Another Rage Thread: Please Rage In An Orderly FashionAnonymous2016/12/13 (Tue) 08:21No. 22796▼
Expand All Images
File 14816173045.jpg - (1.14MB, 1000x1414, you know shes tired of your shit.jpg)
On account of the previous thread being on autosage, we have taken the opportunity to take up operation of the succeeding thread. Kindly submit your rage for consideration. You will receive a reply in 3-5 weeks.
>>22805 Okay... No, wait, that's not okay. Holy fucking shit. Holy mother fucking ass crack bitch son of a small city-state of whores. How I'm the fucking fuck fuck dick does that even happen? And baby Jesus in a goddamned cross why does that happen? I'm out.
>>22801 Fallout Gensokyo is one of my favourite stories on this site if not my favourite. I'm not sure if the emotion I feel at it not continuing would be rage, but at this point I kind of just hope that fallout anon is alright.
>>22832 You're right, it is not unlike a romantic relationship, and just as in such a relationship, the contribution goes both ways. If a writer is rude, uncooperative, apathetic, and punishes their audience for things that they cannot help, the voters will leave, as you have said. However, if the audience is rude, uncooperative, apathetic, and punishes the writer for things that they cannot help, the writer will lose motivation to write. Of course, I do not have to deal with a rude or otherwise assholeish audience, and I'm sure most of THP writers don't. However, apathy can be just as damaging. If an audience is continuously apathetic, the writer will lose the drive to work together with them. To take this relationship analogy even further -- if you put your all into pleasing your partner during sexual relations, it is not unreasonable to expect them to do the same. Just like people quit relationships when their partner stops caring, if voters are constantly apathetic about reading, voting, and discussing, there's not gonna be much writing.
>>22831 This isn't my job, it is a hobby. I write CYOAs because I enjoy doing it. Yes, I am responsible for my work, but I do not have an obligation to put in 150% just because my audience is putting in 50%. Again, if I wanted to write linear stories, I would. I write CYOAs because I want to craft a work with my audience. I enjoy writing and I enjoy working with my audience. I enjoy the CYOA process. There is no point in railroading. It doesn't accomplish what I came here to do, and it doesn't give my audience what they came for (an interactive story).
In your analogy, I am not the driver. I am the car. I take my audience where they want to go. I show them the world outside. I take them down roads that have been laid out for them. My audience is the driver; they choose where to go and what to do next. If the driver refuses to decide where to go, the car does not decide for them.
I would like to make it clear that I do not see a tie and immediately throw hands and walk away. I do wait. I do poke. And, sometimes, I do flip that coin. One must consider how often I should be flipping that coin, and the threshold on the amount of influence a given vote should lead to before I leave it to chance. Certainly, if my audience has gone back and forth over a vote for a bit and nobody seems to be budging on their decision, it would be prudent for me to step in. In my experiences, however, this has hardly been the case. The amount of discussion that goes into these important ties are not exhaustive. They come down to a few people voting with minimal, if any, back and forth. If you read some of the older stories on this site, you may find that many of the decisions are debated at length by their audiences. This is simply not the case in my experiences. I realize that the amount of traffic on THP has dwindled, but evidence suggests that voters still do exist. A little bit of discussion goes a long way. If I see that my audience is at least putting in the effort to think about these important decisions, I have something to work with. If I understand what my audience thinks of the situation at hand and how they weigh the risks, I can create compromises. However, I can't do any of that if my audience doesn't at least discuss the decision at hand.
>>22835 >if voters are constantly apathetic about reading, voting, and discussing, there's not gonna be much writing There's no active community that talks outside the stories that's not on IRC (from what I gather, anyway), and IRCs are not a valid substitute for shitposting on imageboards with random anons. That's why it feels apathetic or "hollow", right? No sense of community.
You know, if every anon took time to thoroughly fuck up front page with pictures and shitposts at least every week, we'd have what you want here. And I'm saying that unironically, we need the /jp/ spirit back.
Of course, there is always a Plan X that involves a hideous amount of proxies, two cans of beer (ZUN approved!) and a folder of reaction images. Don't tell the owner of the site.
>>22837 jaypee lives on in my heart. But please, don't even say that as a joke! You'd break my spirit with the amount of time I'd have to spend dealing with spam instead of writing playing the vidya.
>>22838 Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you probably believe that the previous poster was me. It isn't. I don't post on /blue/ generally because a) I find the concept of rage/sadness/joy threads silly and b) if there's shit I want to tell readers, I'll just tell them in my threads.
All I will say about the subject right now is that, motivation-wise, even the smallest gesture from the readers can go a long way in helping sometimes. A cute image, a silly tangential discussion about waifus in a thread or speculation can definitely fire me up. Whatever else, that feeling of solidarity, feeling engaged with the readers, working together, sharing good times is one of the best rewards of doing the whole CYOA thing. Just as it (hopefully) brightens up your day to see your favorite story update, it sure brightens my day to see fun reactions. I'm sure a lot of other writers will feel the same. Conversely, getting nothing makes it feel like we're just going through the motions and makes it harder to keep going. Or even realize if we're messing up until there's no one left voting.
But this is stuff that I've talked about in my threads and have no desire of typing out here needlessly. It's time better spent doing things that may or may not be writing about 2hus.
>You'd break my spirit with the amount of time I'd have to spend dealing with spam instead of writing playing the vidya.
If you're not writing, shitposting or managing the site, you're not being a productive member of THP. I could single-handedly contribute to THP's activity and attract more anons. Just think of the sheer amount of votes! Daily updates of 3+ writers won't be just a dream again!
If you update and keep updating, nothing will happen.
