dogs

[ballycumbers]

is there a way to save the dogs? if not I don't think I want to replay it. i had all this space in the boats as some of the crew had died and for some reasom they insist dogs can't go on boats? why not? in the scene before I even saved a dog instead of the medicine or tools and then i have to basically just shoot them or abandon them?😶

[[Heretic]Rivga]

Originally posted by No way, Nikki:

This one momemt absolutely ruined my impression of the game. Forced cheap drama. It should've been a player's choice to kill or not kill the dogs, and not in the boat situation (cause 'dogs can sail' is nonsense) - something like killing the dogs to feed the crew, like it happened in reality in Amundsen expedition.

Amundsen said that killing and eating the dogs was always the plan, when he came to do it he was heart broken. He had no idea how much he would grow fond of these animal,.
Interesting even a guy like him would be effected like this.

[vaxquis]

a game that allows you to kill almost all of your crew just for fun and without any strict reason (i.e. just for an artificial achievement), but at the same time forces you to basically kill the dogs or let them die and later let you feed them to the people or burn them in a furnace, while at the same time not allowing you to kill people to feed neither the dogs nor even other people (even when cannibalism is explicitly mentioned in it), simply sucks for me. There's no consequence here, simple as that, and saying "BUT THIS IS REALISTIC" about a game that has people who lived in a flaky tent in -40C while most of them are not wearing hats or mittens and some are even having just some jackets on them and are later sailing a ship with a magic a peach tree allowing consciousness transfer across time that's growing on a ship inside an active volcano...

don't effing get me started on this "REALISM" XD

[Federok]

Originally posted by vaxquis:

a game that allows you to kill almost all of your crew just for fun and without any strict reason (i.e. just for an artificial achievement), but at the same time forces you to basically kill the dogs or let them die and later let you feed them to the people or burn them in a furnace, while at the same time not allowing you to kill people to feed neither the dogs nor even other people (even when cannibalism is explicitly mentioned in it), simply sucks for me. There's no consequence here, simple as that, and saying "BUT THIS IS REALISTIC" about a game that has people who lived in a flaky tent in -40C while most of them are not wearing hats or mittens and some are even having just some jackets on them and are later sailing a ship with a magic a peach tree allowing consciousness transfer across time that's growing on a ship inside an active volcano...

don't effing get me started on this "REALISM" XD

okey you make no freaking sense, not because of "realism" but because the situation you sugest is beyond stupid. Name me a situation where a bunch of people would recur to cannibalism to avoid feeding on the dogs or to feed the dogs with everyone going along with the plan

Its even more nonsensical in the situation that Shaw is, the moment he even sugests something like that he would be under the ice before you can scream "Mutiny".

[missingno]

Because of this forced outcome, I can never recommend this game to friends. What am I going to tell them to do, struggle for ~10 real life hours to keep all their crew alive only to have no choice but to kill their dogs in the end? I can't recommend that because to me the impact was pain and this is a video game meant for fun.

Some pain in an emotional journey is worth it but this is not that. it just hurt and it's punitive to put a player who is working hard to survive and take care of everyone through that event. It felt unnecessary. I had a full pot and furnace, we were making it and then here I am, hit with 0 choice in this matter. Kill the fluffy puppy who loves you.

Thinking on it I'm not sure any video game should force you to inflict harm dogs. That crosses a boundary into "not fun" no matter the journey.

I think I get what the devs were going for, maybe some realism maybe just wanting to get a rise out of their audience. But it caused me to abruptly disassociate and stop caring about the game. I watched the next few scenes wondering when it would all just be over.

When the game started out, I felt so optimistic, like it had a lot of heart, between the accordion playing, the care taken with the characters and the world/scenery. There would be something interesting to discover here. But the journey alienated me in the end, even though I worked hard and earned the trust of everyone so I should've been feeling the love.

Don't force your players to kill dogs, especially in a game about choice. It just causes unhappiness. At least let me do some kind of trade off next time.

[OldMariner]

We just love animals and it's simply difficult to accept their fate. Still i wish the developers would've gave us the choice to save them somehow.

