Deluxe Edition is not worth it.

[Licurici]

the dlc...is not what i was expected.. I'm a big Life Is Strage fan, but I'm still very disappointed with dlc .. I was expecting a story related to the story and what she was doing in arcadia bay ... and instead I got some control at Radio station .. what I was very bored , it was not worth giving 80e on deluxe edition in my opinion

[john doe]

i agree i love steph but the wavelenght episode sucked

[Bruno]

Yeah it was oddly kinda bad, buy why tho, i wouldnt belive they were short on budget.
I literally buy every title from them + they started releasing some cash grabing stuff and is still not enough, i dont get it

[Bruno]

Yeah tbh i wanna continue off from the first title, i feel like its not done yet, theres a lot more to see, but the devs keep saying we finished the story we wanted to tell or something like that. They can easily continue writing from where they left off but they just refuse to do it.

I feel like they just keep downgrading themselves, its kinda hard to beat the first game
But hey, i think once they run out of options, like what the hell are you gonna write about next that hasnt been introduced in the previous title and thats when they think about focusing on the previous titles.

But then again, i feel like it wouldnt be possible since it seems that every LiS game is in the same timeline, so every time they release the game, all the previous characters get older including Max and Chloe, etc.. which then i can see why wouldnt they bother with previous titles

[Vonsier]

LiS1 & Skyrim become a hit because both companies are on the verge of bankrupcy. When these developers have NOTHING TO LOSE , they will create a game beyond our wildest dream, i guess.

Now they all become very succesful , what else they want to strive for ?

[Qiana]

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

That's the problem though, the first game's story is pretty much done, and the writers have had an insanely hard time trying to do something about the end of that game, with introducing ideas and abandoning those ideas over and over again for a Life is Strange 1 sequel. I don't think people realize just how insanely hard it is to write an actual sequel for the first game, let alone make the game have its own purpose and point of existing. This was a massive issue with this DLC in fact, that it felt pointless with no purpose, and I still felt nothing playing through the DLC, despite the DLC trying to do things that pertain to Life is Strange 1 and Life is Strange Before The Storm.

So, no, it is not easy, otherwise there would of been a Life is Strange 1 sequel by now. Not that I would even want a Life is Strange 1 sequel anyways, because I don't, but this is incredibly difficult to write on a story level if there were to be a sequel to the first Life is Strange.

Tons of people want a prequel to Life is Strange True Colors about Gabe already, and a game like that would have far more potential as a game compared to a Life is Strange 1 sequel.

I highly doubt that that would ever happen, and if it does, it for sure will probably not be a good game, let alone even a good story to tell.

It's not really all that hard to write another prequel, sequel, DLC, extension ... or whatever you wanna call it - there is a plenty of room for that.

For example, after Life is Strange: Before the Storm, one could easily make the Life is Strange: On the Road, where Chloe and Rachel go to look for Rachel's mother and end up on a road trip.

After the Life Is Strange, one could easily add Life is Strange: After the Storm, and finally show us Max and Warren "going ape".

In the Life is Strange: The New Beginning ...

And so on, and so on ...

The same is also truth for the Life is Strange 2 and 3 ... there are countless stories that could be told - if one would want to stick to the same set of characters.

The only thing that should NEVER, NEVER, NEVER happen (even if, storyline-technically, would easily be possible) is that they bring us back Chloe. The new Max and Chloe game would completely take away the mystery surrounding the Life Is Strange (1st) story.

However, there is also little to no reason at all to do it - not as long as we bear in mind the original intentions of the game creators ...

The reasons behind some players still asking for Max & Chloe are simple ...

The first reason is that they fell in love with Max & Chloe (emotional - irrational - thinking) and they just can't let go and see it for what it is - one episode in life - just like it would be in real life, when one recalls some past event. Some people ask for the complete lifetime story, not just for the episode in life.

