So which is it? Nika knows nothing of Vanessa other than what Bella tells him. This is the whole concept you've portrayed. Yes, Vanessa is innocent, and they maliciously decide to use her to satisfy their own goals. That is what we know, in a linear fashion. It is the same as what Nika knows of Brenda, or Stefan. It's all based on what Bella has told him, as he hasn't observed them nearly enough to make an opinion of anything.
Regardless of innocence, it is illegal to act as a vigilante. But Bella and Nika can't even claim to be vigilantes. They're doing things to right perceived slights, there is no criminal activity they are 'punishing'. Nika and Bella are purely off the rails. That is what we see from the start.
The narrative is sympathetic to Nika and Bella, so we focus on their building romance rather than question their motives. It is never acceptable to act as a vigilante in society - the term itself implies going outside the social contract of the culture you are in, circumventing the rules of normality. But again, they are not vigilantes, just immature and criminally minded.
Getting back to Vanessa/Brenda/Holgersons: It doesn't matter whether they are innocent or not. Someone at college age should know better than to do any of this. When was the last time you bought a data slurping USB stick from a black market dude, just in case? At that point, Bella and Nika were just observing, and Bella just 'happened to have an illegal device for breaching privacy.
It’s worth making a reservation here. Most likely, I myself somehow missed a place where I needed to focus on this. I'm not a fan of Nika, I don't even have the desire to take his side. Along the way of the first season, he does a lot of shit (besides breaking into the house) that does him no credit, while smiling in his eyes (as best he can). At the same time, we must pay tribute, a gray character with trauma from the past, closed, ready to put himself outside the brackets of society, can make the world a better place and it’s difficult to consider him completely bad.
Who else but he can hit you in the head with a tennis ball? Not just because he is a sharp shooter, but because in this situation it is necessary and simple chatter simply will not help.
The plan is crap, no doubt. But it very much synergizes with the age of the characters. And what teenager doesn't like spy stuff?
Going beyond social boundaries is too complex a topic and I’m not sure that I won’t screw it up somewhere. These frameworks themselves are not always fair, nor are the laws, nor are those who “defend” these laws. Again, let's just add details from our heads to test ourselves. Let's say the person who is the target of their plan is a drug lord, against whom the penitentiary system has nothing. And a couple of teenagers simply don’t want him to become part of their family. We won’t specify the risks, that’s not why. The question is: will your/our understanding of the limits of what is permitted change?
For me personally, the very ability to push oneself beyond the boundaries commands respect. What they do and why they do not. Until the screenwriter completes the goal of some other bad features that will balance the scales.
Well, or they won’t be given educational consequences, which will also bring the characters closer together.
Where is it said Stefan is Amber's boyfriend? He is her neighbour who wants to be more, (but that is according to Bella, we don't know). Have I missed something? The whole storyline that follows is because Bella hates the idea that he wants to chase Amber. It could well be that Amber plans on setting up Stefan with Stephanie (remember the phone call where Amber said she has someone in mind for Stephanie?)
Potential. Let's assume that I used the wrong word.
In any case, this is precisely the fact that there is not a single argument in favor of Holgerson until the author completes his biography.
I remember the call. Perhaps this is the nail that will finally break their plan.
Last point, which is more a finger pointing at myself: Ocean isn't necessarily basing this story on standard social frameworks. There is an element of fantasy in that he's not trying to write an ironclad legal document with no inconsistencies. He's trying to create a feel and a mood, so in that sense, everyone's off the hook, because Ocean has his own purposes for them to play out. I just hope he chooses the harder path of the consequences, as Nika mentions actions having consequences multiple times (despite acting mostly as they don't before Ch4). Actually, Nika swings between mature and asshole so much, it's hard to see if he's the one that promises Vi, or that steals without concern. Tries to be a better person, then looks at the figurines in th book club as though they're his next theft.
Well, I absolutely agree with this. Speaking of spy stuff, how easily it gets into the hands of just anyone, multiple cars owned by teenagers, and the like. I don’t know how rich people live, but this really doesn’t look like a story based on real events. Therefore, I agree to pass through the prism of the real world individual actions, but not the whole story as a whole.
