Less of your deep analogies that truly only you understand, more specificity and clear thoughts. You brag about your knowledge of psychology in every post, but given your examples, I doubt you're a real expert who has an actual specialty. Probably read articles on wikipedia and a couple books at most and now you're a psychologist. In my eyes the value of your knowledge tends to zero. If you are a specialist, you should already know that ordinary people will not understand your analogies well if you present them in such a vague form.
I haven't read books on psychology, but at least I made an effort to understand your point and provide a response. Your analogy doesn't work because the conditions you set don't match the events of the game. You understood me perfectly, you just didn't make an equal effort to clarify where I was wrong.
I'm a little tired of demagoguery based on opinion and personal additions to suit my tastes. But okay, I’ll pay attention to this.
Let me start by saying that I did not claim to be an expert. I am only judging on the basis of basic courses and personal experience; there are a lot of hypocrites and manipulators outside the window.
You draw conclusions about the personalities of the characters based on replaying and looking at them from the end to the beginning. Which, as it were, is not entirely correct. Any adequate narrative tied to personalities is built through development and progress. You, looking at like/dislike, approve of penetration without breaking in/no, draw your conclusions based on what none of the characters can know.
In almost every argument you use the phrase “the consequences are easy to predict,” but this is not true, otherwise we would all graduate from universities with gold medals and I wouldn’t be doing crap in Excel. You give teenagers the qualities of adults, which does not happen. You're adding aspects to Vanessa's personality that weren't covered in the season (that she's an innocent bird who didn't hurt anyone and doesn't deserve to be a pawn). Moreover, her line is not over yet and the “plan” was interrupted mid-word between “cancel/doubt/change.” Without one of these conclusions, one builds an opinion about the personality of the characters involved - infantile delirium.
Along the way, you also harness Holgerson, the smallest details of whose behavior I described to you more than once when you countered with the words “Well, Amber can handle it.” Can handle what? With her boyfriend playing ball with her daughter? I understand that in such novels such lines are possible and many will distort them, but here we seem to have a slightly different game. This is if you ignore the character’s repeatedly mentioned lack of character, ignoring which you still conclude that it’s not worth ruining his life. Out of common decency, probably. And again, ignoring the fact that the story comes from the perspective of a teenager who didn’t care about adult rules of good manners and lived without any idea what a full-fledged “family” is.
As a result, we argue about favorites. And I haven't noticed anything that would change my opinion of Vanessa. Not because you chose your arguments poorly, but because it’s simply not in the script.
Let's keep it simple. You'll go through the second season courting Vanessa's big ass, and I'll try to get Bella out of the shit. And when we have a more or less complete picture, we’ll argue about which of them has the whiter cloaks.
P.S. The presence of dialogue boxes in such games hints to us that judging characters for their actions is... a very funny idea. Because half of the decisions that set the vector of history and personality were made by you or me, and not by the protoganist.