The second reason is that most of those players who repeatedly ask for Max & Chloe sequel, didn't even understand what the Life Is Strange was, if we talk about the first, original part, or are, if we talk about the whole franchise.

Just as every good book or movie, the Life Is Strange consists of both, the "story" and the "message" part behind.

Most players barely understood that story part and completely missed the message part of the game(s).

The Life Is Strange games are some sort of "philosophy for the beginners" - the first one was about the decision-making process, the second one about the values in life, the third one is about belonging somewhere and all of them are about coming out of age, growing up.

Chloe, Max, Rachel, Steph ... Daniel, Sean ... Gabe, Ryan ... they are all irrelevant for the message - they all belong only to the least important part of the game - to the story part.

That's why it would be pretty hard to use the same set of characters, and (re)use them to bring up a whole new message.

Imagine Life is Strange series of games goes on for the next 30 years. While it would technically be possible to bring back 50-year-old Max and Chloe, I'd personally very much prefer some new set of characters in a new game about aging ...

Speaking of the Life is Strange: True Colors and its DLC Wavelengths, I DID NOT EXPECT, but simply played, and so, I wasn't disappointed.

The Life is Strange: True Colors is a very decent game and Wavelengths brings some interesting insights of who the Steph was, and how she managed to cope with life.

[Bruno]

Bruh just because you dont like the Chloe alive ending doesnt mean it shouldnt happen.
Thats still a story and has its own message, your comments seems biased af

[Qiana]

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

None of your suggestions for a sequel would create anything compelling and/or would have numerous issues within the Life is Strange lore, like the Warren/Max idea, trying to find Rachel's mother when Rachel's destiny was, well everyone knows and I don't want to spoil anything, but regardless...

[...]

1. Make sense.
2. Has a purpose.
3. Has enough differentiation.

These three aspects alone, let alone other aspects makes making a sequel to the first game incredibly challenging, hence why ideas keep getting scrapped over and over again.

Am not sure if you properly understood what I was writing ... maybe you just misunderstood me, or the other way round, don't know, because when I read your text, it makes little sense to me ...

"[...] like the Warren/Max idea, [...]"

"[...] trying to find Rachel's mother when Rachel's destiny was, well everyone knows [...]"

Warren/Max idea would be the whole new game with Max and Warren (instead of Chloe) and it's only up to the writer to make it compelling and to give it a sense and purpose, which is also true for every other game in the series. That difficulty doesn't really depend on reusing the characters alone.

Also, what was Rachel's destiny is completely irrelevant (and those doesn't rise the difficulty) at the given point in time, as Rachel was still very much alive and kicking, and wanted to find more about her mother, and the Chloe was willing to help.

Now, that "1. Make sense." (== to make sense) is the breaking point of it all.

WHO exactly says what does make, and what does not make sense? To whom? And, do you have to do only the things that make sense and only if it makes it, after all?

At this point, we get that "rational vs. emotional (== irrational)" thinking issue, which I tried to explain in some previous writings in LIS1 forum.

There is the "absolute sense" which is a direct result of rational thinking and there is the "absolute nonsense" as its opposite, BUT there is a "fata morgana sense" too, which is a product of emotional thinking minds. They'll always try to give a sense to the nonsense by manipulating the logic. Namely, EVERYTHING is ALWAYS absolutely logical, IF you start MANIPULATING the PREMISES, and that's exactly what the emotional thinking fraction will always do. That emotional fraction just want's to see Chloe and Max in "happy forever" sequel - they don't care for the sense (if they can even recognize it in their belief ...).

The point here is that, if Square Enix would really, really want to "milk" the franchise, they could easily apply the "dream theory" and continue the Max & Chloe story forever. It wouldn't make any sense to the rational thinking people though, as Max & Chloe story (and the main message of the game) has been told, but it would still make perfect sense to some, which are actually the majority (50 ~ 80 %, according to scientists).

