Edit: The main feedback that is being sought is one revolving around the story and code rather than geography and history.
Things like: Is it too long? Too short? Do you prefer stats over endings? Was one or two words misspelled?
Be on the lookout for misplaced pronouns.
Hmm… I see
No, it’s not like I accuse you of improper, unethical use of *fake_choice
(since now the *fake_choice can nearly do everything *choice can do. I found myself using a lot of *fake_choice too)
TBH I haven’t finished your game, as I found that no much thing are different at mid-game despite the choice I made. But if the ending does change, I guess I have to bear with it further xD
Perhaps, this will also be a good hinting to you that people love if the choices they made will alter the story they’re playing, be it at mid or late-game.
Oh, and about stats. FWIW, even if you plan not to include any stats, it’ll be better if you upload a stats file blank. This way, no stats will be displayed and no error will be occured
I think around 4 or 5th choice? When you’re asked about getting a job or something?
I actually do multiple paths, but since there’s no much difference about each path, I dropped at that 4/5th choice and post my opinion here.
Well, I’m not asking for any update though. But out of curiosity, is the choice you made will only affect the ending only? Or the mid-game will be affected also?
(maybe being a noble will alter the story that I can go study/work abroad/not, while being a farmer allows me to farm/work in city/suburban)
Upon the request and insistence of others, homosexuality was prohibited throughout the land.
Well, that’s not happy…
Where did you go? Italy? France? Portugal? Spain? No matter. You could afford to go to any one of them, or all of them for that matter.
France mostly existed in 1100; none of the other countries did. (Portugal gained independence in 1143, Spain was united in about 1500, and Italy didn’t exist until 1861). This is what Europe looked like back then:
Kingdom of Italy was present during Medieval times. Also, for the sake of the reader who most likely is not familiar with 12th century geography, it’s easier to say “Italy” than “Sicily”, “France” instead of “France, Normandy, Provence”, “Spain” instead of “Barcelona”, et cetera.
How familiar are you with choicescript coding? I’m just wondering if you might find it helpful to use *goto commands so that you don’t have to keep repeating blocks of text. Sort of like
And then the king said "hey, let's build a castle!"
#I helped him build it.
He was very glad you did. It turned out to be a great castle.
#I let him do it himself.
He was a bit annoyed, but he made a great castle anyway.
But then some mean duke came over and tried to knock down the great castle.
Ah… take that map with a grain of salt. While it looks like a decent overview, I’ve a few criticisms, one of which is particularly relevant in this case. That’s that it breaks France up into several of its feudal components in a way that’s entirely inconsistent with the way it depicts other areas. Yes, a lot of the duchies and counties and so forth were effectively independent, merely swearing fealty to the King of France, but they were nonetheless his vassals, and if they wanted to mark all those separately, why not do so for all of them? The Euratlas map does a much better job of showing the King of France’s domain. They also seem to have a rather peculiar notion of what constitutes “Germanic Nations,” including some which, sure, derived from Germanic conquerors a few centuries prior, but had since assimilated to the people they ruled. And, while this last one is not relevant to Europe, it does add to my concern about the map’s accuracy: the label “Khoisan Farmers” in the south of Africa, when most of these people would not have been farmers at all.
There was the title of Kingdom of Italy (which covered only the northern part of the peninsula) but it was effectively just one of the titles of the Holy Roman Emperor, and not his primary one. That said, “Italy” was around as a geographical term, as were terms you could effectively translate as “Spain.” And France was certainly there. “Portugal,” however, definitely wasn’t around.
I do wonder about how likely it is someone would be talking about going out to those places for studying, though. France, having close ties to England, would certainly make sense, and going to Rome for religious reasons makes sense, though.
Not just unhappy, but also distinctly anachronistic for several reasons.
Firstly, people in medieval times didn’t have the same concept of sexual orientation that we do today. While they might notice that some people had preferences, they thought in terms of what acts people did rather than as a part of who someone is. The term “homosexual” wasn’t developed until 1880 (originally in German), and similar means of discussion were still only originating around the century before that. So it’s just not the way they’d be talking about it.
So, that aside, if we look at how people viewed it in Europe around 1100, it was… well, not great, but also not as brutal as the popular imagination and grimdark storytelling might suggest. It was considered sinful under Catholic doctrine, but at about the same level as adultery, not as something specially worthy of singling out (as fundamentalists today often do). And, as a church matter, it would usually be more a matter of penance than anything more severe. People would have to keep it private, but this would be true of any extramarital relation. Not an ideal situation, certainly, but let’s not exaggerate it, either. (Exaggerating it can lead to perpetuating myths about homosexual history and reinforcing stereotypes about its condemnation.)
Now, over the next few centuries later than 1100, things would start to get a fair bit stricter, with social attitudes shifting, though varying a bit over time and place.
Anyway, in England specifically, it was only a church offence, not part of criminal law at all, until 1533. I think you could get a much more nuanced portrayal if you follow this rather than the typical but inaccurate ideas about medieval suppression. Dealing with social disapproval, the need for secrecy, expectations of marriage, and church sanctions all have more potential than a blanket ban, and for that matter resonate more closely with contemporary issues.
I certainly do encourage you to keep going! This is an interesting setting you’re working with
I would think that the reader would be fine with the terms. In fact, I would think that the names “Leon-Castille” and “Papal States” would sound far more interesting and exotic than “Spain” and “Italy”.
Normandy, for one, was a great area of conflict due to having ties with England and France.[quote=“TSSL, post:15, topic:23693”]
France, having close ties to England, would certainly make sense, and going to Rome for religious reasons makes sense, though.
Actually, France would have been a better place to go for a religious education as it was funded by the Church at the time. The Rome you’re thinking of at that time was different from what it’s known as today.
Italy was a more likely place to go if you wanted to be a lawyer and offered less religious courses than France (or even England).
A LOT of research went into this and from then on, just picked what felt was relative to the story rather than trying to squeeze EVERYTHING into it.
The concept of homosexuality did exist. It wasn’t called that specifically, but people were aware.
On top of that, it wasn’t the Church that pushed for the ban, but more likely the King as he tried to rule over every aspect of his Kingdom. Thought about talking about the whole disagreement between him and the Church, but this isn’t a precise history lesson, but more of a story that HAS TO BE simplified so as not to lose the reader.
This is not meant to be a commentary or a lesson, but a story. A story dealing with a topic that I will admit, am not 100% familiar with, but research was done before writing was even started, and even AFTER, did as much fact checking as deemed necessary.
I’ll be honest. If a story says “straights can marry the loves of their lives, and gays might be lucky enough to escape execution” then it’s probably not a story I’m going to get much enjoyment from. And if you’re not trying to write a story about sexuality, then don’t make sexuality an issue. Is is anachronistic? Sure. But, as you’ve already said, you’re just writing a story here, not a history lesson.