Your gripes with CoC II
- Thread starter Narmlet
- Start date
- Status
It depends on what sort of thing you mean by 'watered down' but a lot of whatever you have in mind probably is because a great deal of content written for TiTS involves writers not involved in CoC2 (or at least not nearly as much) and vice-versa.
Maybe its just me but I feel like 90% of the light armor in the game is skimpy/feminine in nature and it bugs me. Give me a masculine version of the witch outfit you get from viviane or the ninja outfit you get from the kitsune! I feel shoehorned into certain armor choices due to some scene descriptions of what my champion is wearing.
I agree, I always end up wearing the lamellar armour from Kohaku and never taking it off since I don't like the description of the other light armours.
It's all fun and games until the joke is on you and you meet a hornet who is into that shit. (Potentially literally.)
Just sayin'.
Well I just used them as example of kind of established npc couple bc seems like from reading their history and interaction they'll get together regardless after game (not in-game w/o pc's decision ofc). Like with how much they're into each other it seems like it will be like Azzy informing pc that she'll be getting into relationship with Lia. Bc I'm sure Jaelyn will get out of the dick ring soon or later especially if maid route when she gets herself together not being horny 24/7.
I also thought them getting together made more sense and natural than how Lia/Azzy got into relationship.
Yeah I felt disappointed in both jaelyn and daliza threesome & daliza solo sex scenes with vag only champs. Guess it was intended for dicked champs bc i couldnt get into the vag-only champs for daliza either.
But that's how I feel with most female characters in this game. They say they're into women but looking at their sex scenes especially compared to dicked pc scenes its like: "yeah I'm into women; women with BIG, FAT DICK(S)!" Heck I'm into dicks too but would be nice if they show same enthusiasm toward vagina (which authors like Alypia does rlly good job).
Honestly bc of that I was never into either of them so I don't really care about them getting together as Azzy/Lia? Kind of hypocritical of me but idk. Also Azzy/Lia threesome did feel much more involved than the Jaelyn/Daliza (but then again there's only 1 threesome scene for former and as for latter one if the scene is basically like a Voyeur scene with lack of pc involvement so I only count it as 1 threesome for vag-champ players).
Well I don't know exactly know what Nice Time for Roo is but I can guess from clues in forum. It's definitely not that but it felt like pc is basically a Voyeur or doesn't really seem involved in sex scene at all especially so if you don't have a dick (at least for maid Jaelyn).
I think Skow is just into seeing hot characters getting into it rather than focusing on pc getting into woth another character. And u know some ppl are into hot ppl getting it together and seeing them coupled rather than having their characters into it.
Which is fine but I'm not into voyeur or being bystander/simple audience especially in a game where you can self-insert and make ur own oc into the game like this. If it was a game with predetermined set of characters like a lot of porn games (and like Kinu's storyline in a way) I wouldn't care.
Yeah I found their relationship cute but it does feel very much like pc is just an outsider. But as I said I didn't really care that much for Daliza or Jaelyn so ...
I guess both of them are more for ppl into taking passive role in the threesome or having those main couple the focus of the polyamory rather than pc. Which is fine but I personally enjoy it when pc takes an active role both in&out of bed/fucking.
Not every threesome or relationship has to focus on pc but I like it when there's like an equal or similar amount of attention and pleasure given to pc regardless of whether pc plays a supporting (less focus) or dominant role (main focus). Like a good example of that I really enjoyed was Evelyn threesome where Evelyn is the main focus and PC is supporting role but pc gets a good amount of attention and pleasure as any other members in that sex scene.
Anyway....srry for long blarb of post and think I hit the complaint quota so imma hit the breaks on that for a while. Excited for the valkyrie quest so I can be a real sun mommy for dearest ryn (especially for my bimbo elf)!
Last edited:
It's so fucking annoying to have to unequip the corrupted dawnsword every time I want to use the waystone in the sun palace. Why couldn't I just go and ask her If I want it purified so I don't have to leave it in storage to go there and then pick it up again when I leave. I mean seriously does it have to be the moment I set foot in the place?