As we know, "the first game's story is pretty much done", but at the end of the day, it's Square Enix who will decide on "sense" - their profit is the reason why we have all those games, not the games messages and even less the stories. Ask Tycoon ... 😉

[Qiana]

Since I don't really feel like recapitulating and those repeating all my past writings from the last couple of years, I'll try to make it as short as possible. Detailed explanations on "why" and "how" are still all over the LIS and LIS:BTS forums, but Steam has a decent search function for those willing to look for more.

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

My arguments are based on quality and artistic integrity, and not purely on sales numbers. I am not denying that if there was a sequel for Life is Strange 1, that it won't perform well or perform well, because it most certainly will perform well. I am much more concerned about the quality of a game and artistic integrity of a game like that if it were to exist, especially since the Steph DLC made me so much more worried if there was a sequel to the first Life is Strange.

We are basically in agreement over the most things except for one - a difficulty of making the Life Is Strange sequel, and I am still claiming that there is no difficulty, or more correct, there is not more nor less difficulty than if one would make the whole new story on a new location, with the whole new set of characters.

In other words, "character recycling" that would keep "the quality of a game and artistic integrity" would be very well possible (even if I personally wouldn't do it) if the screenwriter knows his / hers job.

It's the screenplay writer's job to make it compelling and to give it a sense and purpose. I discuss only the "doable or not part" - not if it should be done or not.

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

1. How Chloe gets separated from Max if that were the case.

2. What ending from the first game is definitively canon [...]

[...] [3] Rachel's importance would be a factor as well, and this is even with regards to the Warren/Max idea because depending on the decision that you make at the end of Life is Strange 1, this will also determine the importance of Rachel anyways, which in turn changes the premise of Max's social relationship with Warren, as well as whether Warren even cares about Rachel or not, but also with regards to the different timeline where Warren didn't really help at all with regards to solving the mystery surrounding Rachel, or Kate, if you decide to save Arcadia Bay. [...]

And to respond to the "but what about the emotional response" I argued that you will get a STRONGER emotional response by making different stories within the Life is Strange Universe make sense. Again, I pointed out a huge problem with the Steph DLC, that I felt nothing playing it, because the DLC felt way too nostalgia based while just "self-reflecting" on what happened in the past, compared to actually experiencing what Steph went through with regards to her past relationship, or other trauma that she went through that surrounded Arcadia Bay. None of this happens within the DLC despite this being hyped throughout the main game.

I am saying that the [4] emotional power of the game would get ruined if we are too reliant on trying to do something that doesn't make sense because that will result in less emotional power from a story.

[5] Players are definitely mixed on the endings on Life is Strange 1, (52%, 48% [...]

We have a few undeniable facts: the Arcadia Bay gets wiped out or not and, if Chloe survives, she's with Max in Seattle for a while, before the BFF's part their ways.

The proof for the last is in the Steph DLC. https://ibb.co/S3KHVzb

1. Just exactly how and why Chloe and Max parted their ways is irrelevant. All that matters here is only, that Max and Chloe did not end "happily ever after", even if Chloe is alive.

Max & Warren sequel could be about anything the writer could imagine. The story could be about Warren's scientific career or Max's photographic career, and the message could be something in conjunction with a difficulty on just how hard it is to make a career without "cheating" - nobody ever made a career as an artist based purely on the quality of their work. Without connections, "trick 77"'s and a good portion of luck, nobody ever become famous.

2. There is no "canon ending" and it doesn't matter which ending you got for the Max & Warren sequel.

According to "The Dream Theory" (that theory would become the actual "canon" ending), none of it ever happened. https://ibb.co/w75DVRh

That way, none of the players choices gets invalidated and since "the tornado nightmare" doesn't imply that the real tornado did (or did not) hit the Arcadia Bay, nor that the Chloe was (or was not) in the town, everything (storyline-technically) makes perfect sense.

