Were they? In terms of actual requirements, nothing changed for quite a while now. Hosted Games always accepted almost everything, and the official Choice of Games writers have used the same design principles for many years. Or at least I think they have—any of them is free to correct me, but recent games seem to follow the 2016 design guideline fairly closely.
As for the readers, I think they hold games to a higher standard than they used to. It’s hard to play old CoG stories without thinking “yeah that wouldn’t fly today” every once in a while. For example, compare the relatively recent Royal Affairs to the far older Affairs of the Court and tell me they weren’t written with completely different standards in mind. The former takes care to make every gender variation of every RO feel natural in the whole of 482k word story, the latter has less than half that word count, throws in fake gender selection and then splits the story into three parts like it’s Fallen Hero or something.
I think it’s those changing stardards that can make the newer games feel worse. There’s a reason we don’t see Zahary Sergi on these forums anymore—writers need to try harder now than they used to, and not all of them manage terribly well. Shame, but no reason to let nostalgia blind us to how the brand evolves, and how it’s mostly for the better.
I guess I see your point but not every good story has to be edgy or have a huge word count. I just think that the past few games released have just been terrible no matter what point in time they would have been released in it’s like they don’t put any effort into them or someone just had a funny idea in their head and decide to make it a novel. I feel like choice of games should in some way be some what more strict on what is released and what isn’t some of this stuff just clogs up the page and makes it look bad to new readers and drives away old ones. It’s a shame that it is harder for writers now a days and there’s nothing we can do but not all change is better and this certainly isn’t. Most games are bland and boring or just straight up odd. I guess it’s just the newer age coming and changing things.
I think its mostly that the standards for Choice of Games feel a little outdated. Since the standards are so strict, it limits the kind of games that authors create. The standards are fairly limiting and if an author’s proposal for CoG is rejected, they cannot submit another one for twelve months after. I’m guessing that unintentionally leads to “safer” proposals for games because the authors have one shot to get it right.
Another part of it is probably that Hosted Games has some absolutely amazing games (with very dedicated fanbases) so even if CoG hasn’t gotten worse, it feels worse by comparison. Hosted Games has evolved to improve the genre while CoG has remained relatively static.
A third part could also be the marketing. Sometimes new Hosted Games don’t even have release threads. It makes it easier for less popular ones to be swept under the rug. I guarantee there are as many “bad” Hosted Games as CoG, they just aren’t really noticed because no one knows they exist. On the other hand, CoG is both the “main” line and the one that is much more advertised with author interviews and all so all of its games (including the “bad” ones) are more likely to be seen.
I will say, not all more recent CoG are terrible, there have been a number of pretty good ones. Lies Under the Ice had problems, but it definately felt unique. Hannah Powell-Smith’s games are always very solid choices. Going back a year or two, The Dragon and The Djinn, Siege of Treboulain and Parliament of Knives were all bangers. I’m also really looking forward to Kyle Marquis’ take on Werewolf the Apocalypse in one of the upcoming World of Darkness games (since Night Road was pretty fun).
Hmm, usually Discourse puts a link in automatically so apologies for any confusion - I’ve moved a discussion that was getting deep into Dishonored over to Video Games.
YOU KNOW WHAT BROTHER, I GOT SOMETHING REAL SERIOUS ON MY MIND. WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THESE NEW POWER FANTASY ANIMES WHERE THE WHOLE “APPEAL” IS AN OVERPOWERED MC. THE MC IS USUALLY BORING AS HELL, NO PERSONALITY BESIDES “OH MAN I HAFTA GET MY REVENGE ON EVERYBODY WHO WRONGED ME”, NO FRIENDS, NO NOTHING. SECOND, THEY TEACH HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE LESSONS TO THE YOUNG PEOPLE (USUALLY DISILLUSIONED DUDES) THAT WATCH THEM.
NONE OF THESE PROTAGONISTS HAVE ANY FRIENDS OR CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS. THAT’S GARBAGE. FRIENDSHIP IS AWESOME. TOP BODYBUILDERS, STRONGMEN, MARTIAL ARTISTS AND ETC. HAVE FRIENDS BECAUSE FRIENDS PUSH EACH OTHER TO THEIR BEST. MEANWHILE, THE PROTAGONIST IN THESE POWER FANTASIES ARE GENUINELY REALLY SAD PEOPLE CORRUPTED BY THIS LAST FOR POWER, NOT STRENGTH.