>>22835 If you are the car, and the audience are the drivers, then that would mean that the votes are the gasoline. Some of the drivers want to put regular gas in the car, others prefer to use unleaded gas, and some other drivers prefer to use diesel. Any of these choices will make the car go just fine with any combination of gas.
The car in your case however is different. In your case, if the drivers put one gallon of unleaded into the car, and one gallon of diesel into the car, then the road trip is over forever because the engine will spontaneously burst into flames.
Most other cars have an emergency failsafe built in to prevent this from happening. When those cars detect that the gas tank is 50% unleaded and 50% diesel, the car makes an automatic emergency call to Flippy McCoinflip's gas station, who runs over and puts one more drop of gas into the tank. Sure the type of gas Flippy puts in will be random, but the roadtrip will continue.
The author is the kitchen, the audience are the chefs, and the votes are the ingredients. Some chefs fill the kitchen with vegetables to make a vegan meal, other chefs fill it with meat for a more carnivorous meal, and still others fill the kitchen with sugar and sweets to make all dessert all the time. Any of these ingredients will make a tasty meal in any combination.
This particular kitchen however, works a little differently than other kitchens. This kitchen was constructed in such a silly way that, if at any point the kitchen is filled with 50% vegetables and 50% meat, the kitchen catches fire and burns to the ground, which means that everyone goes hungry.
To prevent this, upon noticing that half the kitchen's shelves are filled with vegetables and half are filled with meat, other kitchens will call in Coiny McFlipacoin's Catering Service. Coiny will then rush over with a random ingredient in order to prevent the kitchen from burning down. None of the chefs know what ingredient Coiny will bring, but they don't care because now they wont go hungry.
Best food analogy I could come up with. How was that.
>>22852 you're a burger-flipping waste of space that works from nine to five for a living in McDonalds you have a big burger and a small burger in your order queue, but for some reason you can't just pick one - you're OCD is triggered so you just make neither, your manager fires you and you starve or find another job
>In your analogy, I am not the driver. I am the car. I take my audience where they want to go. I show them the world outside. I take them down roads that have been laid out for them. My audience is the driver; they choose where to go and what to do next. If the driver refuses to decide where to go, the car does not decide for them.
Yeeeeeah, no. That may be how you see yourself in this scenario, but that line of thinking is precisely the problem, here. When you say "I'm just the car, the readers are the ones doing all the driving," all I see is someone trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility for a problem that they helped to create and continue to perpetuate.
I feel like this is something I shouldn't have to point out, but just in case you need to be reminded, your audience is not a hive-mind. It is composed of multiple individuals with their own preferences, priorities, likes, dislikes, and so on. If you were to attempt to coalesce them all into a singular entity, you would most likely find yourself with a schizophrenic who, while having the occasional lucid moment, also suffers from an astonishingly short attention span.
That is your "driver". That is what you are claiming to surrender all control over the course of your story to.
You are not just the car in all this. You are not a passive element with no control or influence over where everyone goes. You are not simply "showing them the world outside." You're making the world outside. You're not just "taking then down roads that have been laid out for them." You are the one laying those roads down. All those choices your readers keep getting tied up over didn't write themselves, you did. Your audience is unable to reach a consensus with the choices you created and presented to them, and yet you insist that you should have no part in resolving a conflict that you are directly responsible for creating? How the can you honestly and seriously claim "I write with my audience," and then turn around and take such a hands-off approach when your audience gets stuck on whatever choice you've given them because you think they just aren't tying hard enough?
You can say stuff like: >There is no point in railroading. It doesn't accomplish what I came here to do, and it doesn't give my audience what they came for (an interactive story).
But you know what also doesn't give your audience the interactive story that they came for? Not continuing the interactive story at all. You're okay with that? More importantly, are your readers okay with that? Have you asked them what they would like done about their ties? Would they really rather not have the story continue if it keeping it going means compromising on their choices?
I'm asking honestly here, because for all I know your audience is full of the "I'd rather have nothing" type, though if that were the case I would wonder why we are even having this discussion.
I've said it before, but if you don't like the way things are and want them to change, doing nothing is not going to solve anything. Change has to come from somewhere, and if it's not going to come from your readers than it must come from you. There is no other way.
If you want to keep writing these things you claim to enjoy writing, then stop giving yourself excuses for not writing them. If you want to write with your audience like you say you do, then stop placing all the blame on them for not keeping things moving and work with them to get things going again. You have options. You've got suggestions for how to deal with your tied votes. You don't like those suggestions, fine, then come up with something else.
This is probably the last I'm going to say on this matter. It's late, I'm tired, and I fear the longer this goes on more likely it is that I'm just wasting time and energy that would be better spent working on my own problems. Whatever happens, I hope things work out for you.
You are god! Your toys loyal subjects hunger for food and refreshment! Some want water, others want meat! However, one doesn't replace the other — they are completely different, which symbolizes the importance of the vote. Now, you're running low on god juice, so you have to give them one or the other. Meat or water.
Who dies? Who lives? Their lives are in your hands. But, if you don't do a thing, they will all die. If you wait too long, they will slowly drop like flies. Telling them to change may work, but not always.
There. I feel I've shown the difference in two bandwagon perspectives. Yes, you might convince some from one camp that you need water more than they need meat, but it's not what they truly want, is it?
However, to lay all blame on the au— god is also equally foolish. Without discussion, they may see inaction, regardless of one giving an 11th commandment that thou must make snappy choices, as apathy. It's not one party's fault. It's a team effort: you all failed to communicate, and now nobody is happy. Effort may be put out by the author to have effort put out by the voters, and effort might at times be required on the voters' part to poke the author, but, in the end, the blame rests with everyone.
The only thing wrong here is that nobody would willingly starve to death. They would simply find a different God. A different God that is, perhaps less preferable to the old God. New God is, however, putting out food to eat, even if that food is Kantai Collection flavored.