3. Rachel's impact ... since some people like to repeat how manipulative Rachel was, that could be a great start for a new story in which Rachel manipulates Chloe into following her in search for her mother. One would get a plenty of opportunities to show how dangerous the "shadow world" is and how dangerous it is to let yourself manipulated and follow someone (else's dreams) immature into dangerous adventures. Here you go - you get a possibly great story, which is compelling and have a sense and purpose - if done properly.

4. Endless opportunities here ... let's say Point 3: Another Rachel & Chloe "romantic scene", plus some life endangering situations, and you have the "emotional rollercoaster" - if done properly. More on that at the bottom.

5. Basically, 50 / 50 % makes perfect sense in regard to the facts.

The two decisive factors here are the "rational vs. emotional" way of thinking, combined with the fact that most players played both endings.

* https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/1734336452564701447/?ctp=228#c5446505912990657255

For the end, "the expectations" in regard to Steph DLC Wavelengths ...

Soft, moist skin firmly glued to the soft moist skin, caressed by the shy, early morning sunlight ray, coming in through the big windows of the room. She opened her eyes and slowly turned her head aside. The glimpse of that beauty laid down right beside her, brought the feeling of the endless joy and a gentle smile over her lips, making her wish, she could keep that moment forever. Steph slowly stood up and went towards the bathroom. Beautiful young body reflected in the mirror, curling on her bed, just made a sigh and turned to another side ...

Different people had different expectations. Most people got disappointed. One could have made it to be anything, incl. Steph's "hostile takeover" attempt (== "move" on Rachel). The DLC tried to show Steph's psychology instead - to "peek inside her head" - to show her memories, her traumatic experiences ...

However, if the Steph's DLC disappointed you, don't blame the connection between Steph and Arcadia Bay for it - blame the writer. It's solely up to the scriptwriter to create the emotional power or to ruin it.

So ... Is the "meaningful sequel" possible? Definitely yes. Would it be harder to produce the "meaningful sequel" than to make a whole new story? No, except for the technicalities (like what someone gets to see or not, based on the previous choices). Do I personally want to get such "meaningful sequel"? No, not really.

[Qiana]

@P1nkLem0n4d3:

"I think it is possible to make a sequel and that it would be successful, but this would be a challenge, otherwise the Life is Strange 1 sequel would already exist [...]" is not the reason. Technical challenge is a matter of finding a good scriptwriter.

The reason behind is ...

Dontnod was on the verge of collapse when they started, Life Is Strange. Square Enix was the only company to agree on publishing the game "as is" - with 2 girls in main roles. However, Dontnod had to sell the LIS Brand too, if they were to make the deal.

Dontnod had a clear vision on how the franchise should move on. Each game on a new place, with a new set of characters and with a new "superpower". Square Enix wasn't very pleased, since they make games to earn the money.

Dontnod refused to make the prequel, and Deck Nine got the job. Dontnod refused to make the sequel with the same set of characters too, and ... Dontnod and Square Enix parted ways. SQ/D9 is the new Life Is Strange.

They decided to try with a new place and a new set of characters, and made the DLC ...


P.S.

Steph trying to find what happened to Rachel within the DLC?? Why exactly? Everybody knows what happened to Rachel, incl. Steph.

Chloe & Max ... No, Max is not at all "pretty happy within the sacrificing the bay ending". Her face expression tells it all. But, she had to make the decision, and she's pretty happy that at least two of them are still alive.

As of Max & Warren, one wouldn't need to make two games for the sequel.

If one would want to make the sequel with Chloe, The Dream Theory is making it possible, since nothing of what we played in LIS1 ever happened. It was just a nightmare inside Max's mind, only we didn't know it yet, at the moment we played.

If one would want to make the sequel with Max & Warren, a few seconds long memory scene, "reminiscence" is enough to give a very valid reasoning why they went apart. First, because they were never together - they were always just BFFs. Second, one "Chloe just couldn't let on Rachel ..." is all what's needed as the explanation.

And if Chloe is no more, then the reason is pretty self-explanatory.

No technical difficulty for a sequel.