AND THEN THE TRAINING ROUTINES IN THIS SHIT IS USUALLY AWFUL, SAITAMA’S TRAINING ROUTINE IS A JOKE, STOP PUTTING IT IN YOUR COMIC BECAUSE YOU THINK IT’S LEGIT. I SEE ALL THESE PEOPLE USING IT IN REAL LIFE AND YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS? PAIN. THERE’S NO VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL PULLS, NO VERTICAL PUSHES, NO HINGES, AND NO FLEXIBILITY AND MOBILITY. IT’S INCREDIBLY UNBALANCED. ALMOST ANYBODY CAN DO 100 SQUATS. VERY FEW BEGINNERS CAN DO EVEN 10-20 PUSHUPS.
ANYWAY, TRAINING SHOULD BE FUN AND LOOKED FORWARD TO. NOT A DAILY QUEST YOU HAVE TO DO OR ELSE YOU GET PUNISHED. LIKE WEIGHT TRAINING? AWESOME. CALISTHENICS? FANTASTIC. BOTH? BETTER. BODYBUILDING? POWERLIFTING? STRONGMAN? GENERAL ATHLETICISM? A HYBRID? ALL WORTHWILE ENDEAVORS AS LONG AS YOU ENJOY IT AND PROGRESS.
I disagree. Or rather, I disagree that this approach works for everyone. I have been seriously training for strongman competitions for about 3 years now. 4 general strength sessions a week, plus general increased exercise in other areas of my life. I’ve been waiting for that moment where I’ll start enjoying it because I’ve tried a lot of different physical activities over the years and I’ve not enjoyed any of them, so I’d quit and move on to something else, because the advice I always heard was “find something you enjoy”.
I’ve come to the realisation that I just don’t enjoy physical exercise. And that’s okay. I still do it, because I know it’s good for me and I’m an adult and as an adult sometimes you have to do things that aren’t fun that are good for you. I don’t think anyone would ever describe brushing your teeth, or cleaning your house as fun or enjoyable, but you still do it because it needs to be done.
Don’t most revenge fantasies have like one friend? Unless it’s to the point where everyone was killed. Besides. I’d say like Gojo’s whole personality was being the strongest. And having no friends.
It in fact a daily quest that you lose out on if you don’t do It is a chore.
This breaks my heart. It really does. I like somewhat set IF protagonists with defined relationships (I LOVE Ortega from Fallen Hero’s relationship with Sidestep, I LOVE Sam’s relationship with the MC in CT:OS, I LOVE all of the commander’s old friends in the Exile). I even like the band and Seven from Infamous. Predetermined “best friends” can almost always be sold to me and I will find myself being endeared to them.
However… I reread the Mind Bind demo this weekend and I can’t help but feel like Sally was such a forced character narrative-wise. It was the first time that a predetermined character relationship felt that way to me and now I think I can understand why some people don’t like it as much - something I didn’t understand before because most examples have been positive for me.
To be fair, I do know the logistical reasons why Sally is present in the story, but she doesn’t feel necessary to me in the way that the rest of the main cast is - and it’s especially obvious when I’m being told a deep connection exists and Button could never live without her but I, as the reader, still wonder why she’s even there half the time.
TLDR: I’ve realized that strong predetermined relationships and bonds can be a serious hindrance if the player/reader is not invested in the involved character(s). It seems like a fine line to walk between telling the story you want to tell while also ensuring that readers feel they can engage with the narrative in a way that’s satisfying.
I remember playing resident evil 7, and my friend insisted on saving Mia over Zoey and I was like I don’t know her, Ethan does, but as far as I’m concerned she chopped off my hand. Generally I’m fine with it though
Mia vs Zoe was an interesting choice because saving Mia also felt like the canon choice. And sometimes when a path is laid out as if it’s what you’re supposed to do, it can make us want to do the exact opposite - bad endings be damned lol.
That actually might also be another reason why the whole forced relationships thing can be grating if it doesn’t gel with you.
To be fair I’ve never played a run where I dislike Sally, but I always thought Mind Blind was pretty good about letting you decide your feelings towards all of the characters. I know there is at least one explicit option where you can say you resent having to rely on Sally, and you never would have been friends with her if it weren’t for the unique circumstances.
Sort of. About halfway into the story, you can send her home (up until this point she acts like and is still seen as practically family to the MC imo, regardless of player choices) and from there she does become bit less present but by nature of her role and “visions” in the story, she’s always around and the “closeness” still feels assumed to me - just much less so than if you were actively engaging with it.