>KC Goddamn if I didn't try, but that food is inedible. It's every animu stereotype in one, horrible, harem fantasy package.
Not saying Touhou is great, but it works. It's like comparing Sao vs Re ZERO, DMC4 with DMC3, Shantaram vs East of Eden, The Illusionist vs The Prestige. A similar premise with similar ingredients that just falls flat.
>Sao vs Re ZERO Both are equally shit. It's just that reasons why they're shit are slightly different, so it looks like one is better than the other if you squint hard enough, but they're both terrible.
>DMC4 with DMC3 Those two are radically different from each other by nature of the combat system, and while DMC4's levels were reused, it's combat system more than made up for it. They're both good, but for different reasons.
They're cantonese cartoons, of course they're shit. But a connoisseur such as myself can differentiate between street dog shit and a pure breed dog shit. Of course, you may disagree with my views, but then you'd be wrong. And nobody cares. What wrong people think.
>DMC4 vs DMC3
Oh shoot, that's a good point. DMC3 vs DMC2 might have worked better.
>>22860 As far as fans go, they're the same, including fuckers who drag on fanon memes especially flat chest ones too long.
Dunno what to say about KC's mild tendency to canonize fanon, but I will say it's better than actively trying to shit on common perceptions of characters.
But one can't really compare them as one's a long running doujin STG series and one's a proto-mobage game.
It'd be better all in all to compare Touhou with a more typical doujin cute'em up.
>SAO vs Re:Zero >Implying SAO was particularly good
Accurate shitposting aside, this is a classic case of something rather shit and a clone of such (well one of hundreds; the LN scene is flooded with shit)
>DMC3 vs DMC4 DMC4 wasn't exactly terrible, just that it was rushed for the PS3's launch. SO yeah it won't be as polished as DMC3:SE (the original non-SE launch had a few issues itself), which wasn't rushed. Though DMC4 one up'd DMC3 in that Dante can flip between all his styles in a mission.
>>22953 Nah, I won't. Given how dead the site is, there's nothing wrong with letting authors know there's still demand for their story. I know I'd feel glad/embarrassed/motivated if people kept the fire to my feet. So it's fucking stupid to make a big deal out of a simple bump.
1. We don't have enough writers. 2. This anonymous thing is kinda pompous. If I want to go, "hey I was the one that wrote that write in!" or "you bunch of bloody bakas I said raise the prices ONLY A LITTLE" I shouldn't have to highlight the post I made.
See image for the path the world is taking.Nefer Nightbug2017/02/04 (Sat) 20:48No. 22958▼
>>22957 >This anonymous thing is kinda pompous. I'd say it's more self-important to put yourself on a pedestal on an anonymous imageboard. The purpose of anonymity is to strip identifying characteristics and make one judge far more on a case by case basis rather than an interpersonal one. Though of course there are many exceptions to this rule, if you desire reputation and prestige in general discussion, id recommend a forum.
>>22957 >We don't have enough writers. No, we don't need any more. We have enough randoms who try and start garbage stories and disappear after two updates. What we need are current writers who are both active and engaged. And for older writers to stop fucking around on IRC and get back in here, I guess.
>blah blah anon Look at the UI for this site. Does it look like a forum? No, it does not. You're on an imageboard; imageboards usually imply anonymity. Complaining about that particular part is missing the point by a mile.
>>23010 Ah, that's good to hear. Well if you can tell him just say that I - and I'm probably not the only one - miss his story. We still have to go back to Meiling and Koa there. Hope to see news in the future.
I may start to use IRC. Just to chat with some authors/users.
>>23030 Some boards just don't get traffic. Some of it has to do with peoples' tastes; some of it has to do with people not expecting activity there due to history. It'd be nice if that wasn't the case, but inertia is real.
I wish EZMode didn't went crazy and retconned 8 threads of content only to abandon the story a thread later. He only had to find youki and mima, visit the underground and beat Tenshi to turn celestial, bang Yuyuko and finish the story. Goddamn it.
Well then go update. Jeez Anon, you should be able to solve this one.
Also, on a somewhat related note, I really dislike how authors on this site try to drag their dead horse story through the mud. Bringing your damn stories to a logical conclusion and starting something else in a timely manor is the first step twords renewing reader faith and confidence in their authors.
>>23116 That feelio when no long-dead stories viable for spontaneous (and one-time) revival to spite this Anon because I finished them all. >>23117 What about moderate OCs who fit within the setting's rules and origins? Though I'll say, I don't know how often we get, say, someone from the Human Village going around hareming the 'hus.
I originally put work on my as-of-yet unfinished updates to go on a holiday, and now I'm still here, away from all of my work and with little time to think about writing. Not quite a rage, but kind of a pisser when I think about it.
A couple of years back I made a butthurt post complaining about how #thp people have next to no interest in touhous, this site and stories and rarely if ever discuss any of those. Now, while I'm still every bit as butt-frustrated about that and could rant on about it, I have yet another pointless complaint.
As if that weren't enough, they ALSO have garbage fucking taste in everything else. I swear to God, who discusses and plays fucking MOBAGE? You have to have severe brain damage to spend money on this shallow, exploitative, stupid, shitty glorified slot machine trash. Let's not forget the worthless boatsluts and awful anime, as well as a hundred other little things like people's personal problems nobody cares about. If you're gonna be useless and off topic, the least you could do is discuss things that aren't the absolute bottom of the barrel.
And before you ask why I'm there if I hate it so much, I have certain writing and touhou keywords that alert me if any actual interesting discussion is going on, though god knows it happens rarely enough that it might not even be worth looking at that den of shit taste.
