Ren'Py The Bite: Revenant [v0.9322] [madmate.games]

[desmosome]

Again, like I said in my post above, the fact that those skill already mattered... is actually the reason why I almost made a new character! I only expected variations according to skills... on a life/death situation.

She is pissed and ready to kill, I'm not even arguing that... but again, I want to see variations, epecially in a life/death situation. If Chuck Norris tries to kill a person, this person will act differently according to their skills... or at least they try.

I'm not against the idea at all. I'm just saying it wouldn't have made a difference. We could get more variations and flavor though, which would indeed be nice to have. But that is always the case in every game we play. We wish we could do this or that, we wish there could be more routes, we wish we could rape this girl, romance that one, or break up. You just have to accept that we get whatever the dev managed to put together in the time he had. That's the indie porn game scene for ya.

I will say again that any physical or confrontational attempts would have ended in the same game over. There could be some dialogue options like diplomacy or street smarts that lead to the same understanding with her, but in a slightly less groveling way. That kinda thing would be cool, but again, we can't get all the cool things we want in these games.

 

[JoeTheMC84]

...Joe tried to give it his all to prove his point in a really really long post ...

I'm kind of known for it, It's the college educator coming out of me. I can be long winded...

It is interesting to consider where AVN fit within the continuity of game evolution.

I suppose I see them as a more old school type of game style. Fitting more in line with the likes of Sam and Max: Hit the Road, Indian Jones: and the Fate of Atlantis, old school text reader games, and things like that. Games were if you missed picking up a candle on the first level of the game you might not be able to defeat the level at the end.

And you don't have to go down memory lane to see examples of death being useful for world building, just look at Elden Ring.

 

[Ayhsel]

Oh man, I was having so much fun and collecting nice socio-anthropological data during the course of this discussion but cohorts of teen vampire sagas paperbacks and VTM admirers are making it too complicated to enjoy it further.

Joe tried to give it his all to prove his point in a really really long post and I can only admire his perseverance.
You, on the other hand, sadly, did not bring anything new to this discussion. Maybe because you picked the wrong thing to quote?

The point in my statement you quoted was focused on unfortunate game design decisions.
You should pay more attention to the wording - the keyword was "unfortunate".

So why do I claim it was an unfortunate game design decision?
Joe's post gave us a nice trip down the memory lane of some games but what it failed to provide is that, from that time, the games evolved.

In the last couple of decades, there were numerous RPG Maker games that used GAME OVER mechanics on a standard basis, and so did a number of higher tier games.

Things happened, people did not like it so the whole system started to change, and "game over" started being used for the bad end story endings that had some content with an option to activate it if you wanted to see it.

In this world of games, AVN ones are a special case too.
Most of them are produced by small indie developers and live on generous patrons and, you know, small indie developers like to keep their audience entertained and try to avoid making game design decisions that can affect their audience's "happiness".

I also said, in another post: if the author is so bold as to, among say a total of 10 choice screens in the whole game include the one that leads to GAME OVER to prove some point then kudos to him.

And now we are back to the "unfortunate" game design decision, wah let me paraphrase what Uncle Fredo posted because he explained the sentiment far better then me:

You and the explanation you quote missed the point of my answer.

The point is that you are using future knowledge, that is a dead end, to criticize it.

I find it funny even that the post you quote use the term "less than optimal" which highlights just how wrong your point of view is. You are maximizing results using future knowledge! Any game, specially deterministic games (games that do now use random things, like a battle) can be thought as trivial if you know the right answers, rendering any choice that does not lead to the "best outcome" trivial for you. But that is because you are not playing a game the way it is supposed to be. Say you play FIFA. Say you are the goal keeper in a penalty. And say that you always know in which direction to send your goalkeeper (game tells you that). You then complain "this game is badly designed, always win penalties". That is essentially what you are doing.

The problem lies in your approach to the game, not the game itself. Obviously, if this happened regularly, then it is a problem. As it gets tiring. But so far it happened once. Chill and enjoy. And if anything, it wrong choices trigger you sooo bad, just use a walkthrough.

And, if anything, the game did give you a choice. It just so happens that one of those choices lead to death. You can take it and immersion implies your story is over. But apparently you are just unhappy with the result of that choice.

 

[TiffanyMonroe]

Am I missing something or is the mc not UNDEAD anymore?

 

[JoeTheMC84]

Am I missing something or is the mc not UNDEAD anymore? View attachment 1794616

Vampires in this setting seem to have more in common with a mutated human than a cursed undead creature. They need oxygen to survive. We though, like the MC, are still learning all the ways the vampires in this game are both like, and unlike, other types of vampires in other media.

 

[bosp]

You and the explanation you quote missed the point of my answer.

The point is that you are using future knowledge, that is a dead end, to criticize it.

