So, let me get this straight, I replied to a thread actually providing help, you WolframL, replied to the thread disputing a claim I made in one of my responses, without in any way shape or form trying to address the question that was posed prior. Is that because I already addressed it?
I doubt it, you seem to have definitively wanted to counter what I said - even though you had no obligation to do so.
It's always interesting to see how this community hates off topic discussions, but is so willing to partake in it if it resolves around something that is the "wrong" ideology within the context of this forum. It seems like this community hasn't changed much since I left this forum, which is ironic as I simply just replied to this thread with the goal of helping someone, but apparently expressing any potential gripes or grievances with the game is still not allowed.
Oh and to address your later point, WolframL, I do have an account, but it's people like you that seriously make using the forums not worth the time or effort, because apparently everything is perfect with the game, the dev team etc etc. If you cannot accept any form of criticism then what's the point of replying to someone who is critiquing things - because you're not going to convince them of your viewpoint - it just seems like you want to be seen defending or countering the criticism - even though it's an opinion based thing.
I'm not stating that everything I say is 100% accurate, but don't pretend like there's absolutely no avenue whereby the game or some interactions from the dev team are worthy of criticism. That just makes this "inclusive" community, seem like it's inclusive for only "right" think or people with the "right" ideology.
Yes? The game is incomplete, a fact that everyone recognizes, including you. Just because something doesn't have content yet doesn't make it a false choice. There are indeed several instances of false choice but most of those are explicitly signposted. You'll note that the decision to construct the Temple is actually framed in terms of the restriction it will place on Cait, not 'You'll lock yourself out of a ton of content if you don't pick this' as for example the Wayfort refurbishment is.
Again, you're stating that like it defends your point. Just because the game is a WIP doesn't mean that one cannot critique a lack of equal "pay off" for one choice over another. Prefacing it as though "there
might be some content for this choice soon™" is not going to make the choice any more desirable in the interim before said additional content gets added.
Meaning, that the majority of the playerbase will likely choose that "right choice" from the beginning, lest they wait for up to a year (or few years) for additional content for the "wrong choice"; because as you're even implying now, there's no definitive answer given on if there is to be new content for some of these "wrong choices", and when if ever, that content will be written or implemented.
Oh, and good to know that you are capable of disagreeing with the devs, as you seem to be in disagreement with TObs, as seen throughout the rest of your points on "false choice".
It's only a false choice if there is no content (or almost none) and explicltly never will be when you pick one option. If one choice gives an immediate reward of content and the other gives content that comes later, the choice is still a valid one even if it requires you to wait some amount of time.
I disagree with this. Enjoy picking the "wrong choice" and waiting for up to a year (or few years) for content in the interim. I'm sure you won't be bored to tears waiting.
You can critique things even with the knowledge that there may be more content for it later, because in the interim one will have to sit with one choice being unequal in the present.
Again, refer to the Arona pre-Companion content - the player could not interact with her for up to a year (iirc) after the Orc Village Quest had ended. If that was analogous to a choice, it'd be along the same lines (within the context of having to wait a long time for any additional content - making the "other choice" - as in the Corrupt Centaur Village and the Corrupt Hornet Hive, less desirable by omission - sort like how completing the Orc Village Quest left one wanting for more content for a while).
Oh, and even in your own post, you later refer to the fact that the Hornet Hive will not be receiving more Corruption content, or at least not from SKOW, so then you'd have to concede that corrupting the hive would then definitively be an example of false choice...
But I guess as you've implied before, you don't find false choices as being issues - just a process of WIP - and sure, whilst they might not affect you, I doubt the majority of the playerbase who actively want to play said "other" content would disagree with you, or at least not enjoy having to wait, with only your "promises" as reassurance.
Wow, who spiked your coffee with bitch sauce, Person Who Can't Be Bothered To Make Their Own Account?
It was more poking fun at you for always defending everything in the game, as well as the dev team. I get the impression that you're a backer, and find absolutely nothing in the game worthy of being described as "issues" or having "discrepancies".
Even though you acknowledge the presence of "false choices" in the game, you defend it stating that the game is WIP, as though that in any way defends the current content drought for some choices.
It doesn't help your narrative to admit that there are "false choices" - something people would definitely attribute to being issues - but then infer that referring to them as issues, or critiquing them is not allowed.
Oh, and even if one did not have an account, would that in any way shape of form devalue what they're stating? If that's your take... that's an interesting perspective...
Counterpoint, several writers have described to a greater or lesser degree of detail their plans for future corruption content. Just because the Centaur Village lacks it now and the Hive isn't going to have it because SKoW isn't interested doesn't mean all the writers aren't interested in that content.
Yes, I get that, but that doesn't mean that in the interim the disparity in the content for one choice over another is not worth criticism. That is the essence what I was saying.
You are directly giving the impression that nothing in this game is worth criticizing - everything seems to be completely 100% perfect according to you; and anything less - meaning gripes or issues with the game or devs, is something that you're going to condemn and reply to and dispute as false, even though you're also using your opinion to state that.