[vaxquis]

Originally posted by Federok:

okey you make no freaking sense, not because of "realism" but because the situation you sugest is beyond stupid. Name me a situation where a bunch of people would recur to cannibalism to avoid feeding on the dogs or to feed the dogs with everyone going along with the plan

Name one situation in human history where people decide to burn a peach tree allowing time travel growing on a ship docked inside an active a volcano... instead of sailing home with it, because it's seaworthy, to add to the confusion XD

Its even more nonsensical in the situation that Shaw is, the moment he even sugests something like that he would be under the ice before you can scream "Mutiny".

yet no-one screams anything if you force them to die in horrific pain one-by-one and destroy their lives in the meantime XD (hint: you probably didn't get the achievement for that yet)... also, you can just tell the people "stay on the boat" and they will all sink and die like sheep, WOW THAT'S REALISTIC LIKE !@%$ XD

have you even completed the game? You won't get any "mutiny" in this game at all, regardless of your actions. The worst outcome is that the original captain takes over (hardly a mutiny, since you're the First Mate XD) or that you get arrested for destroying corporate property (both happen literally MONTHS after any atrocities you might commit)

... you can also kill almost all "seaworthy" crew except say 3 people or so, and still manage to make everyone that left be completely loyal to you. Wow, much realism, so game.

mate, stop being silly and play the game before discussing it, it's a computer game after all; please try to understand that games are expected to give player agenda and choice - this one just gave some sh1tty and irrational choices along the way :D

and yes, if you managed to transport one dog, you could as well transport two.

surprisingly, you could as well transport 3 dogs, on 3 separate lifeboats capable of carrying 8 people each, especially with free slots and since living dogs are more useful than dead ones. etc.

do I have to repeat myself, "DON'T GET ME STARTED"? XD

[vaxquis]

Originally posted by missingno:

Don't force your players to kill dogs, especially in a game about choice. It just causes unhappiness. At least let me do some kind of trade off next time.

this guy gets it.

It's a computer game, it's not expected to be a simulator. If it were, taking into account both the "Heart of Darkness" setting and Frostpunk vibe, you'd have been given an option to simply allow people to die starting from day 1 and go cannibo shortly thereafter (see Frostpunk Survivor mode, as a reference).

Maintaining a "decorum" of an "emotionally deep" interactive visual novel requires you to actually have some depth. Shoehoring the player's actions into forced drama feels narratively weak and forced (because, duh, it's forced alright).

[corisai]

Originally posted by vaxquis:

Name one situation in human history where people decide to burn a peach tree allowing time travel growing on a ship docked inside an active a volcano... instead of sailing home with it, because it's seaworthy, to add to the confusion XD

Hallucinogenic plants are not unknown ;)
All that "time travel" could happen only inside dying man's mind...

[vaxquis]

Originally posted by corisai:

Hallucinogenic plants are not unknown ;)
All that "time travel" could happen only inside dying man's mind...

a very good point. In that case, one could argue that you can *definitely* hallucinate transporting 13 dogs over a stretch of sea :D

[louismartin92]

Yes, I did cry when I left them to die

[Federok]

Originally posted by vaxquis:

Originally posted by Federok:

okey you make no freaking sense, not because of "realism" but because the situation you sugest is beyond stupid. Name me a situation where a bunch of people would recur to cannibalism to avoid feeding on the dogs or to feed the dogs with everyone going along with the plan

Name one situation in human history where people decide to burn a peach tree allowing time travel growing on a ship docked inside an active a volcano... instead of sailing home with it, because it's seaworthy, to add to the confusion XD

Its even more nonsensical in the situation that Shaw is, the moment he even sugests something like that he would be under the ice before you can scream "Mutiny".

yet no-one screams anything if you force them to die in horrific pain one-by-one and destroy their lives in the meantime XD (hint: you probably didn't get the achievement for that yet)... also, you can just tell the people "stay on the boat" and they will all sink and die like sheep, WOW THAT'S REALISTIC LIKE !@%$ XD

have you even completed the game? You won't get any "mutiny" in this game at all, regardless of your actions. The worst outcome is that the original captain takes over (hardly a mutiny, since you're the First Mate XD) or that you get arrested for destroying corporate property (both happen literally MONTHS after any atrocities you might commit)

... you can also kill almost all "seaworthy" crew except say 3 people or so, and still manage to make everyone that left be completely loyal to you. How, much realism, so game.

mate, stop being silly and play the game before discussing it, it's a computer game after all; please try to understand that games are expected to give player agenda and choice - this one just gave some sh1tty and irrational choices along the way :D

and yes, if you managed to transport one dog, you could as well transport two.

surprisingly, you could as well transport 3 dogs, on 3 separate lifeboats capable of carrying 8 people each, especially with free slots and since living dogs are more useful than dead ones. etc.

do I have to repeat myself, "DON'T GET ME STARTED"? XD

You know what they say about asuming? its makess an @ss of you and me. I did fisnished the game and played it again half way through

Again i didnt used the word realism, so dont put it in my mouth.

i mean you call me silly but you are the one being overlly emotional and agresive because the mean game forced you to let the dogs die.