>That moment when you find a glaring mistake in your last update For fucks sake I hate that feeling. I even spend the time to reread the entire update twice while it's in the site's message box before posting, just to try and catch the last few mistakes that slipped past my proofer. And now when I look at it again, a good few days after posting, I find a big fucking error. Fucking hell, it makes me feel stupid.
Well, I could recommend my own, if you like. There's a few choice stories within the 20-30 I wrote that I'd call the creame of my crop, even today. My most ambitious stories, even if they often didn't turn out quite as I planned.
Why do people keep posting their AU stories at /th/ when their nature makes them more fit for /others/? Is it because they see /th/ is the most active board and they aim to get more readers? Or is it because they simply don't know any better? Either way it makes me sad to see the rest of the boards so devoid of activity.
Doesnt fit my taste at all, its a giant mess in my opinion. The Touhou elements are so different that I struggle to read it for Touhous sake, the undertale elements seemed tacked on for the sake of it. Godspeed to the author and whoever reads it, that combo just doesnt work at all for me, at least not in that way.
>>23267 Maybe they are like me and started reading it, but were turned off by the unfairness of the puzzles. I mean seriously, looking at someone to death?! The writefag tried to justify it by calling it a tutorial, but he never explained what the tutorial was supposed to teach us. Is the rule supposed to be "fairys die by looking at them too hard", or maybe "blue things die by looking at them too hard", or could it be "winged things die by looking at them too hard", or even "cold things die by looking at them too hard", or is it perhaps something else entirely? We don't know, and the remaining voters probably will never know until the writefag says that anon looked at something else too hard and accidentally killed it.
That was about the point I dropped off it too - I was enjoying things up to there, but then Cirno just up and died while we were fighting her with no indication as to how and it was played as this big dramatic thing when it made no sense whatsoever. Puzzles are fine, but there has to be a clear cause and effect. As it was, it just felt like we wound up skipping several hypothetical updates to arrive at "FAIRY IS DYING BECAUSE OF YOU".
Negative defense is what it is. It killed because it hurt her eyes with the flash from checking. It's a story where you can load whenever you want, so I'm still not entirely sure why you've such an issue. Cirno wasn't even dead for crying out loud.
The entire reason it was a big deal was because the MC thought she killed someone. I used this as a demonstration of negative defense being a thing, but, with how outraged it apparently made people, I was forced to tone down the difficulty. People voted for hard mode in a story that you can load at any time. This means that you can redo a situation at any time. Pretty much only one person ever seemed to realize that the entire point is that you could have just loaded and redone the situation if you guys actually tried to figure it out.
Eh, I wasn't too bothered by that Cirno part, especially since she just came back later. But I still found it kind of weird how the hint telling us that anything can kill her, is also a thing that kills her.
This is what I was referring to. The main issue I've had wasn't a lack of votes or anything, it's a lack of desire to load. I give people what amounts to the power to rewind time to have a better future, but they don't rewind time to make sure things go well.
And now that they've stopped saving at all, I now worry about when they actually do end up dying, now that the tutorial is over. Last time they saved was right before leaving the tutorial, nearly a day ago in-story.
>>23279 Personally, I don't see the appeal of saving/loading. I would much rather push on with the choice that was made over spending time going back and redoing it. For me, making the most out of a choice is part of the fun of the CYOA format.
Mind you, I don't really follow Eastern Tale closely (I read an update here or there when I see it on the front page and I'm bored) nor do I like Undertale, so I very well could be missing something necessary for the experience.
The problem with the whole thing, and I went back to check on the specific update in question, was that there was very little indicator that anything actually happened to hurt Cirno.
>She matches the intensity of your gaze, not budging one bit from the way you flashed her.
That part I italicized is the key bit in all this. That's the part where Cirno apparently took damage and her negative defense immediately set her on her little death spiral.
You know what there isn't any of?
Any notification that she actually took damage from it. There was no feedback to say that she was hurt by it. No real reaction to it being even a tiny bit painful or anything. Just - Checked, and immediately she's melting. Don't be cheeky and say that all the pieces of the puzzle are right there; this is the tutorial for negative defense being introduced, but your tutorial is needlessly obscure about how it works.
The idea of someone with negative defense taking damage from being Checked because the flash hurt their eyes is quirky and amusing, and I like it. But as a puzzle, you don't give your readers enough information to go on, you're baffled by why your lack of information confuses them when Cirno apparently dies outright for no clear reason, and then you're genuinely clueless about why this would bother people who are trying to make friends with everyone they meet, even with their ability to load saves, because they don't know what they could possibly do to prevent it from happening again.
You're in too deep with this particular puzzle that it makes perfect sense to you, but to outside observers it's just you striking down someone for no apparent reason. This damages the reader's trust in you as an author to not do things that are nonsensical - after all, why bother following the story if people they like could just up and die because you wanted it to happen, or other random garbage?
Stories are (obviously) a written medium and things are done differently, but if Undertale did something like this, a likely way it would have gone down would be that your Check flash would've shaken Cirno and shown a little 1 damage indicator, and she'd probably have made some kind of comment like most monsters in the game, even something as simple as "Ow! My eyes!" when the flash went off. That's several layers of visual feedback and some dialogue - not all of it can be translated into a written format, of course, but you have plenty of options to clearly show what happened, and instead you settled on keeping it deliberately unclear.
In closing, the puzzle idea was good, the implementation was bad, and your readers felt confused about why this fairy girl apparently randomly died. Granted, one of the voters twigged to it in the followup discussion by suggesting that it was the flash that did her in, but that's one person out of... how many? Even for a story deliberately set in Hard Mode Be Sure To Reset A Lot territory, that's not a great success rate.
>>23294 Again, not the author, but the idea was to reflect the Toriel fight. Therefore, it had to be unfair. I think the part you quoted indicated that she endured steadily the damage she received, which was one hint too many in my opinion. And I don't think he said that the hints where there? Did I miss that part of his post? >>23279 Why does her bother you? They die, they spend quality time with Satori and then try again, in fast forward. Easy.