I think I could accept their relationship priority more if it were properly portrayed that the player is enjoying being on the outside part of it. Or if it were properly shown that your character enjoys watching Jael bone Daliza. But there's this...strange sort of neglect to the player's part in most scenes, like it was written to be Jael and Daliza, and then the writer remembered last minute that there's a player character that has to be involved. A great example of this is in the wayfort path, when you pick the spitroast option.
Once the actual sexy times start, the entire frontload of it (~3 paragraphs) is almost entirely about Daliza and Jael get into it and getting their clothes off with each other. You get half a single sentence denoted to your part in that process, which is that you just throw your gear onto the floor on your own while Jael sensually and lustfully removes Daliza's and her own. Only after those three paragraphs end does your character get involved, but it doesn't really say enough to make you feel like a worthwhile part of things. It's noncommittal and vague.
And that also colors the rest of the scene too, really. The champion is an afterthought in these scenes. The way your champion feels is never really addressed properly beyond vague physical pleasure and you yourself don't really do anything that affects Daliza in noticeable ways either. Virtually every line is about Jaelyn doing something to make Daliza feel better and better, but it doesn't directly translate to you getting off on seeing it--not like cucking or something. It's just a statement of fact. It goes 3 and half sentences about Jaelyn demolishing Daliza, and that last half sentence is about how it makes her suck you off better.
Hopefully this will really put it into perspective for those still on the fence about whether you really are just sort of an extra in their threesome: You can't even fuck Daliza in these threesomes. Doesn't matter which route you take, wayfort or frosthound. No joke. You can get or give oral, or take Jaelyn, but you cannot fuck Daliza yourself.
And again, it's not portrayed as a studding or cucking thing, your character doesn't get clearcut enjoyment from watching this stuff the way they do from, say, watching Brint fuck others. If anything, various points of dialogue make your character seem somewhat annoyed or dismissive of the whole thing, but also not hard enough to veer into fetish territory, like...Nice Time for Roo-type stuff.
These threesomes are just...nothing. They seem afraid to commit to any theme, which results in your character just sort of being there.
EDIT: Ohhh. Nice time for roo is a forum filter for the thing that I actually wrote. Huh. I figured it out by context when it was mentioned before but that's a strange filter to have.
Last edited:
Yes, "having to keep the corruption of her holy relic secret from the goddess" is the consequence of "corrupting the goddess's holy relic".
I still feel like there should be a compromise between "lore" and "mechanical annoyance on players part.". Let us hide it before going to her, or maybe make in lore reason that she can not turn it back into a holy relic. But she still lets us use it because we earned it and she trusts us. It is not like she objects to the fact that we are fucking Kas or making the wayfort out personal corrupt hole.
For, and lets be real, there is
For, and lets be real, there is
If I may posit my own theory, I would suggest the reason is as stated--to be annoying. It seems quite clear that they don't want you to cross the pantheon, and doing so even in the small ways they let you, is intended to be punishing in at least some form.
Now this may make me sound dickish, but I'll say it anyway. It's like a dungeon master in D&D or whatever that creates an item for a player and points them to a set path for them to use it, and then the player says no and goes to use the item for their own gain. In retaliation, the DM punishes that player through indirect methods/sheer inconvenience.
I've seen it before and hell, I even did something similar myself in my earlier years of DMing at 16 or so. It's just salty DMing, and a pretty minor form of it at that. It's quite literally one of the most common occurrences in tabletop gaming, and even though this isn't literal tabletop, it's got damn near every element of it. Only makes sense that it'd include the more common downsides from time to time, too.
Though please note, I'm not intending to say this is malicious treatment by the devs, but rather mostly just a dismissal of the subject. Dismissal, by definition, is "the act of treating something as unworthy of serious consideration." I'd certainly say "no and no" qualifies, but as I understand it, the explanation has already been given before. Dismissal may be justified in this case. I'm not here to judge on that.
Even if it's as simple as "you better take that sword off first or I'll mess with it," a punishment is still a punishment. I've seen it said that it's because she refuses to let you walk around with her relic in a corrupted state, right in front of her eyes. If that's their justification, that's it.