The argument can be boiled down to "game made me feel bad and i dont like therefore its bad writting"

You are basically saying that if a work of fiction introducing fictional aspects that circumvent normal logic then therefore all logic must be thronw away.

That whole rant about the game allowing you to make horrible decissios can be resumed into "since the game allows you to gamefied certain horrible outcomes so no narrative consistency or internal logic is allowed", its an "all or nothing" way of thinking that is counter productive to get ANYTHIGN done.

Talking about the sinking scene, you are not taking into accout both the practical uses of that scene and why i wouldnt be fair to player to replicate that later on.

The sinking takes little time and is easily fixeable by restarting the same week it happens and has the mechanical purpose of showing the player that the game is willing to kill character if they chose poorly. Not matter what you do and how much you want another week in the temparece, the result will be the same.

Therefore allowing you to bring restless dogs in a situation where a couple of missplaced wounded people can sink a lifeboat, should result in failure no matter how much you desire otherwise. The problem is that unlike the previously easy to fix failure, this one isnt a quick game over but a lengthy scene that allows you to continue to play till the end.

You may not agree (as you have very passionatelly shown) but you have to respect the writters right to belive that there is not honest way in wich they could've narratively justfied bringing all 14 dogs aboard life boats in a storm without ending in tragedy. So the only way they can allow a player to make a choice is by giving them a trap choice. That would make player fell cheated and even worse than not being given the option.


And honestly so far you have failed to prove why the premise that "14 dogs that have shown to become ocasinally restless , and can be only calmed or controlled by one especfict person, are not possible to control inside a boat during a storm" is irrational and therefore bad writting. You have tried to link the magical (rewind peach) with the natural and the machinical functioning of the game with an stricly narrative moment.

Take your own advice, stop being silly, make yourself some tea, hug your dog/dogs and calm down before continuing this ranting.

[Grahor]

I'm not going to waste my time on a detailed response to this ridiculous thread, so I'll just notice that if someone is using an argument "mean game had me kill doggies, but there is magic in the game, so the game should have used magic to not kill doggies, or I'll throw a tantrum!" is not something anyone should read, much less write. I'll avoid the thread from now on.

[vaxquis]

Originally posted by Federok:

You know what they say about asuming? its makess an @ss of you and me. I did fisnished the game and played it again half way through

Stop acting like you didn't finish it then or didn't grasp a single thread of it. Recall the story, recall the choices, and recall the narrative. I asked you if you ever finished the game, because your response suggests otherwise. That's all that there's to that.

you are the one being overlly emotional and agresive because the mean game forced you to let the dogs die.

no, I just think it's lousy and forced writing and gameplay.

The argument can be boiled down to "game made me feel bad and i dont like therefore its bad writting"

You are basically saying that if a work of fiction introducing fictional aspects that circumvent normal logic then therefore all logic must be thronw away.

no, you're putting a strawman. I don't feel bad, because I'm not a "dog person" by any means. Honestly, I could care less about some virtual doggos or whatever. I just said that saying that "the dogs had to be killed for realism's sake" has no logical sense.

That whole rant about the game allowing you to make horrible decissios can be resumed into "since the game allows you to gamefied certain horrible outcomes so no narrative consistency or internal logic is allowed", its an "all or nothing" way of thinking that is counter productive to get ANYTHIGN done.

Talking about the sinking scene, you are not taking into accout both the practical uses of that scene and why i wouldnt be fair to player to replicate that later on.

The sinking takes little time and is easily fixeable by restarting the same week it happens and has the mechanical purpose of showing the player that the game is willing to kill character if they chose poorly. Not matter what you do and how much you want another week in the temparece, the result will be the same.

