So because there have been dating sim & mind control harem games before, everything that follows must be generic? Also, all games have been done before so people shouldn't bother with them either as they could also only be generic. The school setting has been used but it is part of the story and mechanics that I have planned for my game. I could set the game in France where the player works in a factory with only male coworkers. He uses pickup lines for girls on males and this results in a range of outcomes from getting the crap beat out of him to having sex with them. Original, but I have no interest in creating French gay porn.
First part is a contraposition and a fallacy therein. Just because "a" and "b", does not preclude "c" is true. I never conflated that because dating sims and mind control harem games exist in excess, that all must be generic. You're going on the defensive about a point and rather than actually respond to the point, you're applying context where it was never implied. You can do mind control harem sims if you want. I never said it's generic because x, just that you're not as unique as you claim. Two different suppositions.
Second part is false equivalency. Just because a concept has been done before doesn't imply all things in a similar vein will be arbitrarily reduced to repeating its predecessors in every way. Star Wars was a homage to Journey to the West, yet differentiated itself significantly enough not to be a carbon copy. The Orville is a homage to Star Trek, yet despite similarities in plots and setting, it's its own thing.
I don't know why you brought up the setting as a thing. As I said, it's not so much an issue as the premise is same-y to other games in a similar setting, so your uniqueness has already fallen short. You also claimed it was parody, but it barely treads that line. My criticism was that for someone claiming to be doing something "against the grain", you seem to follow it pretty closely.
You realize that you could answer your own questions by actually playing the game? You've determined nothing about the game is funny without even playing it. You may still not find it funny after playing it. But you're reviewing something you've never seen so you're not even giving it a chance.
This is a fallacy in itself. "You're not a chef, so how can you know if the dish is good?" "You've never driven this junk car, so how do you know if it will run or not?" I can appraise something externally and determine from what is known and observable whether something is or isn't. Also, your argument is generally a deflection and, in this day and age of consumers getting smarter about where they take their business, a position that often loses sales. It's the equivalent of saying your consumer-base is too stupid to know any better.
Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration. Having someone chosen to defend Earth based on achieving the highest score in a video game is satire. You may find it silly instead of funny. Sounds like you'd prefer a different approach than the one I've taken with my game. Both represent satire.
par·o·dy
/ˈperədē/
noun
- 1.
an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.
"the movie is a parody of the horror genre"
synonyms: satire, burlesque, lampoon, pastiche, caricature, takeoff, skit, imitation, mockery;More
Your claim was parody of a genre. Yes, satire and parody are mutual concepts, but not 1:1. Parody is a form of satire, specific to a certain style. You claimed parody. Don't go posting one thing and then claiming another. You're effectively insulting your intended audience when you try to deflect criticism the way you currently are.
So let's say you're playing the dating sim you describe. You build up your charm score to pursue a girl who likes charm. Only with your mechanics you fail with her because that would be funny? Players spend a good amount of time building up their characters. This would piss players off. Not make them laugh.
Angel Sim was my first dating sim. Most fun I had on newgrounds back in the day.
You're deliberately disregarding the point I was trying to make for the sake of deflecting criticism. You've now done this four times, and it's really not helping your position. I used the charm stat situation as an example of subversion, which is a form of parody. Here, let me get a definition so you can grasp it better.
sub·ver·sion
/səbˈvərZH(ə)n,səbˈvərSH(ə)n/
noun
- the undermining of the power and authority of an established system or institution.
"the ruthless subversion of democracy"
In media, to subvert is to take what is expected and do something in opposition. If you introduce your game as a parody of dating sims, then the subversion of expectations is already anticipated. You now have the task of turning that subversion into humor. Charm girl calls your character out for trying to build a harem and recruit her because you managed to focus all your effort into raising your stats that way. Athletics girl thinks you have more muscle than brain and is turned-off. Players already expected the outcome. Your job is to make the payoff worthwhile.
Nobody gets pissed off when the payoff to following an expected path fails and has worthwhile consequences. People are more receptive when a joke is funny. It makes them want to see what else they can encounter if they take similar paths in later playthroughs. Your understanding of what people want and what they
really want is grossly uneducated. I recommend watching the GDC special by Mark Rosewater called "Magic: 20 years, 20 lessons learned".
Again, you say everything has been done before so everything that follows is generic. And somehow, without even playing a demo of my game(which would still be a very limited part of the entire game to make assumptions as to how the whole of the game plays out) , you know exactly how I plan to use it and have labeled my use as "creepy". The mc device is optional and taking the easier route has been accounted for in lesser results for lesser effort. This will also impact what endings the player will be able to achieve. It sounds like you prefer a different type of game than Earth Girls Are.
The AK-47 was the first of its kind. It came with a myriad of design flaws, including frequent jamming. Over time, the US and even its originators, Russia, improved the design and renamed those variants. To this day, despite its flaws, the AK-47 is considered the premier assault rifle for military personnel solely because of its effectiveness and design. Not being a gun owner or military, I can, without a doubt, state that as a regular Joe, I can appreciate both the first iteration and its successors as fine assault weapons in terms of what they were designed to do. Just because my experience is limited to videos of people firing them and some research does
not preclude that my appreciation or understanding of what it is and how it functions is somehow too limited to criticize the parts which I do understand.
By your inability to swallow your pride and accept criticism from an external body, you've now deflected five times and proven you're not interested in what your intended audience wants. Nobody is saying because dating sims and mind control harem games exist, ergo yours is doomed to failure. What myself and other(s) have stated is that you're too bog-standard to call yourself original, and that your understanding of the genre and setting in the manner you choose to present them is under-developed, for lack of a better term.
Mind control is usually "creepy", no two ways. It's adopted that stereotype because porn writers aren't known for making something as rape-y and morally-questionable anymore acceptable. That said, I enjoy mc. I accept that my kink has a bad rep, and embrace it. You'll get several more opinions of a similar value. That's hardly an issue. I was just putting it out there.
Finally, unless the mc elements are anything aside an easy-win solution, I fail to see how I can't Big Chungus my way through the game and have my experience ruined by lazy design by a developer who refuses to take criticism. I don't say any of this for my benefit, either. It gives me literally zero return to tell you where you're going wrong and try to help you both focus and improve from the perspective of a prospective consumer of your product. If you want to go full EA and reject that, then have fun failing. Whether it's my kind of game or not is hardly a relevant argument. I
might be inclined to try it if you put in the effort to make a quality product. Hell, I can't tell you how many demo's of things that turned out losing my interest I've tried, and how many times I've found something appealing
despite it not being what I usually go for.
The secret to getting me to try your game and/or support you is listening and working to maintain focus. It's why Monster Girl Quest and Corruption of Champions are as successful as they are. A unique understanding and focus on what people wanted vs what the game is about. Hell, Savin could probably tell you how many submissions he's rejected the past six months for things that won't work in CoC2 and how many times he's put something to paper, only to scrap it because, despite it working, it didn't meet what he feels the audience expects in terms of quality.