The update that's from is one sentence of dialogue, that bit I quoted, and a look at Cirno's stats. That's the entire update. Cirno hadn't taken so much as a single glancing hit the entire fight up to that point. Renko hadn't even swung at her. The quoted bit was Cirno's reaction to apparently getting her eyes hurt a little tiny bit from the flash.
She wasn't weathering anything. She was in perfect condition.
That's one hint too many?
>the idea was to reflect the Toriel fight. Therefore, it had to be unfair.
Toriel required you to repeatedly smack her a bunch in an attempt to subdue her, if that's how you thought the fight worked when you played the game, before you accidentally get the crit that kills her.
Cirno required you to simply Flash her with a Check in order to melt.
I was pulling my fucking hair out playing Devil of Decline for Vita that just came out until I realized the default difficulty is "Barb-wire strap-on Yuuka". I really should start doing my daily Japanese reps.
>>23297 Then again, I'm playing Fate: dynasty warriors and the difficulties are: normal (which you have to unlock) easy, very easy and cakewalk (labeled, strangely, "Very Hard" "Hard" "Normal" and "Easy" respectively)
It wasen't difficult in the normal ways games are difficult. The default lunatic setting imposes a hard limit on the times you can fight enemies before you get an automatic game-over. Meaning you have to fight and re-fight bosses at the absolute lowest possible level with absolute trash gears/summons to conserve your "fights".
I get that people voted for hard mode, but still, ಠ_ಠ
>The idea is to make you commit a mistake you cant possibly predict, just like in the game.
The game with an opening area where Toriel tells you not to fight monsters, all your encounters can be resolved through dodging and ACTing, and the key to beating her peacefully, if you don't fall to the assumption you have to use violence on her in order to weaken her enough for Mercy, is to simply not attack her? Granted, that's still a lot trickier than it sounds to figure out if you're playing blind, but it's not something impossible to try.
As compared to using a regular, totally harmless action on someone to check out their stats, without being able to know beforehand that their defense is in the negatives because the only way to find out they've got negative defense is to use the normally harmless action on them?
This comparison is fundamentally flawed.
>What? They're similar because they both teach you a mechanic by playing with your assumptions (low health is required to use Mercy/Check is harmless) and FORCING you to commit a serious mistake.
>Why would you think the amount of hits were my point? How would that help me in any way?
>teach you a mechanic by playing with your assumptions (low health is required to use Mercy)
How do you think Toriel gets that low on health in the first place in the game? Presumably by the player beating her up enough to try and force Mercy on her. That's something that requires repeated actions on the player's part to travel down that path, as opposed to one of your standard action just being fatal for reasons you can't possibly know beforehand.
>Geez, I knew anon had little failure tolerance, but this is ridiculous.
Failure is fine when it's sensible and isn't hamfisted. I actually enjoy a good failure here and there to keep things fresh. I don't enjoy failure that's done badly just to kick the reader in the crotch.
>Also, let's ignore the winning vote "insult Cirno" that started all of this.
That's relevant to why Cirno's hostile, but it has nothing to do with her melting. It could have been a totally friendly encounter and she would've melted regardless if she got Checked.
>How do you think Toriel gets that low on health in the first place in the game? Presumably by the player beating her up enough to try and force Mercy on her. That's something that requires repeated actions on the player's part to travel down that path, as opposed to one of your standard action just being fatal for reasons you can't possibly know beforehand.
Meaningless. If you don't gain more information, killing her in one or three hits is the same. Give up on this.
>How do you think Toriel gets that low on health in the first place in the game? Presumably by the player beating her up enough to try and force Mercy on her. That's something that requires repeated actions on the player's part to travel down that path, as opposed to one of your standard action just being fatal for reasons you can't possibly know beforehand.
References are to be expected in crossovers. That's all there is to this. Also: hard mode is hard.
And there's no harm in unavoidable scenarios where you can reload with no repercussions.
All of this was said before. Are you actively trying to understand where you're mistaken? If not, this is a waste of time.
>As compared to using a regular, totally harmless action
There were hints, as obscure as Undertale's, all over the place: literally everyone reacts to Renko using check and Cirno was stated to be fragile.
If you think they weren't enough, you're right. But neither were Undertale's. Unless you were spoiled, you killed Toriel the first time, even though the "hints" existed. This is exactly the same.
>And there's no harm in unavoidable scenarios where you can reload with no repercussions.
This, I'll grant.
>Are you actively trying to understand where you're mistaken? If not, this is a waste of time.
Are you actively trying to understand why voters have hemorrhaged from the story, as the post that prompted this conversation complained about? Several people gave reasons on why they dropped it, but I'd bet a fair number felt like >>23273 after the scene in question - I certainly did! Confusing the entire readerbase with a badly-done scene and then trying to excuse it by going "Oh, it's okay guys, you can just reset, besides, Hard Mode's meant to be unfair" doesn't instill confidence in the author or the story. I can accept unfair difficulty, but there's a difference between unfair and cheating.
>There were hints, as obscure as Undertale's, all over the place: literally everyone reacts to Renko using check and Cirno was stated to be fragile.
>as obscure as Undertale's
Wrong. Undertale pushes Mercy on you essentially every step of the way up to Toriel's fight, but then it doesn't hold your hand when you actually get there and, in fact, tries to goad you into attacking her with how the scene's built up, so you're likely to wind up killing her if you don't stick to your seemingly ineffective pacifist route.