Therefore allowing you to bring restless dogs in a situation where a couple of missplaced wounded people can sink a lifeboat, should result in failure no matter how much you desire otherwise. The problem is that unlike the previously easy to fix failure, this one isnt a quick game over but a lengthy scene that allows you to continue to play till the end.

yawn. Once again, you're fighting a strawman. You're trying to make an argument that lousy plot is not lousy because the game mechanics allowing you to do retarded things at one time and not at another is a masterpiece clockwork logic?

Hint: no, it isn't. The player should be allowed to choose, and then and only then the consequences (e.g. sinking the ships) should occur. It's basic game design, designing for player agency and not for railroading for a single outcome all of the time.

You may not agree (as you have very passionatelly shown) but you have to respect the writters right to belive that there is not honest way in wich they could've narratively justfied bringing all 14 dogs aboard life boats in a storm without ending in tragedy.

I'm a writer myself, and belive me when I say it's f*cking easy to push for even the most difficult arcs without losing readers' sense of story credibility, if you have an actual agenda that makes the choices reasonable in the long run.

You said "quit assuming", yet you're doing it yourself.

Also, I have "passionately shown" nothing. It's just the amount of retardation here in this thread that makes me laugh.

So the only way they can allow a player to make a choice is by giving them a trap choice. That would make player fell cheated and even worse than not being given the option.

nope, that's not the only choice. Storywriting is never binary. You said that yourself above, try to connect those two dots if you can.

And honestly so far you have failed to prove why the premise that "14 dogs that have shown to become ocasinally restless , and can be only calmed or controlled by one especfict person, are not possible to control inside a boat during a storm" is irrational and therefore bad writting. You have tried to link the magical (rewind peach) with the natural and the machinical functioning of the game with an stricly narrative moment.

You're not even understanding what I wrote, so how can I continue arguing with you? I just told, and I can repeat that, that in a story with so many magical, irrational and forced-yet-completely-unnecessary choices, shoehoring killing the dogs makes even less sense than a magical peach tree.

I have no problem with the dogs being restless or with taking them onto the lifeboats resulting in instafail for the player.

I do have a problem with spending money on a game that promises a full story consisting of meaningful choices, when I don't get any.

Take your own advice, stop being silly, make yourself some tea, hug your dog/dogs and calm down before continuing this ranting.

I don't have dogs, I don't like tea particularly, and I think it's actually you who should stop participating here at this moment, since it seems you have nothing to add to this thread currently except for ad personams, since you're not even bothering to read what people who you're trying to argue with have written, or to understand it. If you're capable of that, please do so, I guess it would be the right moment, otherwise I guess I will have to consider you completely uncapable of that.

Also, didn't I already say "DON'T GET ME STARTED"? XD

[vaxquis]

Originally posted by Grahor:

I'm not going to waste my time on a detailed response to this ridiculous thread

yet here you are XD

so I'll just notice that if someone is using an argument "mean game had me kill doggies, but there is magic in the game, so the game should have used magic to not kill doggies, or I'll throw a tantrum!" is not something anyone should read, much less write.

well, I can reluctantly agree with you in general, in the sense that
1. the game is intended to be "mean",
2. the game forces the player to kill the dogs,
3. there is magic in the game,
4. it would be completely possible to explain any choice other than killing all the dogs narratively both taking the magic into account, or even without it
5. you're trying to throw a tantrum by attempting to intentionally ridicule a position you disagree with without providing any actual argument or rationale behind your position,

however if you're by any chance referring to me personally, I'm more than eager to add that you're completely misinterpreting and misrepresenting my point... since in that case you strawman would be the size of the Peach Mountain XD

I'll avoid the thread from now on.

well, I think it's a wise choice, taking the situation and your attitude into account

[corisai]

Originally posted by vaxquis:

I'm a writer myself, and belive me when I say it's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ easy to push for even the most difficult arcs without losing readers sense of story credibility, if you have an actual agenda that makes the choices reasonable in the long run.

LOL? You're either a troll or don't understand the business at all.

We're playing a computer game. It's almost impossible to create popular series of games by design - high competition so it's all purely luck-based. Actually average players are usually biased against sequels.

But devs of The Pale Beyond was succesful into triggering emotions in their player (like you). Those emotions not necessary to be positive one (aside from actually hurting someone feelings and so on) - enough that they're triggered a reaction. For a game it's a big fat plus.

Book writting =/= computer games, they are satisfying different desires.

P.S. Some games are actually good & have their own fan-base because they're merciless to player: Dwarf Fortress, X-COM series, wargames...