Though I don't agree with it, it seems to be something they're set in stone on. I'd just relent and let it be. If you have her corrupted sword, you clearly aren't a Lumite? Lumiatite? Lumi'ite? Whatever. You clearly don't RP her as your patron goddess, so how often are you really going to go see her and have to worry about it? Sure it's tedious, but it does seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill a little bit.
Now this may make me sound dickish, but I'll say it anyway. It's like a dungeon master in D&D or whatever that creates an item for a player and points them to a set path for them to use it, and then the player says no and goes to use the item for their own gain. In retaliation, the DM punishes that player through indirect methods/sheer inconvenience.
I've seen it before and hell, I even did something similar myself in my earlier years of DMing at 16 or so. It's just salty DMing, and a pretty minor form of it at that. It's quite literally one of the most common occurrences in tabletop gaming, and even though this isn't literal tabletop, it's got damn near every element of it. Only makes sense that it'd include the more common downsides from time to time, too.
Though please note, I'm not intending to say this is malicious treatment by the devs, but rather mostly just a dismissal of the subject. Dismissal, by definition, is "the act of treating something as unworthy of serious consideration." I'd certainly say "no and no" qualifies, but as I understand it, the explanation has already been given before. Dismissal may be justified in this case. I'm not here to judge on that.
Even if it's as simple as "you better take that sword off first or I'll mess with it," a punishment is still a punishment. I've seen it said that it's because she refuses to let you walk around with her relic in a corrupted state, right in front of her eyes. If that's their justification, that's it.
Though I don't agree with it, it seems to be something they're set in stone on. I'd just relent and let it be. If you have her corrupted sword, you clearly aren't a Lumite? Lumiatite? Lumi'ite? Whatever. You clearly don't RP her as your patron goddess, so how often are you really going to go see her and have to worry about it? Sure it's tedious, but it does seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill a little bit.
First -- why Bring RP into equation when a corrupt champ can still interact with her sect and even the Goddes herself if they so chose.
Second, -- everyone dislikes bad DMs.
Third -- yeah, that is there decision but it still one that people will have a gripe with
Fourth -- it is just unnecessary inconvenience for the corrupt champs. And unlike other game with inventory systems, for you to get rid off your sword without loosing it requires you to go out of your way to store into your storage. Not just simply unequping it , throwing it onto the ground and picking it up later. So if the sword is the main part of your build, it is more than annoying -- it is tedious.
And fifth -- Corrupt champs are part of the playerbase that already gets bottom pile scrapes in terms of rewards and content. So just them getting boned for finishing up a quest line seems mean. It is not like pure champs get punished for dating a god damn demon that is trying to conquer a world.
Now admitedly, the last point is aimed at the game as a whole, but this does not help the cause.
To reply in like format:
First: There's a difference between being corrupt in her presence and waving a corrupted thing significant to her in front of her face. Surely at least that much would warrant her reaction, right?
Second: Indeed. My focus was more on that this behavior isn't really that bad, not even the worst version of it that it could be, and is certainly not consistent from what I've seen. Maybe that tune'll change in the future, but for now I have no reason to think they're over in some private dev discord power tripping constantly.
Third: Fair. That is the purpose of this thread, after all!
Fourth: I'll concede on this front, certainly. It does seem a little extreme to go as far as forcing the player to stash the item entirely rather than just unequipping it.
Fifth: I've actually said what I think of this particular subject in my own thread here, so I'll refrain from reiterating my entire spiel from there. The tldr is that it seems very likely the kind of thing that's better done by working backwards rather than splitting development in half at this stage by focusing on both at once.
This topic brings into question a rather prickly topic that being corruption is in the name but nothing feel very deep. What I mean by that is in the quest they give you the dawnsword if you are good or a bimbo and if you are dark knight they give you a corrupted version with bimbo being able to over ride dark knight, now on its own they is a very typical choice be good, be evil and on its own as it should be with player choice and all. But my grievances could be best explained with an example.
My best example I can give without being unfair the the writers or going on an unfair tirade about the writers character is Fable. As in Fable 2 vs Fable 3 and how your action felt and there impacts. In 2 you can be an evil malevolent monster to the whole game and I'm going to exclude killing because this is CoC2 not murder sim, most actions felt like you are the asshole or the devil like screwing over the towns with high taxes making them poor or stealing the grave keeps wife. While in 3 its feels more like what CoC2 is doing with its evil where they let you be evil but at the end of the day you are saving the world from a approaching darkness after all so you cant be that bad, while I cant remember the quests I did get a general feeling my evil was more performative then malicious.