[Qiana]

@P1nkLem0n4d3:

You see the issues and problems with this that I am pointing out?

No ... No issues, no problems, no difficulties ... the only difficulty is to imagine how does it all work, if one has no idea on how could it work. That's why it needs a good storyteller.

"None of it ever happened" would have to be the true story line as you just said, which would greatly ruin the first game's story [...]

No, it wouldn't ruin anything, and that's the magic of The Dream Theory. Players play the game and they make their choices. Nothing changes, and nothing gets invalidated or less important. They don't know that it was all a dream, until the very end or until the beginning of the next part - if they didn't already figure it out.

As of "would have to be the true story line" part, it actually IS a true story part, but not very many players noticed it, and so they still ask "why the Max has her power", or create some weird theories.

Dead birds "raining", double-moons, eclipse, spirit animals ... ?? None of it makes any sense, nor it's possible.

The only it-is-not-a-dream arguments come because the people didn't understand how The Dream Theory actually works. Arguments like:

[...]it was not a dream either, because she was not sleeping - Jefferson would have noticed this, and Victoria certainly would never let that slide.

... are completely missing the point, because Mark Jefferson and Victoria Chase were also a part of / inside that dream. https://imgbb.com/w75DVRh

Max was never rewinding time, Chloe is still alive, Arcadia Bay wasn't destroyed by LIS1 tornado, Rachel is still together with Frank, Jefferson was never a murder, Nathen is still going to his psychiatrist ... that's the actual ending.

[...]and again Max and Warren's relationship is changed with whatever ending is chosen, so what happens then with the relationship between Max and Warren? If nothing happens, that implies one ending, and if[...]

Well ... this is kinda valid for every previous game based on choices too, right? That's scriptwriters job, just as with "what happens then with the relationship between" Max and Chloe, Chloe and Rachel, Sean and Cassidy or Finn, Alex and Ryan or Steph ... It doesn't rise the difficulty in any way.

Max changes her expression at the very end, she and Chloe were both sad, and then they shrug it off and move on after looking at each other and to them, they smile happily as they drive away.

and what about Chloe?

Exactly. What should they have done? Step out of the car and start helping the victims? That would be a beginning of the new game ... new sequel?

It perfectly proves my point on how just how easy it would be to make another sequel. What about: https://life-is-strange.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Characters 😉

Every game is an episode in life, not a complete life - as I previously wrote. One can leave it at that, or one can make a sequel that'll continue with another episode in life.

[...]because you get that emotion that was heavily lacking in the DLC[...]

But, you realize that the lack of emotions in DLC is purely personal and subjective matter? It is you and a couple of others who find it unemotional, and that is an argument for you personally, but no valid argument in a discussion on general quality of the sequel.

If that were the case, then why didn't Deck nine just instantly make the sequel after the prequel instead of true colors? After all, that would have cost less money and supposedly make more money as well(see where I am going with this?).

Because. D9 also knows that a new game, on a new place and with a new set of characters, is a better choice and that it offers one big advantage: the all new superpower. That has nothing to do with greater difficulty. Take True Colors, replace Alex with Max and rewind time instead of emotions. Nothing would change, except for the power.


P.S.

Shall we stop here? We somehow went very much off-topic. All this has very little to do with "Deluxe Edition is not worth it." Maybe you could add me to your friends list, and we could continue it there ...

[Qiana]

No argumentation helps against belief, and so, I won't even try.

Just in short on 3 most important points:

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

Nothing would matter about the first game if all that the game was was a dream sequence. The emotional weight of everything would disappear, and the importance of what you were doing would unironically get invalidated, because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter anymore because it was all just a dream.

Could it be that you misunderstood something here?

Everything would matter exactly the same, the emotional weight would stay exactly the same, the importance of your actions would stay exactly the same, and it would matter just as much as it mattered, because the message, the philosophical dilemma Bentham vs. Kant, would still be the same.