Cirno being noted as fragile, meanwhile, does not make one think "Oh, I suppose my flash of light when I Check things might hurt her eyes and this will kill her dead." That is not a logical train of thought. It's highly illogical, which can work out if things are illogical in general, but otherwise feels like a cheap shot, which it was in this case. Again, 'Unfair Hard Mode' is fine, but this wasn't simply unfair, it's cheating, and people don't like being cheated.
>If you think they weren't enough, you're right. But neither were Undertale's. Unless you were spoiled, you killed Toriel the first time, even though the "hints" existed. This is exactly the same.
But that's wrong, Undertale's hints were enough. I can't speak for myself on this front because I was spoiled, but you can't say that it's literally impossible for people to avoid killing Toriel on their first playthrough. It technically wasn't impossible to avoid killing Cirno either, but here it essentially boiled down to "do you do the thing you have no reason not to do? congrats, you killed the fairy, who will respawn at some point, and the next update will have your main character making a big deal out of this even though she has no reason to assume she's responsible, but apparently it's her fault because the author says so".
You keep drawing false equivalencies to the game and expecting them to convince me that this wasn't badly done, but it was. That's really the ultimate problem here. Renko Checks, Cirno starts melting because of it, then doesn't comment on it at all, doesn't make note of anything really being wrong, just, bam, melts. Not even a little bit of annoyance that Renko's doomed her to a quick respawn. Then Renko feels really bad because Cirno died and it's played as this dramatic thing except, since it doesn't make any sense, it just comes across as dumb.
The scene Does Not Work as written. No amount of saying it's meant to be unfair and confusing and you can just reset and whatnot excuses this. It Does Not Work as written.
The worst part is the base idea is, as I've said, actually clever! But the way it's played out is badly done.
With no regards to quality, the first possible example for a rewrite that springs to mind is this: you pop the Check, see her negative stats, Cirno then melts immediately before she respawns in the same update to complain about you hurting her eyes with the flash. Bang, presto, negative stats are communicated to the readers, as is the idea of Checks being potentially damaging.
Say what you will about whether that's actually good or not, but it gets the point of the scene across in a clear and supposedly humorous fashion, which means people aren't left wondering for several hours just what the hell happened as you try to wring drama out of something nonsensical, which means they don't decide that the story is being stupid and they don't feel like spending more time with it, and ultimately I don't wind up writing way too many words over incredibly dumb things like this.
Thing is, if I had her instantly respawn, you likely would have never left the room.
Also, I have apologized for the unclearness of it, and was very rusty on writing at that point, as I had stated at the beginning of the story. However, the entire point was that it was meant to be actually thought about instead of instantly rejected. There were clues. This was my first proper attempt at a CYOA, so they were too vague, but they were there. While I accept that I should have indicated that she took damage in a more direct manner, I have figured out this issue, though still need to implement it. I have only recently thought of drawing damage on the picture, as it's actually a very difficult problem to work around within the constraints of a similar system to the game.
Since the Cirno fight, the story has improved. One never succeeds unless one fails many times to get it right. What I don't get is why you will not allow even one failure. Instead of discussing it, as I was attempting, you simply left me to assume everything was peachy keen when the screaming stopped.
I was among those that killed Toriel on my first try, and I actually was spoiler'd. I tried mercy a few times, but it seemed to have no effect. Is an increase in ellipses any less vague? I would say no. I then assumed they had lied about how to win, so I tried following the advice given of hitting her till she was low on HP.
That didn't go well.
But, in the end, Cirno more or less died on her feet; she couldn't have said anything, as she was already dead. While I agree that the story can be a bit of a mess, you yourself have said the important thing exactly.
>That is not a logical train of thought. It's highly illogical, which can work out if things are illogical in general
This is the entire point. This was the message I was putting forward. The story does not revolve around making absolute logical sense, but is meant to work within its own rules. This was me attempting to set one of those rules, but I did so poorly. Apparently I cannot make even one mistake in execution without being met with Judge Dread's brand of justice.
I assume you've noticed I have very clearly not commented on anything past that one scene. That's because that one scene is the entire topic as far as I was concerned - whether the story had gotten better or not isn't really relevant to the conversation, although I believe you when you say it's improved, and I'm genuinely happy to hear it.
Still, I don't appreciate comments like
>What I don't get is why you will not allow even one failure.
>Apparently I cannot make even one mistake in execution without being met with Judge Dread's brand of justice.
because they're a slap in my face. I've been harsh here, but my critique has been civil. I haven't insulted you, and I haven't gone after the rest of your story because my complaints aren't with the rest of it, and it was generally enjoyable for me up to that point. Instead, I've focused on this one bad scene because it was a critical point for me and, evidently, others.
>Instead of discussing it, as I was attempting, you simply left me to assume everything was peachy keen when the screaming stopped.
>when the screaming stopped
This implies an... unflattering view of your readers, to say the least. Putting that aside, I was there - at absolute worst, you had people genuinely confused and annoyed by the direction things had gone and their faith in the story shaken. And then your responses at the time didn't actually seem to grasp why people were concerned about the direction the story was going from that bad segment, and that was what clinched my, and at least one other person's, decision to call it quits there.
If the author doesn't understand why a segment of the story didn't work, even when the audience is saying that it didn't work for them, then there's no reason to think it won't happen again. And if they're that bothered by what happened, then why should they keep following the story when it seems guaranteed they'll inevitably be disappointed again some time in the future?
Still, you grasp why it didn't work now, which I'm legitimately glad you do. Knowing what went wrong the first time is how you avoid it happening again, which leads to a better story, which leads to everyone having a better time. I stopped reading the last time because it didn't seem like you understood what was up and weren't going to, despite what people said. Now that I'm pretty sure I don't have to worry about, y'know, getting slapped with something that'll completely jar me from the story a second time, I'm probably gonna give it another shot, because - again - I did enjoy it up to when I stopped.