I don’t know if you noticed, but no one, neither Amber nor Ayua, nor Mila, nor Bella herself called the second girl by name. And secondly. It is implied that Bella and her sister are twins, but in Mila's memories, Bella's sister is absent, which is unusual for twins.
I don’t know if you noticed, but no one, neither Amber nor Ayua, nor Mila, nor Bella herself called the second girl by name. And secondly. It is implied that Bella and her sister are twins, but in Mila's memories, Bella's sister is absent, which is unusual for twins.
We do not name other games here, you know, forum rules and whatnot. But I can't say that your guess is wrong.
I'm messing with you a little bit, man.
And no, according to the dev, this game is not a harem and never will be. It's a very slow burn story-focused game and doesn't even have a sex scene right now, although lewds are planned for the next season.
It’s worth making a reservation here. Most likely, I myself somehow missed a place where I needed to focus on this. I'm not a fan of Nika, I don't even have the desire to take his side. Along the way of the first season, he does a lot of shit (besides breaking into the house) that does him no credit, while smiling in his eyes (as best he can). At the same time, we must pay tribute, a gray character with trauma from the past, closed, ready to put himself outside the brackets of society, can make the world a better place and it’s difficult to consider him completely bad.
Who else but he can hit you in the head with a tennis ball? Not just because he is a sharp shooter, but because in this situation it is necessary and simple chatter simply will not help.
The plan is crap, no doubt. But it very much synergizes with the age of the characters. And what teenager doesn't like spy stuff?
Going beyond social boundaries is too complex a topic and I’m not sure that I won’t screw it up somewhere. These frameworks themselves are not always fair, nor are the laws, nor are those who “defend” these laws. Again, let's just add details from our heads to test ourselves. Let's say the person who is the target of their plan is a drug lord, against whom the penitentiary system has nothing. And a couple of teenagers simply don’t want him to become part of their family. We won’t specify the risks, that’s not why. The question is: will your/our understanding of the limits of what is permitted change?
For me personally, the very ability to push oneself beyond the boundaries commands respect. What they do and why they do not. Until the screenwriter completes the goal of some other bad features that will balance the scales.
Well, or they won’t be given educational consequences, which will also bring the characters closer together.
Potential. Let's assume that I used the wrong word.
In any case, this is precisely the fact that there is not a single argument in favor of Holgerson until the author completes his biography.
I remember the call. Perhaps this is the nail that will finally break their plan.
Well, I absolutely agree with this. Speaking of spy stuff, how easily it gets into the hands of just anyone, multiple cars owned by teenagers, and the like. I don’t know how rich people live, but this really doesn’t look like a story based on real events. Therefore, I agree to pass through the prism of the real world individual actions, but not the whole story as a whole.
Don't worry, I tend to miss things too, and finding the time to write comprehensively... I'll just hope people can follow if they find the topic interesting these days, typos and all.
I think Nika's past gives him some level of grace, as does Bellas, but if they have to plead mental health as a mitigating circumstance ina trial, it's still criminal. I personally understand how he finds it hard to stay within the lines, simply because all the lines in his world shattered, and he is trying to restore the framework for the first time. Part of it could be pushing himself too hard in an overstimulating experience, and over-engaging after years of mental isolation.
Regarding your example, the disapproval of say a drug lord, the first step would be to find the evidence from legal sources that can be verified. By becoming a criminal, there is no reason to reject another criminal in the family based on distaste of criminality, as you've become a mirror. The sensible way is much easier, costs less, and can be done without any external help. Kick up a good solid argument. If there's no proof that's easy to find and it's just gut instinct, we have to wonder why our gut is telling us someone is reprehensible.
However we do know Stefan is still married. So if he's chasing Amber, he's planning on having a mistress, which does give Bella a good reason for distaste. The word of someone who cheats when they swore oaths/marriage vows is worthless.
Stefan hasn't revealed himself as evil incarnate, but even if he does, the law is clear. Becoming a vigilante is a risk most people sensibly won't take. Normal people assume innocence when they lack proof, even if suspicion makes them cautious.
On the flipside, Stefan has shown that he'll press charges agaisnt someone with no proof, and if he is chasing Amber, he's dishonourable to his wife.