I find it funny even that the post you quote use the term "less than optimal" which highlights just how wrong your point of view is. You are maximizing results using future knowledge! Any game, specially deterministic games (games that do now use random things, like a battle) can be thought as trivial if you know the right answers, rendering any choice that does not lead to the "best outcome" trivial for you. But that is because you are not playing a game the way it is supposed to be. Say you play FIFA. Say you are the goal keeper in a penalty. And say that you always know in which direction to send your goalkeeper (game tells you that). You then complain "this game is badly designed, always win penalties". That is essentially what you are doing.

The problem lies in your approach to the game, not the game itself. Obviously, if this happened regularly, then it is a problem. As it gets tiring. But so far it happened once. Chill and enjoy. And if anything, it wrong choices trigger you sooo bad, just use a walkthrough.

Lol, I was not criticizing, merely providing my observation on a game that ended for my MC.
I will repeat something I wrote in one of my previous posts:

"Am I not allowed to play the game in a way I want to?

I wanted to go against the obvious proposed decision to see what will happen.
I took a risk, curiosity killed the cat and my MC ended up dead. Game over.

No big deal, it was an interesting experience and, in my opinion, revealed an unfortunate game design decision - something that could have been solved differently, not with a "game over" but... the author has every right to do with his game whatever he pleases, it's his game.
My part was just to play it. I did. It ended for me.
End of story, no hard feelings, lot more other games to play. "

Did I really use future knowledge or just decided to go with the flow and ended the game?

 

[Ayhsel]

Lol, I was not criticizing, merely providing my observation on a game that ended for my MC.
I will repeat something I wrote in one of my previous posts:

"Am I not allowed to play the game in a way I want to?

I wanted to go against the obvious proposed decision to see what will happen.
I took a risk, curiosity killed the cat and my MC ended up dead. Game over.

No big deal, it was an interesting experience and, in my opinion, revealed an unfortunate game design decision - something that could have been solved differently, not with a "game over" but... the author has every right to do with his game whatever he pleases, it's his game.
My part was just to play it. I did. It ended for me.
End of story, no hard feelings, lot more other games to play. "

Did I really use future knowledge or just decided to go with the flow and ended the game?

Of course you are allowed. But as I included last in my last reply while you answering (i mentioned this so you may not have seen it), it is very different for a choice to be a bad choice one dislikes than to criticize it as a game design flaw. You are using future knowledge to criticize the choice. With future knowledge, the choice is trivial, from a maximizing results point of view, not immersion.

If anything, immersion taken to the extreme suggest you do what you did, your story in The Bite ended. But you could take the same approach in any game. Take any standard game that has battle choices, first person shooter, rpgs, pokemon whatever.. we usually die and reload.. or do you only finish games in which you never die?

 

[bosp]

Wording again...
Unfortunate game design decision does not equal game design flaw.

Also about immersion and combat-focused games, let me, again, call on Uncle Fredo's statement:
Offering the choice to "fight" offers the possibility of success.

In this game, unlike in others, that offer is a lie.

 

[Ayhsel]

Wording again...
Unfortunate game design decision does not equal game design flaw.

Also about immersion and combat-focused games, let me, again, call on Uncle Fredo's statement:
Offering the choice to "fight" offers the possibility of success.

In this game, unlike in others, that offer is a lie.

Uncle's Fredo comment of the possibility of success is ridiculous.

A couple of examples:

I can always decide to fight a marine. I have 0 chance of winning.

I can always decide to jump from a plane, my chances of surviving without parachute is zero.

I can always decide to hit on Natalie Portman. Unfortunately, I am sure my chances of success are close to zero... (i am too cute and my ego is too big to believe they are exactly zero)

Choice of trying to do something is not a choice of success. In almost anything, but probabilities can get sufficiently close. I can choose to go to work, whether I arrive successfully or not depends for example, on whether a meteor will strike me down. Given tha thise probabilies (and others) of me dying on the path to work is small, I choose to do it. But I choose actions, NOT results.

You are given the choice to fight Emilia, not to win. First is controlling your actions, second is controlling results. You mistook one for the other, I guess thinking "dev would not do this, as that is "unfortunate" design". Your assumption was false, maybe?

 

[TiffanyMonroe]

Fake choices/game over choices are almost as bad as pointless single choices so I'm ok with that ending. My mc had a good run shame he won't get to corrupt/breed that virgin nerd girl but my choices are my choices.

 

[bosp]

Uncle's Fredo comment of the possibility of success is ridiculous.

A couple of examples:

I can always decide to fight a marine. I have 0 chance of winning.

I can always decide to jump from a plane, my chances of surviving without parachute is zero.

I can always decide to hit on Natalie Portman. Unfortunately, I am sure my chances of success are close to zero... (i am too cute and my ego is too big to believe they are exactly zero)

Choice of trying to do something is not a choice of success. In almost anything, but probabilities can get sufficiently close. I can choose to go to work, whether I arrive successfully or not depends for example, on whether a meteor will strike me down. Given tha thise probabilies (and others) of me dying on the path to work is small, I choose to do it. But I choose actions, NOT results.