Anyway, the initial question was why a lot of people stopped reading. This is my best attempt at figuring it out from personal experience, and this is where I'll take my leave.
>the year of our lord 2017 >not chaining yourself to your computer with a brain-computer interface >not distributing your consciousness to the cloud to find new life on the web >not living solely on this site >not creating posts through mere thought
Why, for the love of fuck, is every flea-bitten son of a whore I come across so hellbent on repeating everything I say back to me as though it's some kind of earth-shattering revelation? I just finished telling you I don't give three-fifths of a horny badger's arse hairs about that worthless troll, so why did you feel the need to waste your time typing up three fucking paragraphs explaining why I shouldn't waste mine replying to him? Why can't I say "It means X" without some douchebag replying "No, actually it means X"?
Is fucking Seija flipping every word that comes out of my salty mouth? Are they all such collossal wankers that their egos will spontaneously combust if they don't say "you're wrong, I'm right" at least fifty times a day? Or am I really surrounded by inept fuckwads who couldn't parse a sentence if I shoved it up their arses?
Jesus fucking christ stop making games 3D. There is no intrinsic superiority of 3D models over sprites. A game that doesn't actually use or need those three dimensions in gameplay can only benefit from 3D graphics if they look better then sprites and shit, and 90% of the time they absolutely fucking do NOT. Mega Man, Metroid, Advance Wars, Pokemon, Fire Emblem, Castlevania, again and again and AGAIN, and everybody eats it up! WHY!? Fire Emblem especially! Look at those GBA sprites, look at how great and detailed and fucking FILLED with personality and love those collections of pixels are, then look at the shit in the 3DS and Gamecube games. Fucking trash!
>>23351 >I said 90%. GG is not in that percentile.
Except your 90% remark seemed more about sprites looking better than 3D models. My post, which you seem to misunderstand, was responding to your claim that "there is no intrinsic superiority of 3D models over sprites," which is simply untrue.
For starters, 3D models can be moved, scaled, and rotated in ways that are simply too impractical to attempt with sprites. Even doing something as simple having a character face the opposite direction on a 2D plane is different for models and sprites.
Suppose you have a character with some sort of asymmetry in their design. Like, they're missing their right arm, or something like that. If rendered as a 2D sprite, there is a slight problem: what do you do when that character needs to face the opposite direction? Flip/mirror the sprite to face the other way? Sure, that technically works, but now his missing right arm becomes a missing left arm. If you want his missing arm to remain on his right side, you pretty much have to make an entirely new set of sprites and animations of that character facing the opposite direction in order for that to be possible. Depending on just how many frames of animation you're dealing with, that could be a LOT of work.
Not so with a 3D model. If you have a 3D model with some sort of asymmetry in its design, and you want it to face another direction, all you have to do is rotate it to face that direction, and everything is still on the side it's supposed to be on. No righties becoming lefties, no eye patches swapping eyes, and no need to go to all the effort of re-modeling/re-rigging/re-animating everything so it will look right again.
Animations, lighting, and even a 3D model's appearance are easier and all relatively faster to tweak and make small adjustments to than it is to change anything about a sprite-based character.
Don't get me wrong, I love myself some good 2D, but to claim that 3D has no advantages over it is simply patently false, on the level of claiming that a computer with a word processor is not in any way inherently superior to a typewriter or a pen and paper. If you're only looking at it from and end user's perspective, I would imagine what benefits there are mean little to you, but from a creator's perspective I would imagine they mean quite a lot.
>>23351 >Oh you bet your sorry ass I'm talking shit about Radiant Dawn. The forced-in trash 3D is only the start of that mess's problems.
Oh, so you don't like it's battle animations, parties that change around the story like a carousel, forced stages where you're underleveled on purpose, nice combat music, cheesy CG's, sacrifice + wrath, Haar, 3rd tier units having a random chance to fucking slay everything they whack or 2-E without Haar?
Well fuck you. I bet you never did a run with units like Mia or Nolan overleveled you shit.
Claiming that "3D has no intrinsic advantages over 2D" is "patently false" is completely missing the point:
> A game that doesn't actually use or need those three dimensions [...] > Mega Man, Metroid, Advance Wars, Pokemon, Fire Emblem, Castlevania
What do these games all have in common? They all started out in 2D. They are designed to play to the strengths of 2D. And yet people insist on remaking them in 3D without any changes to justify it.
In that context your entire argument basically boils down to "3D is an excuse to be lazy". If the cash-cow-milking losers behind this trash put any actual effort into making their games 3D, they'd be up there with Xrd.
But that same amount of effort would produce equally-good-looking sprites.
>>23357 >Claiming that "3D has no intrinsic advantages over 2D" is "patently false" is completely missing the point:
And I would say that claiming that I am missing the point is, in itself, missing the point. Namely, in that I wasn't trying to address his overall point, just the part of it that was factually wrong. He claimed one medium had no advantages over the other, I pointed out how they did.
But, fine. If you want me to hit on the actual points:
>What do these games all have in common? They all started out in 2D. They are designed to play to the strengths of 2D. And yet people insist on remaking them in 3D without any changes to justify it.
First of all, you're edging dangerously close to "Appeal to Tradition" fallacy territory, there. Just because that's how they all started out doesn't mean that is how they should always remain.
Secondly, all those series may have started out in 2D, but that was largely because they had to. 2D wasn't a stylistic choice back in the NES and Game Boy days, it was the way it had to be. A lot of the games you mention didn't start out with the intention of trying to "play to the strengths of 2D" so much as they were trying to make the best of the limitations they had to work with. Even modern titles trying to emulate NES-style games, like Shovel Knight, don't make a point of adhering to all of the limitations of the NES hardware, and even deliberately break some of those limitations, because those limitations SUCKED.
