Does every thread devolve into "write long rants about where AV games fail"?

yes. Sometimes I think I should know better than to ask in the first place.

I mean, I'm not going to pretend I haven't chimed in here and there, but at least my criticisms were short and to the point (and relevant to what I think makes a good pairing), not long, long essays declaring why this is shallow/this is flat/this makes no sense/this is lame/whatever.

I understand people wanting to share their thoughts about a game, but long journeys into all the places where a game fails belong in the feedback threads/forums for that game, and while it's okay to make a passing mention of them in semi-related threads, they should not be rehashed in their entirety, and they should not take over the whole conversation and derail a thread from its original purpose.

I do expect that it will happen a little, but it'd be great if people could mention the issues once, briefly, then move on.

It's easier said than done though, if you feel strongly about it

I think it's just like how topics wander off course a lot of the times. Replying to replies could take the topic way off course, no?

I personally like to use Aveyond as an example because it's something we're all familiar with here. Rather than citing some other story and people may or may not know about it, Aveyond is an easy reference.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought we're still properly on track. Even though there are a lot of posts on "AV pairings fail", it's still on the topic of pairings no? Again with Aveyond as an easy reference that everyone understands. It's easier to understand when you cite Devin/Talia as an example of "childhood friend pairing" rather than Gilbert/Anne (Anne of the Green Gables).

Re essay: Don't know about other peeps, but I am a long-winded person in general and I am especially long-winded when I'm trying to explain something. I really don't like it when people don't get what I'm saying, so I end up spewing lots of words to make sure I present my point of view clearly. Like what I'm doing right now Then I sound like I'm defensive. I ramble about anything. Sometimes fangirly, sometimes pissy, sometimes over-analytical.

Personally don't see anything wrong with in-depth explanations on why so-and-so is wrong/problematic. Again, maybe it's just me, but if I did something wrong and someone points it out, I like to be absolutely clear about every single aspect of the mistake so as to not repeat it again.

@d_a- You mentioned TTHW on the other page. It's good but, if I were to be completely honest, this is how it is

Vance: Duchess, I'm going to insult you
Duchess: I'm going to respond to the insult
Vance: Little crude comment about her
Duchess: Little comment about Vance
Vance: I think I like her
Duchess: Me too

It's cute but if one goes by actual depth, it's not exactly the best in the world

@theone: Well, D_A doesn't play TTHW, so she won't know how the interactions there worked. She only mentioned it because someone else once said that TTHW had good interactions (admittedly, it's better than Aveyond's); which, if you think about it, is quite true. While perhaps not very deep, the characters have more interactions than most RPG Maker games would actually allow. Besides, the interaction between Vance and Fayette is not limited to their bickering

Theone, you really need to read what I said properly. I said that TTHW was good according to Ivana and that I can't vouch for it myself as I never played it.

To the general topic...

We've beaten the "good pairings need enough good interactions" horse to death, I think.

So for the issue of "why need to put lots of interaction if romance is not the main issue of the game?"

Because even if it's not for romance, character interaction events are still important to flesh out the characters. If you want to have SOME romance in the game, might as well make use of those events you should be making in the first place as romantic interactions.

"Leaving it to imagination" also does not fly unless the game is gameplay-oriented. I mean, you don't really need to care why Mario had to save Princess Peach from Bowser, do you? If you want to make a story-oriented game, at the very least the major character should not be stereotypes or blank slates.

Again, there's a difference between "leaving room for interpretation" and "leaving the canvas blank for anyone to come and scribble whatever the heck they want on it". Characters play very important roles in stories, after all. Weak characters make weak, forgettable stories.

And also because short interactions that tells is better than huge infodumps. Really.

@ DA, it just seemed like you were going a little overboard with every other post being a long rant about this or that, especially when it had little to do with the topic. It gets tiresome after a while.

As far as interaction is concerned, what matters to me more than how much couples interact is how entertaining the interactions are. For example, Te'ijal and Galahad didn't have that much interaction in AV1, but the conversations they did have were memorable. If I'm having to go through a long, long cutscene where the conversation is boring, I'm just going, "UGH, when can I just PLAY THE GAME already!" but if it's funny/entertaining, then I'm engaged.