Oh, and your assertion that the Corrupted Centaur Village will receive lots of new content - that's speculation on your part. If one uses the prior evidence of what's happened with the Hornet Hive's Corrupt End, then they'd be forgiven for thinking that the Corrupted Centaur Village will be the same.
Especially given the additional context of the Corrupted Centaur Village being referred to as the "wrong choice" by a member of the dev team. That seems to signify that decisions that go against what the writer wants (which for some would seem to be corruption content), the other choice is going to remain lackluster - at least the interim - and that in of itself is worthy of critique.
If a player is presented with two choices, one that gives them a bunch of incentive and rewards for doing something, but nothing but judgement and an unequal amount of content for the other choice - you can't seriously advocate that those choices are then in any way equal - and that the player will definitively always pick the one with "less" reward for it.
Interesting also to note that you were not prepared to address the fact that the PC could not interact with Arona for around a year (iirc), before her Companion content was written - is that because it's worthy of being critiqued? Or is it because once again for you, that was not an issue - and everyone that has a different opinion is wrong?
Because... building a temple where Cait and Salwah can do their thing is totally equivalent in a moral sense to deliberately condemning an entire people to becoming permahorni bimbos or rape fiends?
I can't believe that's the conclusion you drew from that. I was actually alluding to the fact that these "false choices" the game presents you with seem to be coupled with morally judging the player for choosing the "wrong option". This is certainly implied within the Corrupt End for the Centaur Village Quest, with how Ahrmi gets kidnapped and the village gets corrupted, and the player should feel bad; much the same with how the Hornet Hive Quest Corrupt End.
And, much like the two examples above, when a player refuses to build the Temple, both Cait and Sally are disappointed, and it almost seems to infer that that was the wrong choice; so my point being, if the game is going to consistently almost imply morally judging the players actions, why not just award Corruption to be consistent with it, like the other choices.
It's kind of telling that you're okay to intentionally misinterpret what was said in the post, in order to further push a narrative for your defensive stance.
You have fifty in-game save-slots to play with and a literally infinite number you can create by saving to file. If you can't figure out how to save before making potentially momentous decisions or leave those decisions until the alternate option has more content (while trying it out on a separate file) that's not really the game's fault.
Yes, and while we do have
fifty in-game slots, that doesn't change anything. Making it the players problem is a solution that seems to be rather apt when comparing CoC2 to TiTS. TiTS acknowledge that not everyone will have backup saves for every specific choice or instance in the game, hence why when new content is dropped for a specific choice, they allow for a cheat to roll back to that specific choice to see the additional content.
One could argue that that is because of the limited amount of saves in TiTS, but to counter that; I'd argue that there's a high possibility that this way of having a cheat to view new content will still be present even after the TiTS JS port.
Prefacing it as though it's the players fault for not having multiple saves for all the choices in the game is in rather poor taste, it's in the devs best interest to make it easier for players to interact with new content because that's kind of the whole driving point of having a Patreon (or Incrementally) Developed game. Blaming players for not doing something to ease the process is an interesting choice - because as I'm sure you're aware, in other such day-to-day jobs, the customer is always right, even when they are in fact wrong.
Anyways, that's the difference in design ethos I've seen between CoC2 and TiTS, with TiTS being more willing to cater to players with QoL or ease of access for new content, CoC2 is much the same with it's "this is your problem" stance - which as I've stated before, seems to align with how the game, or at least inferred from the writers, judges you based on your decisions.
I find very questionable the idea that an unequal distribution of content somehow makes the choices in games less legitimate. If it makes sense for the thread of the story in question to be cut off after your character makes a certain choice - then I'd find it much less satisfying to see the devs bending the narrative to maintain the surface level parity between the outcomes and rewards.
My point is, why preface it as though the player has a choice at all then. If one is actively rewarded for one choice more than another, what is the incentive for the other choice.
Especially when considering that there may not ever be additional content for this "other" choice - or as WolframL seemed so glee to insinuate - even if there is the players who wanted it would just have to "wait".
And no it's not a request, but it is interesting that the majority of the choices that have the worst outcomes are Corruption based - which kinda of makes Corruption in this game less desirable - unless for a specific reason it is driven by a narrative choice - like interacting with Kasyrra.
There seems to be double standards when it comes to certain Corruption content when compared with other Corruption content.
At that point, if that is indeed the case, and certain writers don't like Corruption content - I'd say it's hardly fair to call this game
Corruption of Champions - because as seen with the Ryn example, there's so much wholesome content with her - when her character definitely seemed to have two aspects to her.
The "wrong" or "negative" choice being "bullying" her, but with such little content on that front, and with the limited prospects of there ever being as such due to the continual influx of wholesome content for her, leads one to presume that she'll never have that "other" content; or at least if there is, there will be a disparity between the two.
That is the issue I have with providing the player with choices, but not incentivizing them to be equal. If that's the case, then rather just remove the element of choice - which sure, has it's own issues, but at least it's not saying to the player that they'll (and rather unapologetically might I add) just have less content for the "other" choice.