And what, exactly, do you mean by "without any changes to justify it" anyway? One of the benefits of 3D is the way it allows for characters, objects, and even the perspective to move in ways that are impractical if not outright impossible to replicate with 2D. You can change the angle of the camera to better convey the sense of scale or differences in elevation in an area, or move in close to show the character's face to show their expressions. You can actually SHOW characters emoting in ways you can't with a static image or an itty-bitty sprite and some text.
These are things I've seen at least some of the modern, 3D versions of the games you cite do, and they are things that were not and could not be done in traditional 2D. If a new tool or medium becomes available that allows you, as an artist, to express your ideas in ways you couldn't adequately express before, and do so more easily, how are you not justified in making use of them now that you can?
>In that context your entire argument basically boils down to "3D is an excuse to be lazy"
Yes. My argument that this newer way of doing things that's more versatile and efficient than an older way of doing things boils down to "it's an excuse to be lazy". Because it's not as if the people making these things don't have unlimited time, money, and other assorted resources to work with. That is what my argument is.
I would go on, but I suspect that even what I've already written has just been a huge waste of time. Especially when you make statements like this:
> If the cash-cow-milking losers behind this trash put any actual effort into making their games 3D, they'd be up there with Xrd.
I mean, really? Really? I get that you don't like 3D compared to 2D, and the natural tendency for people online is to assume the very worst about the intentions of others, especially when they're doing things you don't like, but come on. Can you seriously not accept the possibility that there are valid reasons for game makers to opt for 3D graphics over 2D sprites, and that some of those reasons may be why have gone the direction they have? Do you honestly believe their thought processes can be boiled down to "we are lazy but we want all of the money"? If you aren't at least willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and try to understand why they do what they do, then there is no point to this discussion.
> And I would say that claiming that I am missing the point is, in itself, missing the point. Namely, in that I wasn't trying to address his overall point, just the part of it that was factually wrong.
Give me a minute while I put my autism in a straightjacket so I can digest that without throwing a fit.
Okay, we're good.
> A lot of the games you mention didn't start out with the intention of trying to "play to the strengths of 2D" so much as they were trying to make the best of the limitations they had to work with.
My point exactly: when it's sink or swim, you break out the flippers or drown. Judging by the fact that people think they're worth remaking, I'd say they didn't drown.
> And what, exactly, do you mean by "without any changes to justify it" anyway?
If the concept was 2D and the gameplay would work with no/minimal changes in 2D then doing it in 3D gets you all the downsides (aliasing, blurry textures, mechanical animation, bad camera angles, washed-out lighting, longer loading times etc.) with none of the upsides. It's purely cosmetic, and 90% of the time it looks like garbage, which completely defeats the purpose.
Example: New Super Mario Bros.
Counterexample: Super Mario 3D World
(Yes I know NSMB used rotation and scaling. I don't care, it still didn't make it any fun.)
> Yes. My argument that this newer way of doing things that's more versatile and efficient than an older way of doing things boils down to "it's an excuse to be lazy". Because it's not as if the people making these things don't have unlimited time, money, and other assorted resources to work with. That is what my argument is.
Okay. I can deal with that.
My argument was that making 3D actually look any good takes about the same amount of effort as making 2D actually look any good, all other things being equal. I probably shouldn't have made that argument at all since I don't do 3D, but hindsight is 20/20.
> I would go on, but I suspect that even what I've already written has just been a huge waste of time.
No, it hasn't. Thank you for pouring cold, hard logic on my mindless fury. I needed that, even if I didn't like it.
> Do you honestly believe their thought processes can be boiled down to "we are lazy but we want all of the money"?
Yes. I am cynical and salty as fuck. And until I stop getting burned buying games on nostalgia only to find they look like shit but still cost the same amount, it's probably going to stay that way.
> If you aren't at least willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and try to understand why they do what they do, then there is no point to this discussion.
You've well and truly roasted my ass, so I'd say we're done here, whether I'm smart enough to learn from it or not.
>>23528 What are you reading and have you considered kidnapping the writers, locking them in your basement, feeding them water and gruel and killing off the least productive one every day as a warning to the rest?
>>23537 There's a long rant I could throw at you on this subject, but I'm not in a ranting mood, so lemme just throw you a question that you should answer to yourself: Why do you want to write 'deep and meaningful'?
Also, like the anon above said in a different way, practise. Always be practising. If you love writing enough, you should be doing it enough anyway. It doesn't matter if it's total sludge; you don't have to post it. That's pretty much the key to getting better.
>>23742 Didn't even realize that could be bothersome (since I only just noticed "Home" up there). Deleted the story-irrelevant images, though that arguably makes it look worse on the front page for now.
>>23746 I was more arguing that having the most images on the front page is something that we necessarily need to aspire to. I could imagebomb my own story if it makes that guy happy, but that doesn't really mean that I'm adding any more content to the site than I already do.
>>23747 I can imagebomb this entire site at high speed, if somebody updates fast enough and with pictures and then other people post pictures you shouldn't delete them. There's still links to recent posts. This directly bullies a person updating and bullying is bad.
>>23843 Don't bother, it's completely dead, except for occassional awoo meme spam at the local bot. You're better off throwing your lot at #eientei if you want actual story discussion (with a dash of touhou pics dump).
I could have finished last month's update by now, but nooooo, I had to plow three thousand words into yet another Yukari-purple YAF-wannabe "short" that nobody gives a fuck about and I'll probably never even post because it doesn't contain a single 2hu.
I wish I could hate myself to work. Somebody yell at me.
>>23930 >no one is going to be a nazi just because is a bit long for /shorts/!
Wasn't the whole point of /shorts/ for stories less than 1 thread long? Since back before we developed the remote semblance of "quality" we have now, stories used to be 9 threads long after 5 hours of starting