And yes, there is a level by which we have to suspend disbelief. The book club takes place in a regal mansion where milfs arm wrestle over wine? I'd expect a far more seriosu book then, maybe some Umberto Eco?And why arm wrestle when the hired help can just bring up another cart load of wine from the cellar?
No, Ocean dislikes harems. There are plans for throuple paths, but Ocean claims they will likely combust if you don't manage your time well between the other two in your throuple - jealousy will cause those paths to fail.
Don't worry, I tend to miss things too, and finding the time to write comprehensively... I'll just hope people can follow if they find the topic interesting these days, typos and all.
I think Nika's past gives him some level of grace, as does Bellas, but if they have to plead mental health as a mitigating circumstance ina trial, it's still criminal. I personally understand how he finds it hard to stay within the lines, simply because all the lines in his world shattered, and he is trying to restore the framework for the first time. Part of it could be pushing himself too hard in an overstimulating experience, and over-engaging after years of mental isolation.
Regarding your example, the disapproval of say a drug lord, the first step would be to find the evidence from legal sources that can be verified. By becoming a criminal, there is no reason to reject another criminal in the family based on distaste of criminality, as you've become a mirror. The sensible way is much easier, costs less, and can be done without any external help. Kick up a good solid argument. If there's no proof that's easy to find and it's just gut instinct, we have to wonder why our gut is telling us someone is reprehensible.
Principle of proportionality. A painted car is not a drug dealer.
Of course, I don’t like the money part either, it’s about a plan to break up a family and break into a house.
This is the only argument from the category of opinion.
By the way, there is one point about which I forgot. Before the night ride, he says that “he has nothing to lose.” Obviously not taking Nojiko and Cheeto's feelings into account. My thoughts on this matter: if you are sure that a person is a shit and is worth the consequences that will follow any action towards him, then why not. The main thing here is to realize that at this particular moment you are doing something illegal and will pay a fine (I doubt that they will be jailed for graffiti on a car).
And this is what he doesn’t understand. Probably due to the fact that he spent most of his conscious life in a sealed jar.
However we do know Stefan is still married. So if he's chasing Amber, he's planning on having a mistress, which does give Bella a good reason for distaste. The word of someone who cheats when they swore oaths/marriage vows is worthless.
Stefan hasn't revealed himself as evil incarnate, but even if he does, the law is clear. Becoming a vigilante is a risk most people sensibly won't take. Normal people assume innocence when they lack proof, even if suspicion makes them cautious.
On the flipside, Stefan has shown that he'll press charges agaisnt someone with no proof, and if he is chasing Amber, he's dishonourable to his wife.
Well, here the convention is obvious. The main characters of anything are not ordinary and law-abiding to the last comma.
We know for sure about Stefan that he is a lousy husband and a womanizer, whose eyes run in all directions at once. He deserves the dirty trick to the same extent as Nika deserves a visit to the police station and some kind of commensurate fine (as far as we know, they did not inherit and it is hardly possible to prove anything).
Again, my opinion is that such an act with such initial conditions does not make him a canonical criminal. If he had simply robbed the house because he could and that had been the goal in the first place, I would have had no questions or doubts.
Why? MC's action is completely justified from a legal point of view. Before his eyes, some crazy woman hits a girl with her car and then tries to shoot him. Perhaps she wants to kill him and get rid of the witness to avoid punishment. He has every right to self-defense.
Principle of proportionality. A painted car is not a drug dealer.
Of course, I don’t like the money part either, it’s about a plan to break up a family and break into a house.
This is the only argument from the category of opinion.
By the way, there is one point about which I forgot. Before the night ride, he says that “he has nothing to lose.” Obviously not taking Nojiko and Cheeto's feelings into account. My thoughts on this matter: if you are sure that a person is a shit and is worth the consequences that will follow any action towards him, then why not. The main thing here is to realize that at this particular moment you are doing something illegal and will pay a fine (I doubt that they will be jailed for graffiti on a car).
And this is what he doesn’t understand. Probably due to the fact that he spent most of his conscious life in a sealed jar.
Well, here the convention is obvious. The main characters of anything are not ordinary and law-abiding to the last comma.