The Observer is dead wrong IMO when he calls out something like choosing between Kas romance and antagonism routes as being a false choice. Not letting all of Kas's hot sex and cute dates close the player's - or the character's - eyes to her unapologetic acts of evil is among the most important choices the game could ever give us, in part because of the fact that falling for her provides so much extra content. Credit where it is due, btw, Observer's approach to balancing the incentives for each set of competing routes that he creates is just as valid in principle and his ability to stick to one project until he covers all the important angles and creates full feature complete routes is quite commendable. I remember back in my lurking days getting a tiny glimpse of Kiyoko and Gwyn's design docs and my old laptop almost dying as it tried to load the insane amount of pages those had into the online version of google docs.
Feel free to disagree, I won't admonish you for it (unlike what seems to be happening with the other replies to my posts...). But at least entertain the thought process that there is an avenue worthy of critiquing it.
I agree with TObs, because from a narrative choice it reinforces that some things are just going to be more rewarding than others, which is fine in moderation - but then it causes a paradox, because this Corruption content (Romancing Kasyrra) is rewarded, and the latter (not Romancing her) isn't.
But then the later Corruption content in the game is more punitive than the "Pure" choices - and there are more of those instances of it being punitive than positive.
Which then infers that the player should rather just align themselves with the writers whim on those specific "choices" - instead of trying a Pure playthrough or a Corrupt playthrough, because one is going to be more supported than the other.
Anyway, going back to the topic of unequal choices: I feel that your arguments are stronger when it comes to Centaur Village murderboner route and the Corrupted Hive one, since the cut offs there seem much more arbitrary than not. There are obvious ways those stories can continue from the place they are currently left at, so if they are left as stubs indefinitely it can be a legitimate issue. However, we will only be able to make that final jedgement when the game is finished, several years from now.
Hey, I mean if that's your stance, then fine. But I definitely feel like it's worthy of critiquing them if in the interim the player has nothing to show for that "other" choice - the player won't get any enjoyment out of it in the interim therefore whether it gets content later down the line it'll just be correcting something that should have been addressed at the start - like with what your TObs example stated - they usually cover everything on one project before moving to another, which I'd argue is much preferable than drips and drabs of content whenever.
If it takes years for that "other" choice to have anything to show for itself, then that in itself should definitely be worthy of addressing as an issue - but that seems to be something the community (at least within the context of this forum) is not okay with claiming as such.
As for Cait and her Temple, I'm not sure why you find it unusual that furthering your companions' goals gets you more of their content. Or what is objectionable about there being less or no content behind the other choice, aside from maybe the tiny chunk that is optional of plot-related stuff. The main reason not to build the Temple would be not caring about Cait or Malachite faith enough to bother with it, or actively disliking either/both. I'm not sure what content can even be used to 'balance out the choices', aside from rubbing the fact that you don't care and/or hate them into Cait and other Malachites's faces.
I don't take issue with it being more content focused on the Companion. I dislike the fact that main plot content is tied to a Companions "optional" content.
That would be like saying that the only way for the PC to interact with Keros, and get the backstory on him would require the PC to have romanced Kiyoko, which just isn't the case. The PC can still interact with him to a much lesser degree via just completing the Kitsune Den content.
That would be somewhat analogous to interacting with the Main Villain through some "optional" Companion content, which is what I was inferring.
As for your last point, uh, no? Don't tie Main Plot content with Companion content, because as everyone so famously states: apparently you're not forced to use Cait as a Companion. So why further the plot so much with her content? Why definitively explain the context behind Kasyrra's motivations via her content (in much greater detail than previously stated throughout the game, like the Tutorial and the Winter City arc)?
I don't mind that the PC gets nothing in return for not building the Temple, as that would be a fair reality, but tying Main Plot stuff to that choice is where it becomes irritating.
As Alypia said, there might be some more content pertaining to the Main Plot in equal capacity for those that did not build the Temple, but that would still be contrasted by the fact that it was always second in intentions behind the Temples Main Plot content.
The game signposts its most important, route-defining choices in big bold letters. You get a ton of save slots and a Save to File function. Just make some saves at key points of those stories, make appropriate notes so you don't forget what each file is about. Load an autosave if you somehow rushed past the important choice and then make a proper save. EZ.
I'll refer you to what I said previously in reply to WolframL on this point.
But I'll further say this: If I was to have saves for every instance of "choice" within this game for every character I've made it would be incredibly messy to maintain consistencies of different branches and progress for each character. Having the option to easily be able to go back to new content without having to have specific "checkpoints" would definitely be better QoL than what it currently is - especially when considering that saves can be corrupted (save to file) or lost if in browser and no cloud saving is available.
I'd argue that having the ability to input a cheat to reset a specific flag would be easier than blaming players for a lack of consistent "checkpoints" or expecting them to make use of the save editor. Especially when considering the entire point is to push new content as a sales pitch for backing the game - why not make it easier for people to see it with their already existing saves (if they're caught up with the current content).
Otherwise the only alternative would be to run through the game again, which is fine to a degree, but then if after the TiTS JS port is completed and it still allows for the cheat rollbacks, this disparity will definitely be contrasted.