If we try to go by 2's logic the dawnsword could be explained away that the sword was too tainted and you didn't help clean it so its now to far gone and it's stuck that way to Lumia's lament so she needs to get or make a new holy sword with her power, unless she can't but that brings up other problems. But with 3's logic its does somewhat follow what CoC2 is currently doing with the whole hush hush on the PC's evil and more so make it that the PC seems to other characters lacking the information of what happened or that they are clueless on what happened and need help, getting rid of the possibility that the PC could have been malicious and keeping it that way.
This can fix in any number of way any such people could want but the most friendly to the current system would to simply add a bad end locked behind being corrupt and refusing to give up the sword getting yourself smote in the process as a way to give players the choice to stick to their convictions, as is hinted in the line why you have to give it up.
My best example I can give without being unfair the the writers or going on an unfair tirade about the writers character is Fable. As in Fable 2 vs Fable 3 and how your action felt and there impacts. In 2 you can be an evil malevolent monster to the whole game and I'm going to exclude killing because this is CoC2 not murder sim, most actions felt like you are the asshole or the devil like screwing over the towns with high taxes making them poor or stealing the grave keeps wife. While in 3 its feels more like what CoC2 is doing with its evil where they let you be evil but at the end of the day you are saving the world from a approaching darkness after all so you cant be that bad, while I cant remember the quests I did get a general feeling my evil was more performative then malicious.
If we try to go by 2's logic the dawnsword could be explained away that the sword was too tainted and you didn't help clean it so its now to far gone and it's stuck that way to Lumia's lament so she needs to get or make a new holy sword with her power, unless she can't but that brings up other problems. But with 3's logic its does somewhat follow what CoC2 is currently doing with the whole hush hush on the PC's evil and more so make it that the PC seems to other characters lacking the information of what happened or that they are clueless on what happened and need help, getting rid of the possibility that the PC could have been malicious and keeping it that way.
This can fix in any number of way any such people could want but the most friendly to the current system would to simply add a bad end locked behind being corrupt and refusing to give up the sword getting yourself smote in the process as a way to give players the choice to stick to their convictions, as is hinted in the line why you have to give it up.
Last edited:
It has been stated so many times, that the name of the game is simply to establish continuity and connection to 1, and not a statement of the actual goals or intent of the game. I agree that there should be more options for corrupt or evil champs, regardless of whether or not I would take advantage of them (I would not), but cmon I have seen it said so many times. It is not a game about corruption like the first one was, the name is just establishing that connection.
I know that and in fact have seen that statement said but I have to argue that point other wise it feeds the more negative thought that they just took the name to get a following and or to pillage some thing while leaving it at open for them have all the creative liberty's in the world and that then brings up if the game would work if it had its own name and didn't use the CoC naming in its title and if they really even care about the what they are trying to present with such a name.
But that so wholly negative that I would rather not even fathom it and such argue if they are using fully what they have gotten.
I also basically fucked my self by accidently saying "corruption is in the name" when talking about something else mostly.
Last edited:
Not everyone has been around the forums for years and read a ton of posts. Hell, steam user's get almost zero interaction from the devs (perhaps understandably considering the temperaments over there...) so even those who have followed the game for years like myself may actually know very little about the meta/design intentions.
Just a word from past experience that attempting to dissuade repetitive commentary on the internet because something's been said before is more or less a waste of time.
No no I fucked up even though I knew that fact and still screwed up by saying what would amount to a overused shit sling at the writers and I basically destroyed any valid point I was making by doing so.
Hard agree. It felt really weird and out of nowhere both times it happens. The first couple saves I went through I stumbled into the Azzy/Liaden and Daliza/Jae scenes because I mean lets be real here, who doesn't want to spend their time between two buxom beauties? Sadly what I got instead was the boner equivalent to a slap on the wrist for trying to sneak my hand into the cookie jar. As you stated earlier I could completely understand if it was playing into some other clearly defined fetish but it just doesn't feel like it is.