We know for sure about Stefan that he is a lousy husband and a womanizer, whose eyes run in all directions at once. He deserves the dirty trick to the same extent as Nika deserves a visit to the police station and some kind of commensurate fine (as far as we know, they did not inherit and it is hardly possible to prove anything).
Again, my opinion is that such an act with such initial conditions does not make him a canonical criminal. If he had simply robbed the house because he could and that had been the goal in the first place, I would have had no questions or doubts.
The principle of proportionality doesn't apply to the theft, the theft is quantifiable. All the Holgersons need is for those cameras that Bella claims are inactive to be recording, and Nika is screwed. There is no such thing as proportionality in morality, that is why the saying two wrongs don't make a right is a great guide. Most importantly, criminal acts in society are not mitigated by any criminal activity on the other side. I can't murder a drug dealer, I can't take the law into my own hands and decide what is fitting.
An eye for an eye is not justice; the point of law is not to preserve moral behaviour, it is to preserve social function - the rules exist essentially to keep peace within the container we call society while we're all stuck in it. If I wish to make comparitive morality, I can only do so when my threat/power is greater than society's collective power - I have to have either enough leverage or force to ensure no one can bring consequences, or hope I am small and petty enough to not be worth the effort of punishment.
However, SG's universe has a theme of every action having a consequence (which is something Nika repeats to himself), so comparitive morality is a lie in the games narrative. Nika believes he can be a vigilante (or as you say, simply doesn't care for a variety of plausible reasons). But consider it this way: if there are such intense consequences for winning a basketball game through simple mind games, how would a sliding scale work for theft? I'd imagine execution at least
Getting back to the money thing, in a legal sense, if Nika is caught, no one will care about motives. He took the money, we even know that his motives were purely selfish, and he just wanted it - he took the opportunity. THere is no ay to mitigate his motivations by comparisons to the Holgersons (who we have no evidence of any wrong doing prior to this moment). Nika breaks and enters, destroys property and steals money purely because he hates the guy for dissing his appearance and being associated with people who verbally bullied Mila (despite her calming the situation down and letting it go). So Nika's reasons are not at that moment about the 'plan'. That comes the following day. They are just doing this purely on spite.
Oh and I forgot this quote about Bella's beliefs about Stefan, because my memory of the changes in S1 Full hasn't yet sunk in:
The plan is only formed after Amber receives the invitation the the gala, and Mila is accused by Stefan the day after. Nika exploits Bella's distress to set up revenge - AFTER already stealing money AND vandalising AND breaking and entering - to get revenge for being called a hobo. Oh revenge and fun. He's not even rocking a panic attack, or anything, this is him being completely comfortable being a criminal, and having no sense of proportionality. At this point, Nika's only interaction with Mario is the street scene, and the only info is what Bella says. Nika isn't deciding anything other than his blood is high over a perceived insult. It's so over the top.
This actually marries into his reason for getting into fights - it made him feel alive, as he mentions to Amber in therapy. I think what you say about living in a sealed jar is probably the key to this - Nika has no concept of the consequences, so his actions are free in this moment. Part of the narrative (I think) will show he starts developing awareness of consequences, and that will be part of him becoming a better person (both in mental health and in social standing). So we already see that he questions VIc crossing the road, that wouldn't have happened without him, Mila getting accused wouldn't have happened, Sonya will probably get in trouble for the games when the parents discover there's no professor involved, Nika's basically having a bad influence on everyone in some way, even if he is charming in other ways. Essentially, he is a catalyst in their stories as much as they are a catalyst in his. For example, I think that the Holgersons were waiting for an opportunity to do something to Mila (if we take all the small comments to heart and read between the lines) and Nika just provoked that opportunity:
Some of us have been saying this for years. Both Bella and Nami's routes were butchered way before 5.0 Beta or the S1 final.
I would invite anyone who disagrees to play the pre-reworked version 3.0 of the Bella and MC fight in her room when MC finds out about her sister. It was so much heavier. Much more emotional and poignant.
All Ocean did with the introduction of the reworks was dilute the story. Like adding ice cubes to a glass of the finest whisky in the world.
Thats how I felt with the scene with Mila at the tree spot Nadia told her about. The original scene was more intimate, they were physically close, Steam one when they are talking they are distant the feels was gone. Overall feels like the emotions of the entire story got watered down.