The point here is, that you don't know what it is until you reached the end, which means that at the time of playing, it is your reality. Once you realized that everything was just a dream, it's too late - you already experienced all that "emotional", "important" and other stuff, and you already absorbed the weight of the final dilemma.

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

We both also know that the choice at the end implies that the population of Arcadia Bay gets sacrificed in the storm, so we both know that there is no "helping" that could happen.

I don't think so ...

Chloe, David, Max, Mikey (to be seen in DLC), Victoria ... survived at least, but even "EF6 tornado" wouldn't destroy the school and the hospital building and their cellars ... Besides, we see the diner in the epilogue cutscene with Max and Chloe leaving town, and we can see that it's intact, Max and Chloe drove through the town - did you noticed how clear the road was? And there were also some bodies covered with red blankets around - who put the blankets over, if nobody survived?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/827469-life-is-strange/75923258

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

My main issue with the DLC is that you don't experience anything, [...]

This to me caused a disconnect between what was actually going on with the DLC and the player. [...]

My only positives are the soundtrack, [...]

All of this resulted in me feeling absolutely devoid of emotion playing this DLC. I just never felt anything playing this DLC, [...]

Was answered in #17 already. I found the music in DLC mostly to be pretty horrible, for example ...

Originally posted by Qiana:

But, you realize that the lack of emotions in DLC is purely personal and subjective matter? It is you and a couple of others who find it unemotional, and that is an argument for you personally, but no valid argument in a discussion on general quality of the sequel.

Different people, different expectations, opinions ... What you find meaningless and unemotional, someone else might find to be the opposite. That's a very personal experience / sensation ... I fully respect that different people might have a different opinion over the same issue, and that's absolutely fine.

https://www.cbr.com/life-strange-true-colors-wavelengths-review/

https://www.gamesradar.com/life-is-strange-true-colors-wavelengths-brings-stephs-story-full-circle-and-i-cant-stop-thinking-about-it/

[Qiana]

We are turning in circles and are basically arguing about one single issue, coupled with a couple of examples.

All that writing can actually be shortened down to: You aren't satisfied with the DLC because you didn't experience anything (== what you expected) and it had too much nostalgia to it, and by your opinion, "they" should have done something else instead, to reach a more "climatic emotional ending", but at the same time, you don't blame the story writer for it and find producing sequels terribly hard to write.

My response is still the same: It is not any harder to make a good sequel, than it would be to make a new game - it all comes and goes with a storyteller. Every game starts with a good story, then comes graphics, and at the end animation & programming. That's why all you wrote makes little sense - you expected a more "climatic emotional ending" which should have been done by that writer, that you wouldn't blame.

As of the Life is Strange, that is a pure philosophy (Sartre's existentialism). It all comes down to sacrifice Chloe or the Arcadia Bay (Kant vs. Bentham).

And no, one wouldn't know that it was all just a dream, before it ends. Just like with real, real life dreams. If one could notice it during the gameplay, you would have also noticed it while you played LIS - but you didn't. ;)

[Qiana]

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

You can absolutely tell this both in real life as well as within the game world with regards to what is real and what is not, and what is a dream and what is not.

Maybe it's just YOU who can see it, or maybe it's just YOU, who believes that YOU could see it, but ...

It's obviously not that easy, as if it would be, the opinion differences on was it a dream or not wouldn't even exist. 😉

https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/490123727975337893/

https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/458605613407645891/#c458605613408484352



However ...

This leads nowhere. No arguments help against belief.

It is your belief that the sequel would be harder to make, it is your belief that it would be repetitive (and those boring) and it is your belief that you would have to like it, if it is to be any good.

But ... repetitive is subjective, and it is irrelevant if something is subjectively good, for it being objectively good ... doable, possible ... you name it. People who want a sequel, want the old characters and the old power - they want exactly that, what you would call "repetitive". But objectively, having 2 or 3 old characters and the same superpower, in a whole new story, on a whole new place, with a whole new topic and a whole new message is very far from being repetitive - as I tried you show you on some examples (which you misinterpreted).