You are given the choice to fight Emilia, not to win. First is controlling your actions, second is controlling results. You mistook one for the other, I guess thinking "dev would not do this". Your assumption was false, maybe?

I thought about facepalming your post but decided it's better to respond with /facepalm.
We are talking about games, not real life, and about the choices offered in games.

So yes, in games explicitly - if you are offered a choice to "fight" there is always a possibility of success.
If not, you restart the fight and go again or go grind up your stats and go again or get better at fighting and go again.

Please try to leave RL out of this discussion.
I am a pragmatist by nature and there is some crazy lunatic Russian nazi who can press the red button and I will be extremely cross to wake up as amoeba a few million years after the nuclear winter ends and new life starts on this rock.
Not really a choice but it's a possibility.

 

[pronzcowboy]

This game made me buy Vampire: Bloodlines on GOG.

 

[Ayhsel]

I thought about facepalming your post but decided it's better to respond with /facepalm.
We are talking about games, not real life, and about the choices offered in games.

So yes, in games explicitly - if you are offered a choice to "fight" there is always a possibility of success.
If not, you restart the fight and go again or go grind up your stats and go again or get better at fighting and go again.

Please try to leave RL out of this discussion.
I am a pragmatist by nature and there is some crazy lunatic Russian nazi who can press the red button and I will be extremely cross to wake up as amoeba a few million years after the nuclear winter ends and new life starts on this rock.
Not really a choice but it's a possibility.

You facepalmed yourself with your last posts, once again showing a lack of understanding.

As I said, you are not given the choice to win. You wrongly assumed as much. Sorry. You are given the choice to fight. You can fight. You cannot win.

So stop assuming your assumptions are "what is right and correct about how games should be". There is nothing explicit about that.

A game is, after all, a piece of art. The artist, the developer, can design a game that is just about to frustrate the plaer. Example is doki doki literature. You cannot win that game, in the normal sense. The only way to have a "relatively good ending" is to force the save mechanics.

Anyway.. I explained the point. You can either agree or disagree, but it is what it is. You can fight, you can't win. As simple as that. Spoken like a true supervillain

 

[Catherine♡]

In Rebirth you already start the game with 'docile humans' giving blood to the Mc, and that takes a lot out of the morality of the act...
There is no such thing in this game (at least for now), and it will be very interesting to transform the mc into a monster or a vampire who doesn't want to lose his humanity but has to feed to survive.
Undoubtedly this will open space for many choices in the future and i can't wait to see more.

 

[bosp]

Anyway.. I explained the point.

Yup, you pulled a straw man.

 

[KingWeWuz]

It's explained by the doctor that vampires of the mc's bloodline can do special things, including compelling other vampires. But also, it's assumed they can even have babies with humans. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if he managed to survive in the sun.

Game theories:
-I'm guessing the mc could resist the platinum blonde vampire's compulsion because he is her descendant. She's probably ancient. And she probably got pregnant with a human baby. The reason the mc's instincts overcame her compulsion is because he has enough of her bloodline to overcome it. The reason she's so shocked is her bloodline should be able to compel anyone, including vampires, even to do things they don't want.
-The doctor is gonna get preggers with the mcs baby if he fucked her.

 

[FunFuntomes]

In the last couple of decades, there were numerous RPG Maker games that used GAME OVER mechanics on a standard basis, and so did a number of higher tier games.

Things happened, people did not like it so the whole system started to change, and "game over" started being used for the bad end story endings that had some content with an option to activate it if you wanted to see it.

In this world of games, AVN ones are a special case too.
Most of them are produced by small indie developers and live on generous patrons and, you know, small indie developers like to keep their audience entertained and try to avoid making game design decisions that can affect their audience's "happiness".

I also said, in another post: if the author is so bold as to, among say a total of 10 choice screens in the whole game include the one that leads to GAME OVER to prove some point then kudos to him.

And now we are back to the "unfortunate" game design decision, let me paraphrase what U

Dreams of Desire, Chasing Sunsets, Desert Stalker, Depraved Awakening, Long live the princess, Heavy Five... all have choices that lead to a game over an even MC's death... If I had the time and the will to do so, I could provide you a longass list of AVNs available on this site that "award" players with consequences of bad choices, but I'll let you do your own research

 

[cxx]

MC will become prince consort if I have a say about it...

and eventually duke by marrying that brat and disposing her daddy?

 

[JoeTheMC84]

and eventually duke by marrying that brat and disposing her daddy?

Naw, I'd rather start my own faction and become Vampire King.

Then marry her and the rest of my harem.

 

[bosp]

I've even used it myself from time-to-time,

Using a straw man logical fallacy tactics is a very shameful act for an educator... unless you were using it to win an argument with an angry wife. That I could understand.