Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
0 
Report this post
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/growing-friendships/201301/imaginary-friends
Agatha Christie had one too. :)
https://reporter.rit.edu/views/imaginary-friends-are-key-self-help
I'm actually kind of glad that they made it one, because otherwise, this forum would be full of "love interest" talk.. ;) (Not very woke stance, I know.. ;) )
He is helpful, of course, as well, because he points out several important places, triggering memories. I also lke to dress him in the pink or red costume.
And about 'Sherry': it would be very strange if the family of Sherlok Holmes would *not* have used a cosy name like Shery for him, so it is quite logical that his imaginary friend used that name.
So I'm guessing, that RainaMermaid is more into "bad guys" at this point.. ;)
No, but on a more serious note - people are charging the character negatively, because they presume that he is mostly there to nag them, not help, and within the first two hours they are dissapointed, that he is immaginied (probably a solution for not having to worry about character pathing in an open world - good choice, btw.), which hurts them deeply, because they werent able to figure that one out, before reading the reveal, also it goes against their predisposed notions (they've already esablished at that point), and it destroys the Teenage phantasy, hunk and his doctor dreamboy visit an island, probably... (On some level, not saying, that this is peoples main motivation.. ;) )
So here is my take on it. The dialog he delivers was supreme. The implementation (to serve as a Watson, without having to worry about NPC pathing) was clever. The character was lovable and intelligent at the same time. And they managed to tie in the motivation for the character into the main quests solution in a way that felt integral. So to defend his role would actually be kind of spoilery in a sense...
Which is why you mostly get confirmation bias - from people that didnt like him.
But they grew to didnt like him, because in their mind he was "negative reinforcement", so he only approached the player, when "ridiculing him/her" - which actually was nudging for the player to change tactics, but people simply wouldnt listen.
What a dumb character. And so useless. Just joking, he's actually integral to the game on so many levels its not even funny.
But then where is my hunk? Or my Watson (whos actually a "lovabale loser" - emphasizing how clever the player is - by telling them how clever they are).
So stick with the tropes devs, people want what they know, they want.
(Jon in this game is dumb as in "he is criticising me and not helping, by telling me solutions outright, so he is forcing me, as a player, to show agency and no codependance" and I have no clue what to do, because where is my GPS, and my mashine gun, and could we get a loveinterest also (not necessarily Jon), to make this a good game?
So he is the dumb character that tells Sherlock about moral philosophy, when "deciding the faith" of a few refugees, and how that in itself was problematic, and he is the dumb character that reminds Sherlock to also rely on feelings and not just deduction skills, and the dumb character that scolds him for using high fellutant language to basically debase people that arent used to that, just because he doesnt like them, and the dumb character that also reminds him to keep child like qualities (wonderment, adventure, drive, empathy..) but also, in more than one sense, to grow up. and the dumb character that moved Sherlock to tears (on a realization), because he was so reliant on him as a concept in his youth (Hamlet play as a child), and the dumb character that shared in the moment when they both hid that skull in Cordona, and made it a symbolic funeral, and the dumb character, that doest take sh*t from Sherlock Holmes, and...
Its as if "dumb" is a replacement for "doesnt tell me how to progress, when I ask them, only give snarky responses - booo, I'm clever, I know it, worst game ever" -- you know, the dumb character whose tagline is actually "wake me up when Sherry has figured out the solution to this one". Oh yeah, and he uses the name Sherry a lot. Which annoyes people to no end for some reason. Oh, its them layering their emotion on to him, when failing again, for the tenth time, asking him as if he would provide a solution to progress in the story, isnt it? And him then responding with a nonsequitur and using the word Sherry.
So dumb as in "I dont have the faintest Idea, what he is doing, or saying, but dont understand any part of it, also he's not helpful in the sense that hes delivering solutions for me not being GPSed through the openworld" - so obviously - dumb. As in "not helpful".
Or dumb as in "not real, so you dont have to take them seriously", which is just the best advise, some one on the internet would give to their child, when they invented an imaginary friend, isnt it?
And by the way - I never had an imaginary friend, but I'm just not repelled by the notion. And neither by the name Sherry alone, or by the concept, that a doctor could be stupid. But this one isnt.)
Think of how quiet most of the game would be without him
If that still doesn't make much sense, it will once you reach the finale. ;)
(Unless the "other" option in the finale does something drastically different...).
If you miss the voice line, every instance where you _should_ ask a random person on the street is marked with a "crowd" icon above the clue it corresponds to. Other than that (as in when a clue is not tagged with the crowed icon), you never have to ask a random person.
And we could end it there, if devs didnt put in a new mechanic in with the M for Mycroft DLC; where you are literally looking for specific generic NPCs in the open world to beginn a set of questlines. But at least thats indicated in the clue descriptions. And its a repeat of the tutorial mission design, where you figure out who to talk to based on their "character attributes" in sherlock vision. A mechanic, which - aside from that instance and the tutorial mission and maybe two other times (usually when looking for an informant, or person who hires other people, ... - so when it is made very clear, what person you are looking for), is never used in the game - for a reason. It would lead you into a masochism loop - if player doesnt get the riddle connected to the "character attributes", they would literally be sent out to talk to 7000 random NPCs. So the game usually doesnt do that. Like - at all, exept for the tutorial mission and the start of one M for Mycroft mission. Usually, when you get the "crowd icon" to talk to random NPCs, its a whole bunch of them in the area, that trigger the right response, if you are dressed correctly (for them to like you). So you are almost never hunting for specific ones - whithout knowing exactly who you are looking for. And never should have to talk to them outright, if you dont have a crowd icon above your clue. Exeption is the find house on image missions, where sometimes they can give you the location outright, if you are in the correct district, and ask random people with your the correct clothes on.
Compared to how often I saw youtubers get stuck on talking to 20 random NPCs on the other side of the map - the game has no sticking point on where you have to talk to one.
There is the one in the tutorial mission, and than maybe one at the beginning of the elefant case, where you talk to the crowd outside the gate, and sometimes, people dont have the correct clothes on. And then there is an instantce close when you are looking for the artists attelier. And the people that are missing those, are a percentage of the people, talking to random strangers in 99% of all other cases (with other clues pinned). So the jon statement "you should do something differently" is correct 99% of the time. But because players dont want to take it as a clue given to them, it litterely puts them into this great, "Stop calling me stupid, I hate you, you are stupid." Spiral - that then moves them towards a "game bad" assessment.
But when you really come to think about it. I a game with no artificial boundaries, an open world, and 7000 NPCs, how often do you think the devs would want you to find a specific one, with any sort of guessing element to it. If you end up at "never", you got that correctly.
So the game usually goes out of the way to inform you, when you have to talk to (somewhat) random NPC, with an icon, and a voiceline, and it being spelled out in text in which district you should look for a person, and usually also indicating what clothes you should wear.
And then there is maybe 3-4 instances, where this gets people stuck. Compared to twitch streamers going on half an hour shouting matches with Jon for calling them stupid, and not changing tactics, while talking to 20 random NPCs, with the wrong clue pinned, and the opposite side of the open world, is an aquired taste, they usually get from failing to understand the tutorial, and then having talked to every guest in the hotel (about 200), which they then try to repeat in the open world with 7000 NPC at one point in time. Why - I still dont know. It didnt help them to solve the tutorial, but some people are very into the idea, that if they just talk to the right passer by - he might tell you who the killer was, or something...