You make it sound like I rant just for the heck of it. There's too many times people don't understand or misunderstand me when I write brief posts, so I now always explain in great details so people would get my point properly

I didn't want long cutscenes. What I wanted was short dialogue scenes, but plenty of them. Also, whatever is in a cutscene when it does happen should be telling. Even quest talks or conversations should be telling of the characters' personality and/or their relationship.

Well sometimes long ranting in every other post sounds like "ranting for the heck of it." Using good word choice in a brief post can be more effective than writing essays all the time. Many people get tired of reading long rants over and over, it's just how things are.

I don't want to argue - I just want you to understand how people might get annoyed by long rants when they're done over and over and over.

I don't know, man. In the past I continue to be misunderstood and I have to repeat my point over and over and over. Rather than saying the exact same things ten times over, I rather blah and spew very long posts at a time.

Nobody complained to me about long posts before and your initial complaint was "why's this thread about Aveyond sucks now?" So I didn't think long posts were a problem

Moving on....

Forgive me if I'm restating something that's been pointed out in an earlier post, because I haven't read all of the pages, just some.


I think generally, seeing more, like... how do I explain? Dialogue, interaction, development between relationships helps make good pairings and a deeper story, overall.

I understand that it's gotta be hard to keep the balance between having enough time spent on character development for the hard-core Aveyond gamer and not making it boring for the newbie being introduced to the world of Aveyond, but methinks that Aveyond can afford to extend the development.

I'm not talking in the way of long professions of troubled pasts and redemption to make two characters lean towards one another, but having it a little spread out throughout it games.

E.g. You're just going on, to the next city, fighting monster, leveling up, looting, doin' yo' thang, and you see that the only way to get to the city it through this tight space, so you go. An event is triggered and some monster leaps out and catches female unawares. Male (perhaps one shy to show emotions) jumps out to rescue. This doesn't make the female totally fall for him, it just opens her eyes towards the male a little.

Another e.g. Instead of:
"We found this, we need to go there."
(Group agrees and goes.)

Have: "We found this, we need to go there."
*some resistance from group member*
*resistance solved with compromise, therefore development*
*group goes*

(The male/female thing was just used as an example, please no homophobia accusations! I come in peace! )

Bottom line(-ish): subtle, slow, development.

I think this is a challenge for story-writers everywhere, but Amanda is an amazing story-writer! It's one of my favorite part about these games.

Oh, yes, the lack of interactions in Aveyond had been discussed for a while actually. The fact that most there's hardly any conversations between the party members unless you buy a house/manor (which is optional), and that barely anyone shows any personality (they're all just following the heroes) and the extent of the chemistry between the couples are limited to giving gifts and optional events is a major source of complaint among Amaranthians.

I hope we get something Av2-like again where we gain attraction points from things other than just giving gifts! Those interactions were really fun, and they were optional so people can't complain about walls of text.

I personally do like my pairings to be the foe-yay type.

I ship Gyendal and Mel, after all.

I also like my pairings to have bad boys with spunky headstrong girls.

I'm all game for bad boy/headstrong heroine myself, as long as it doesn't turn into bad Twilight-type relationship. Or, heaven forbid, Hush Hush. That actually goes way past the happy parts of my enjoyment-meter and right back to the "foul foul foul do not want " part.

For me it's gotta be the boy/guy that does everything he knows to do but she wants nothing to do with him. Then finally, when he's almost about to give up hope, they get together.

I never liked the bad boy x good girl type. I tend to like the good guy x villainous cackly little girl type (and that, Nox, means you).

That's cool too Still, "Good guy" or "good girl" is a very loose term. Stella is a good girl. Mel is technically one too. Galahad is a good guy. So is Eddie!

I like my good girl and guys to be still headstrong (Galahad and Mel) or else the "bad" boy or girl will trample all over them. That is NOT NICE.