Certain scene options have information text when you hover over them to more clearly spell out what the player is signing up for by clicking them and I think that's the perfect solution. Just like how you can get a warning about whether or not a scene is going to involve someone putting something in a place you don't want it to go we should get a heads up about what the Daliza/Jae dates and the Azzy/Liaden scenes will entail for the player themselves.
Something like "be the third wheel" is the perfect description in that case because that's truly how it feels. I mean correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't the player character supposed to be the main focus of the game? It feels that way with any 1 on 1 encounters with those NPC's but then the second any couple action starts happening suddenly the champion is only really allowed to participate out of pity.
raises hand
As far as I know, writers attempt to avoid power fantasies. In the quest for creating a believable world, things happen outside of the Champion's reach, such as Kinu's life or relationships like these ones. I can understand why this can be read as reducing player agency or that one kink which name is censored on this forum.
I mean okay yeah, fair enough. But you still understood what I was getting at so my point stands XD
I totally understand that they're trying to make the world feel more realistic and I can't really fault them for that but in that same hand we're literally playing a game where its possible for the player character to have 10,000ML ejaculations and multiple dongs if they so choose. In my opinion the whole game itself is a power fantasy, you're literally some rando adventurer that shows up and starts sexing anyone you can while popping out babies left and right with 0 repercussions. Using the "but realism!" argument in this case is kind of a moot point in my opinion lol
I think it'd be better if the tone of the writing was changed. Like with the Kinu example you brought up; The fact that I was mostly an observer to her story as it progressed was made clear in the way the scenes were written. Occasionally you may get a little event to help shape her into either Inari Kinu or Hime Kinu but beyond those small decisions her existence in the story is mainly being fluff as well as a convenient plot device for all the potential Kiyoko children the character has. To me it felt more like Kinu was the main character in those scenes and we just happened to be present for them.
I did notice that a majority of the 1 on 1 content written for those characters was actually written by a different writer though so that's probably why the couple scenes feel so strange. Most of the talking and interaction scenes with Daliza, for example, are written by Savin but to the best of my knowledge the Jae date scenes specifically are written by SKow. Its hard to make sure that the feeling of a character is captured correctly in different scenes when multiple writers are working together to create the content and I totally acknowledge its possible that could be the reason for me not really enjoying those scenes. They just didn't jive with the mental image I had built up for those characters y'know?
Their game, their arbitrarliy applied rules and their writers' prerogative. ¯\(ツ)/¯
I guess that's because she was, alongside her mother.
Way too much
Indeed. I'm not asking for change or anything, just expressing my own opinions. I'm totally aware that at the end of the day if there is content in the game I don't enjoy I don't have to play it. I do enjoy the actual discussions with other folks who enjoy the games though, hence why I decided to show up on the forums.
Yeah and that's my whole point. If the writing for the other scenes in question changed the perspective just a bit I think it'd be much more enjoyable for people to stumble into rather than what we have now. As I stated previously though I'm not actually asking for a change to anything. I'm just enjoying having a place to discuss my thoughts on the game with other like-minded folks.
Writers are a vast and diverse group of people that certainly do not all try to avoid writing the same thing. Just as an example, almost the entirety of the Isekai genre is a power fantasy, and there are many, many, many writers within that space.
As for this, specifically, their point is that when the champion is in a sex scene, they're supposed to be more involved and their part written more about, unless the kink is focused on them not being involved in which case they're still written about. Again, prime example being when you watch Brint bone Elthara. Your character is described frequently enjoying the sight and much of the scene focuses on it as a fetish from the player's perspective.
In this case, it doesn't really try to be anything, so it becomes a sort of neglect as far as the player's role is factored in. And the player is supposed to be the main focus, yes. Even in your example, the fox stuff is some of the most widely criticized content and one of the common complaints is about how you have no agency, unlike the rest of the game. Regardless of where you personally stand on it, it is factually true that many more people criticize that portion compared to any other parts of the game.
I'd advise reading the discourse about this particular threesome subject over the last few pages of this thread if you'd like more info and examples. I and others have been talking about it plenty.
- Status