Do you agree with the statement "Henry is you"?

[tcassat]

In this whole s#itshow that's going on, one of the things that caught my attention was Daniel Vávra's explanation of why Henry can do things that seem to be so radically opposed to his character: "Henry is you". In other words, Henry is not a character, he is literally you, and reflects your personality 1:1.

Do you agree with that? Because I honestly see this as a great lack of understanding of how the player interacts with the characters, or of RPG itself. RPG characters aren't us, we're playing them. "You are Henry" is the correct statement, not "Henry is you". If you don't have the ability to play a fictional role that isn't literally you in real life, you'll probably get kicked out of any RPG group for not being able to take the game seriously, lol.

Since I know Daniel Vávra knows what I'm talking about, because he made a game where the basic idea was to literally have you roleplaying as a citizen of Bohemia, and within that reality, make decisions that seem to make sense to you as Henry in that universe (and not choices that make sense to you, the real person, in your real world), then the only conclusion I can come is that the inclusion of certain scenes was really for the purposes of pandering to groups, which to me shows a lack of artistic integrity.

Thanks for reading.

[Freebird]

Originally posted by tcassat:

Henry is you". In other words, Henry is not a character, he is literally you, and reflects your personality 1:1.

How wrong can a man be? You really dont understand gaming and RPGs.

In my real life I am a law abiding, tax paying, decent husband. Im nice to everyone because that is important for the community.

In my video games I'm not. That is what we call "Escapism". That is why it is called "Role Play". We can be someone else, and it has no consequences, because it is just a video game.

So no, Henry is not 1:1 like me. Quite the opposite.

[LeftPaw]

If you have the imagination yes.

[Frinco]

If Henry was me he would have kept his ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ trap shut around his betters.

[Hotto Doggo(AFK)]

No henry is not me ,im not gay.

[Dreaming Prince]

nop, henry is henry and you play henrys story. this is not the kind of game where you make your own character

[Bordric]

No because Henry is Hal.

[Lordofriva]

No I agree with "you are henry" from 8 years ago

[Cpt Beefheart]

No, but i'll "live" the life of Henry and when i get to choose i'll guide him towards a path that i like. There's no gay in that path. So it's fine!

[shado]

Originally posted by Hotto Doggo(AFK):

No henry is not me ,im not gay.

You seem to love these new "options", so you are.

[seeyouall]

Originally posted by joxertm22:

Originally posted by tcassat:

Do you agree with the statement "Henry is you"?

Absolutely not.
Never stole anything in my life.
While playing KCD1 I robbed everyone of their possessions in the game and I plan to do it in KCD2 too. 😈
So... Henry is not me.

Also, I plan to make an evil Henry playthrough with him being an utter a**hole towards everyone.
Now will that Henry be me, that's debatable. 👀

Maybe deep down that's what you really want to do in real life but fear the consequences

[RblDiver]

Nope. Eight years ago, WH made it clear he had his own backstory and agenda, and as part of that he was straight. Fast forward, that's all been tossed out the window.

[Minnzy]

Not even remotely me. Granted, even in games like Skyrim of BG3 I've never "Made myself" in a game so it never applies to me but I see Henry as more a Geralt. You guide, not decide who he is.

[tcassat]

Originally posted by Devious Dave:

You might want to look at this
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1771300/discussions/0/507318484016912609/

Lol, if I'd seen that thread before, and the devs' comments regarding the first game, I wouldn't have needed to create this one.

As I suspected, Vávra was just rationalizing in that reply to the fan. Instead of giving a straight answer, he's trying to create an apparently rational explanation to justify the presence of the scene (an explanation that doesn't stand up to scrutiny), which is a bad sign as it indicates that not everything in the game was really thought out, and the author himself is now having to come up with flawed justifications for them.

For me, the reason for certain scenes is clear: fan-service, which is totally OK, especially in games that don't take themselves too seriously. What is not OK is the fact that the author of the game is trying to deny, or hide, the fact that his game is not “immaculate”.

[ColdHimmel]

Originally posted by tcassat:

Originally posted by Devious Dave:

You might want to look at this
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1771300/discussions/0/507318484016912609/

Lol, if I'd seen that thread before, and the devs' comments regarding the first game, I wouldn't have needed to create this one.

As I suspected, Vávra was just rationalizing in that reply to the fan. Instead of giving a straight answer, he's trying to create an apparently rational explanation to justify the presence of the scene (an explanation that doesn't stand up to scrutiny), which is a bad sign as it indicates that not everything in the game was really thought out, and the author himself is now having to come up with flawed justifications for them.

For me, the reason for certain scenes is clear: fan-service, which is totally OK, especially in games that don't take themselves too seriously. What is not OK is the fact that the author of the game is trying to deny, or hide, the fact that his game is not “immaculate”.

fanservice? this is pure pandering or he is just trying to piss people off, there's no way he is actually thinking of fanservice when doing a haircut is not possible on launch yet being gay is.