Your subjective opinion, your belief, is irrelevant for the objective quality / qualities of the game.

There's no point to discuss over "what 1 and 1 gives", if another party insists that the only correct answer is "2" - there are multiple correct answers.

That's why I pretty often give people one of the two advices:

There are four sides to each story: my side, your side, the truth, and what really happened.

Don't believe everything you think.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/making-change/201907/dont-believe-everything-you-think

The point here is that, that if I claim that something is easily doable, and you say, no, it's not and keep trying to prove it to me, there's no more point in continuing the discussion. You'll still not be right and at that point we would reach the end - there are two opposing opinions, each party has its own view and both are legit. Nothing more to discuss.

At that point, if you want to continue discussion, those two advices kick in - you need to pretend (BTW., What if - the original Life is Strange project / game name) and go against your own beliefs, ask yourself what if I'm wrong, what would happen if it would be doable ... possible ... even if I don't believe it? How could it work (NOT how and why it wouldn't!), what would be the possible consequences etc., etc.

That's the minimal prerequisite for every discussion, regardless of its topic, as anything else would, sooner or later, only lead to disagreement, which is quite the opposite of good discussion. The sense of every good discussion is not to disagree (and those, to try to get right or win), but to learn something new through the disagreement - to try to change the own perspective (if only for a moment, and only by pretending), to broaden the own restrained horizon and those the own restrained mind - belief.

Example of good discussion (#65, #67, #69, #70):

https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/3216031607499144226/?ctp=5#c3050609385673100852

https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/3216031607499144226/?ctp=5#c3050609385673742558

https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/3216031607499144226/?ctp=5#c3050609385674132407

https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/3216031607499144226/?ctp=5#c3050609385674643324

[Qiana]

P.S.

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

I wouldn't blame the writers for trying to write something [...] I wouldn't solely blame the writers, or at least, I would only give the writers partial blame [...]

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

Again, I blame both the writing and the connection here.

Again, if there is a problem with "the connection", then it is solely the problem of writing. The writer has to discover and write down that "connection". "The connection" IS "the (good or the bad) writing".

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

If we have to recycle a story that we already experienced [...]

My examples were never about recycling a story, but about reusing 2 or 3 known characters, in a new story, on a new place, with a new topic and a new message!

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

There is much MUCH more to the endings when it comes to deciding which ending the player decides, so much so that this would be way too long of a response. [...]

This would be different if the entire story revolved around being stuck in a time loop [...]

[...] This still has nothing to do with that debate in philosophy surrounding Kant vs. Bentham, and there are other aspects [...]

Max was stuck in a time-loop. She was rescuing Chloe all over again, just that she dies again on the next occasion.

There is nothing more than the "emotional trap" (rational vs. emotional thinking) and Kant vs. Bentham in the final decision.

Bentham is kinda self-explanatory: 1 person is less worth than one town with its citizens DOT

Now, most people wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice Mark Jefferson or Nathan Prescott in exchange for the Arcadia Bay, but they hesitate to sacrifice the Chloe Price. That's the "emotional trap" which causes the "blindness" - the irrational (illogical) thinking, because ...

Kant would ask you, who are you to decide over the worth of somebody's life? Namely, Chloe's life is exactly the same as much worth as the Mark's or Nathan's life, or the life of every other citizen of Arcadia Bay, or even the life of Albert Einstein's or Nikola Tesla's.

Realizing (finding the answer) why saving Chloe is always wrong, is "the message".

[Qiana]

Originally posted by P1nkLem0n4d3:

[1] I am not in the position to need to convince, [...]

[2] Some repetition is fine. A complete copy and paste is not.

Having the old power will result in copy and paste gameplay, which was an argument that I made a long time ago.

Yeah, you would have the same gameplay with the same exact power.

I mean't that if we recycled too much elements from the first game, then this would become bad.

