they should, engrossing us in
the story of the game, rather than the story of this or that character and going and building the
world around the story of the game.

That being said, characters are rather close to those we see in acclaimed series around the world
nowadays, every character living in their repective bubble and making up stories and argumens to make sense and convince themselves, pandering to their own flaws and pampering their shortcomings in order to build themselves up, be it into a remorseless monster or a clueless hero hell bent on
saving whom ever, where ever, when ever.

Games are interesting, the games you work on are rather inticing by showing the shortcoming
of the flaws in the characters, the adventure they carry on by having the attitude they have,
the consequences of their actions and action scenes to reward us players for putting up with MC and
all the other characters throughout the gaming experience.

Thank you so much for being this invested in your games, for giving us gamers a piece of your mind and making the gaming even more intense and gripping with your efforts and your comments.

 

[Vasin]

Quote from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"

Things to note here here is that
a) The quote is from a dialogue between two characters, not monologue that one character speaks to themselves.
b) It actually makes sense. An easy to understand metaphor, like saying "Oh, it's not that I don't clean up, it's just universal entropy." Beyond that it's also exposition for the general state of the world of Blade Runner.

As an aside, the quote is not from Deckard, it's from Isidore, who's supposed to be stupid, so he makes it up as an excuse. I don't think the intention with This Time is to make the MC seem like a vapid fool. I'll get back to this once I play the game.

Thank you so much for bringing into games the cringe and rather neauseating self parody that we see in big names like game of thrones/blade runner/westworld - where people who have little to no actual philosophy/psichology/writing/reading skills or hobbies that are ever refferenced on screen but tend to have all sorts a monologues and skewed mental gymnastics going on in their heads where they pretend they know anything about how arguments are constructed or become actual believable deterents or alibi for their actions.

Is the implication here that This Time's writing meant to be a "cringe and nauseating self parody"?

The characters in blade runner and the games we are talking about here are not famous actors who
have extensive behind the scenes preparation for the roles they play, they are not anthony hopkins,
they are neither colin farel or any other actor with actual philosophy/psichology/medical or
law degrees to base their internal monologues on and have actual facts, deep actual research behind their thoughts.

You're conflating the character with the actor. The magic of fiction is that a reader laughs at a joke the character makes and thinks "they came up quick with that one" while it took the writer a week to think it up. Characters are not supposed to act or talk with 100% veracity for multitude of reasons including plot convenience and exposition, there are movies (mostly arthouse) that specifically eschew this convention and for the most part they are hard to watch.