I think if I liked her character, in general, all of this would be moot. But because I don’t and the BFF-ness is placed so strongly into the narrative… all of it will annoy me by default haha.
For the rest of the characters though, yeah I agree! Especially Nick and Button’s relationship has a ton of variation.
There’s always gonna be matters of taste involved in which characters with predetermined relationships work for which players. In general, it’s kind of unavoidable in most cases. Unless it’s the type of story where the protagonist has no memories or just doesn’t know anyone where the story takes place, you’re going to have to have known SOMEONE beforehand and had some sort of relationship with them. Friends, family, etc.
Some games can have multiple options for how you relate to certain people (like how Infinity has you determine whether or not you’re close with your family), other stories have a certain relationship that are too central to the plot and characters. Like, not every best friend character could work just as well as an enemy. Few could in fact.
A lot of people seem to think that the issue is predefined relationships (or specific types at least) in general, and while that’s sometimes true for some people, sometimes they’re focusing on the wrong issue. A lot of the times the characters themselves just don’t gel with these players so they resent being put together with them, and that’s all subjective. Sometimes the characters themselves are poorly written too, which means that the issue isn’t the pre-defined relationship but rather the character themselves not being good.
In this case, I think it’s not that it’s predetermined in general or the dislike of the character (or even the writing, as there’s people that like Sally I’m just not one of them unfortunately) but - a present day strong predetermined relationship you can’t control that pushes the disliked character into personal/intimate areas and scenes of the MC’s life. That’s likely what grated on me the most here.
Just came across this thread, seems like a good place to vent about a design choice I dislike after I just had it pop up again in an IF I was reading.
I am absolutely sick of games that have gender variable ROs, but instead of just letting you pick them they give you a choice between being into men, women or both, then put the ROs into pre assigned sets based on that (or sometimes randomized in the case of picking both, but that’s much rarer).
Like as a bisexual person it really annoys me cause I feel like it comes from some sort of fundamental misunderstanding of bisexuality. Like obviously I can’t speak for all bisexuals, but I think it’s fair to say that there many of us, myself included, who do not have exactly the same taste in women as we do in men, meaning that we’re not necessarily be into an RO no matter what gender they are; there are gonna be some ROs I prefer as a guy or as a girl.
The way I see it, whenever a game has gender variable ROs, they effectively have twice as many ROs as advertised (give or take a few for games where not all ROs are gender variable and/or that have gender variable ROs with nonbinary options). And by making the options be fixed they’re effectively locking the player out of half of them, while severally limiting their control in which half get locked out.
Now in most cases the easy solution is to just choose to only be into one gender so your preferred RO is the preferred gender. And in most cases this is fine, your characters preference is never mentioned again, and you can just go on pretending their bi. But its not perfect. For one, some games will reference that choice later on, which is not fun if your a bi person who wants to play a bi character (at least in my experience), and the other is that it can make it harder to actually play out being bisexual, by limiting your options when it comes to multigender flirting/romancing e.g. if I’m into RO A as male, and RO B as female, but choosing the bi option makes A female or B male, and I’m not really into the other 2 ROs, tough luck I guess, no multigender flirting for me.
To be clear, I’m not trying to accuse these authors of anything, I don’t think this is done out of any sort of malicious intent or anything, I just wish they would stop doing it.
Related to this point, there’s also the odd implication that, for example, as a gay man, you’d prefer every single person in your close circle to be male, and for every meaningful (platonic) relationship you have to be with men. And it’s just a fundamental misunderstanding of how human beings work. I know it’s partly being done as a wish-fulfillment thing, but it feels very artificial and, dare I say, insulting–like the expectation is that these NPCs exist purely so I can smooch them instead of contributing to the story in their own right.
Personally, I’d rather they did away with using sexuality as a toggle for gender altogether. Some might argue it’s less “forward” than just outright picking each gender individually, but, look: we all 100% know why the game is suddenly musing about the MC’s sexuality. Better gently rip the bandaid off.
While I do agree, choosing as and when you meet each character will require that you know who you want to romance as and when you meet them, which a lot of people won’t. Pure first impressions aren’t a good way to choose an RO, but by the time you actually get to know them, it’s too late to choose. Consequently, even though I would definitely prefer a more gender-balanced group in principal, in practice I would usually just switch almost everyone to male, so that I don’t accidentally end up with the RO I would prefer set to the wrong gender.
EDIT: Granted, now that I think about it, more than a few games do expect you to know who you want to romance right from the start, but that’s not good either.