* The "whole new place" is not a "whole new place" with this premise and what you are describing within YOUR OWN EXAMPLE EARLIER.

[3] [...] you changed your argument completely here from the "dreams being real or not real and that was the only thing Life is Strange 1 was about" argument that you were making earlier.

* Max is never deciding whether the dreams that she is having is real or not real. This never happens in the game.

You then backtracked and made my argument, that there is more to the ending compared to just this aspect, except that I would add that there is way more than just what you have listed that is within the philosophical debate.

I would also counter argue and say that the philosophical debate is not a literal theme, [...]

Your arguments are way more based on belief compared to my arguments, and as I have already mentioned, my arguments are way more logically [...]

Again, opinion and argument are two different things. An argument can be very wrong, while the opinion itself not.

[4] Overall, my feelings are intact, and I am still responding calmly, [...]

Sometimes, there has to be a right and wrong to argumentation, [...]

[5] Whether or not more or less people agree with me doesn't necessary instantly mean that one position is more valid compared to another, even if it is an incredibly unpopular perspective.

[6] And to be honest, I still feel like we had an incredibly productive conversation, because even coming from someone that disagrees with you, it opened up more things to think about and consider when creating a sequel to Life is Strange 1, which benefits both of us.

Sorry, I had to rearrange the chronological order of your quotes / responses. It's solely to make the answer shorter.

1. You are, because I know what I'm talking about, and I'm not changing my opinion from post to post. "To blame, or not to blame, the question is now" ... and whom do I blame if ...

The writer. The "writing team" can contribute the idea(s), but it's solely up to the writer who has to make something out of that raw idea ... Writing a sequel is not harder than any other story, if not even lighter - one doesn't have to create new powers, one doesn't even have to make the new main characters profiles - it's all done already.

2. ... which is what [2a] some people are asking for and [2b] which is what I was trying to explain to you on some simplified examples like "Rachel & Chloe looking for Rachel's mother" and "Max & Warren" ... To reuse the same power and 2, 3 characters, in a whole new story, on a whole new location and with a whole new message is by no means a simple repetition of a story we already know, as you put it. It's a repetition of the game mechanics, which does not reduce the basic game qualities in any way.

* I expect that I don't need to explicitly explain what "the whole new place" means in a conjunction with, for example, "Rachel & Chloe looking for Rachel's mother", "end up on a road trip" and a title "Life is Strange: On the Road" (post #8) ...

Originally posted by † Rachel Dawn Amber:

The life needs a little mystery [imagination].

One can not "explore" every idea in every detail, in a forums post! :) :) :)

3. Nope. I never changed my argumentation nor "backtracked your argument". I just had to add more and more to it, since at some point, it become pretty obvious that you needed (and stil need much, much) more, with your "but there is more" to that LIS final ending, where there simply is no more.

At no point you had any valid argumentation, but you wrote a walls of text and had a valid personal opinion (== belief) on the matter - it was me who tried to explain to you what the game was all about - the "philosophy for the beginners": decision-making process, emotional vs. rational thinking (== "emotional trap") - Sartre's existential philosophy and Bentham vs. Kant (posts #8, #11, link in #13, #21, #24).

* Max is a fictional char which does not decide on anything. It's the player who plays Max and is deciding in the name of Max. And the player's morality is the one that counts and has to make the final decision.

4. It shouldn't have been an attack on your person with intention to hurt your feelings, and if my writing gave you such feelings, then I need to apology to you.

There's always some valid argumentation - you're reading it right now. However, I can only show you the right path, but you still have to walk down that path on your own ...

5. Ever heard of "e pur si muove"? One guy was right, the majority was wrong, but: "to get right" is not "to be right". ;)

6. I could agree on that one. Hopefully it helped you to broaden your horizons. It took me much more time than I was willing to invest, to write all those answers.


P.S.

Replaying a DLC a couple of times, might help in understanding its real quality.