Re: Zombie's Life (RPG Patreon game)
Mmm, this is gonna be a long one... apologies in advance.
Evolution is progressive and adaptive, adition of the unexpected is not evolution, it is change.
EG: Flipping a table is not evolution.
"Shota+incest+zombie" you seem to have forgotten its concensual, has an aura of innocense and theres no necrophilia. Oh, also its english.
Theoretically this comes down to a "jack of all trades, master of none" issue, The more different content you have the less content some will want.
Are you sure? I dont think you are the only one with an opinion on that matter.
That has allot of issues, i personally dont like basing my fun on AI or "dice roles", both of those have issues and both can ruin my fun.
Its called progression, its got a high basis in gaming as a whole. Clicker games abuse that basic strength of games the most.
This is why i refused to become a $5 patreon, i dont want the art handed to me, i want the game. If i really wanted to i could cheat too, but whats the point in that? if you want to go down to it, whats the point in gaming all together? hmm? its all pointless in the end, it all means nothing.
Your idea of "challange" is a pointless addition of frustration. If i wanted frustration i would seek it elsewhere, like my depressing shitty life that i use gaming to escape from. Im not here for a "challange" im not here for frustration, im here for fun (and smut OFC, but really thats just more fun)
EDIT: sorry i dont want to ignore you:
Sorry but doubt seems to be my instinctual reaction to almost everything. Its just how i am. :/
Gonna have to break this up into pieces (and also respond only to a few things, as I may be overtalking).
I don't agree with you on the definition of evolution. Change is part of evolution at its very core. Perhaps we disagree on what change is, or rather to what extent change becomes problematic, in which case that's fine.
I'll concede your point on what makes this game different. Angmir's response to me already had me reconsidering that point. I still think the game could be so much more, and the specific game ideal that I feel the game should be still has its niche as an unexplored genre. However, I do see that those three elements combine to make the game different...the English shota obviously being the key here.
I'm still not sure you understand my reasoning to losing characters--it wouldn't be random chance dice rolls or AI. Rather it'd be you controlling the fate of your allies in protecting them. It's as simple as: Do I want my scavenging ally to survive? Yes? Then follow them to a spot and shoot the zombies around them. Or provide them with better weapons/armor/stats. No? Don't. (I'm just giving suggestions on how to get them to survive; my point is more than they don't need to die out of RNGs or chance).
I expected you'd respond to my point about grinding. As a grinder myself (err...person who grinds RPGs), I understand how tempting those games are and what makes them appeal. But hell, those are BORING games. RPGs are made for people like me, and while I like grinding in RPGs (and know so many others do too), it gets to a point where you become bored of it and stop playing. Think of grinding RPGs--Borderlands, for example. How many guns can you stockpile? Or DMM games like Millenium Aigis. How many girls can you acquire? I love Skyrim and FO, but TBH, I never had the stamina to finish the games. I got to Lvl 50, had 5+ invincible allies, and waltzed through the games, much like I do this one, especially since the storylines sucked. Progression is good, but again, there comes a point where you need to change things up, otherwise it's not actually progress anymore.
Your point about not cheating and wanting to play the game IS my point. That's what I'm trying to say. I want the same focus on an enjoyable story (and yeah, maybe gaming's a black hole, but shhh, don't tell other gamers that). And I think you and I are gonna have to disagree on what "challenge" means. You see my definition of "challenge" as frustration, but I see it as a reason to play the game. I won't qualify what you see gaming as, because I'm not you, but I see your version of gaming as, well, rather meaningless as a mindless task. When it all comes down to it, we disagree on what "fun" is, which is completely fine and good. It's the dev's job (among others) to decide what 'fun' is, whom to cater to, and possibly how to make the game enjoyable for all.
I play games for the story and not only for the H-scenes.
I love happy ending and refuse the bad ones, for this reason I refuse and quit stories, anime, movie and games with bad endings
a little example of this is that I liked FFX as game but hated the ending, when a friend of mine said that with the FFX-2 they "fixed" that part I run in the near shop and took it closing the story with an happy ending
If applied to AZL then if I have to play and then lost one of the characters... no thanks, I quit the game.
BTW
I just thinked another thing about the game...
If the other characters have HP too then why don't use them?
this feature can work with this simple rules:
- the HP low of 1 point each time the player send the character to scavenge
- when they reach 0 can't scavange, if you try they say that they are too tired
- if you go where they are when they have 1 HP it's possible start the shooting minigame where the player "resist" against the zombies and then they move in the house
Well...to one's own, I suppose. Some people enjoy smut or gaming or whatever to escape from the 'bad endings' IRL, so I understand. I don't particularly like 'bad endings' either. But I think you mean to say 'sad endings', as 'happy' and 'bad' are not antonyms. In that case, there are plenty of sad endings in the world, in media entertainment, and in gaming; some of the most critically acclaimed and positively reviewed movies/shows/games have 'sad endings'. Even to that point, we're all gonna argue on what a 'sad ending/bad ending' is. Perhaps some food for thought for Nergal is to have optional multiple endings (see below) to appeal to a wider demographic, just like how most RPGs/grinders do. Otherwise, we may as well just watch early Disney movies and then shut our eyes and cover our ears when something bad happens. And in agreement with Xil, I don't mind a 'sad ending' or even a 'bad ending' as long as the story is excellent; if the bad guys win but the plot was captivating and makes sense, while I'd WANT the heroes to win, I could see myself still enjoying a movie or game like that.
And (I imagine this is getting ad nauseum), I'm not saying you're forced into a bad ending/sad ending. There are enough of those in H-gaming. I'm suggesting it be an option. You choose, by your diligence or negligence, whether you get such an ending (for your OPTIONAL character). If the majority of gamers just want a gratuitous experience without substance, by all means, Nergal should give them what they want. But for me personally, I enjoy games that are a bit more complex and require thinking and planning vs one that is "grind, shoot zombies, talk to girls and fuck them, repeat."
I don't have a problem with your suggestions. I don't see a real solution there either, since there's absolutely no reason for your family members to scavenge other than for H-scenes (if you're completely pathetic at scavenging and desperately need the 1 random resource they'll get for you). The optional Game Over (zombies getting in the house) is more interesting to me because it creates a new way to lose, but it's a rather mechanical one, since you'd be intentionally creating the GO/potential for GO by having your family members scavenge with 1 HP remaining.
