Darklord Rooke

To play brilliant games like The Witcher 3. Even Pillars of Eternity wants 8 Gigs of RAM, although it will settle for 4. The disdain for Bioware is usually over the dilution of RPG mechanics -> less tactical and more action oriented combat system, the dilution of the role stats play, lack of choice and consequence. That has little to do with the story oriented nation of their games, though. I'm fine with their dialogue wheel TBH, and the dialogue ... well, I've recently played through KOTOR and the dialogue in Mass Effect is better. So they're improving. Also Drew Karypshyn, the legend who headed the story for Mass Effect 1 before the story became a companion gathering quest in ME2, is back at the studio which is a good thing. So there's positives. But saying ME isn't for storyfags because the story sucks (is this what you're saying? It's not clear,) is like saying FFXIII isn't for storyfags because the story sucks (everybody knows FF games are just interactive movies these days.) Responded before I saw this. Sorry, too early in the morning for thinking. If the conversation goes any further, maybe a mod could split it.

Good time to be alive for RPG fans :3 It almost makes up for that dismal 7ish year run in the middle of the last decade ...

*Whistles*, that's a lot of money to elect someone that makes minor changes but largely maintains the status quo and not rock the boat In the future, China and their Taikonauts will be doing the heavy lifting in space anyway.

I have an 'irritated, staticky sensation which starts from my ear and rattles around my head' every time certain people hit certain pitches. Does that count? It makes me want to kill someone ...

I love it when the war of words isn't about ideas at all. It's two sides both trying to avoid the issue but at the same time paint the other side to be a pack of stupid heads. The amount of linguistic gymnastics they go through, so that while they're saying nothing they sound like they're saying something while also laughing at the other side, is pretty impressive. If they put that sort of effort into their policy and maybe reforming the political system ... it's no wonder people are getting fed up with career politicians

All flashbacks are akin to short stories. The author is retelling past events in a flashback, ergo short story. If you're trying to say that the flashbacks in Fata Morgana are different because they're short stories, then you're unsuccessful. There is nothing different or unique about the flashbacks used in Fata Morgana. I disagree here, there's a difference between care in content and care in storytelling. Lazy storytelling does not mean the author was lazy about the creation of the content within. Historical context and atmosphere are all to do with the retelling of past events. You're just saying the flashbacks are detailed, that hardly makes them special. And unless the music we're talking about is from the 50s, and includes the words 'spurs', 'jingle', and 'jangle', then I'd really question whether the music is worth it (heh.) Okay, meaty portion. There’s 2 parts to this answer. I’ll quickly deal with the idea of ‘present events not being important’ in the second part. When I say that flashbacks always negatively affects the story, I meant the present narrative, and it's always accurate. Flashbacks are a dangerous technique to use because they stunt the forward progress of the story to take you on a trip to the past. Because of this, the general writing theory is to use them sparingly, because they are so often done poorly. Mainly because amateur writers never acknowledge the downsides to a technique when thinking of which one to use. To write a flashback well, the pros must overcome the major con of the technique (and the synergy of text, sound, and visuals are unrelated here.) You’re saying it’s perfectly justified because the past events are interesting and fascinating (and something else which I'll get to in a sec,) I’M saying that it always detracts from the main story occurring in the present, and this has little to do with how interesting the past events are. The story is always the most important thing, and writers always have to be careful about how much backstory and worldbuilding their novels contain. They like to get carried away on occasion. However, if the pros of the flashback outweighs the con due to the present events being incredibly unimportant and uninteresting, then I would question why the present events were included at all. It’s perfectly possibly to tell the story of a house spanning generations in chronological order taking the reader on a journey through time. If present events (present narrative) are a distraction, do away with them. If your claim is true, that flashbacks don’t hurt the present events because the present events are unimportant, then they shouldn't be there. Unless they are important, in which case copious flashbacks will detract from them. See this circle we're going on, that's why flashbacks are so disdained. The cons are strong in this one. Care is needed. Really? I'm observing many complaints concerning the use of the final set of flashbacks. If 'pacing issues near the end' due to 'repetitive flashbacks' is a common complaint, then I would say it wasn't done right at all. Hmmm, the purpose of a scene is rarely to create emotional ties, and it never should be to expand the setting. It might appeal to those already in love with the novel, these people want as much extra information as they can, but it would turn away most others. But it can be done successfully, don't be surprised about the complaints, though. Which brings me to my next point: You're not reading me correctly. Let's go full circle. You stated you didn't understand how the flashback fest at the end could make the story drag out because, and tell me if I'm paraphrasing you wrong, the events within the flashback were well paced and entertaining. I thought I'd clarify the subject for you, I mean I've only studied writing for about 10 years now and converse with authors and publishing house editors, so obviously my understanding on writing isn't at the top of the field (it's a field you study for life, and will keep learning new stuff until you die. Which is why I won't pick up another language, for all those wondering. Too much to learn about English.) However, I thought I'd convey unto you the conventional wisdom which floats around the writing community. Talk to most editors, writers, or consult the internet and they all say the same thing about flashbacks - use with care. Now, they obviously don't say that for shits and giggles, there's a reason for that. So if the community says 'flashbacks lead to a lack of tension, a lack of forwarding of the narrative, and PACING issues' for such and such reasons, then you shouldn't be surprised when the community brings up PACING ISSUES due to Fata Morgana's questionable use of flashbacks near the end. Questionable due to the author wanting (for some reason) to dump the same information from different viewpoints - a negative because we’re not talking about separate short stories, but a single narrative, and therefore should be treated, and judged, as one. I probably should have just said that first ... yeah, I probably should have said that first. The problem is I often have so much I want to say, I end up cutting great chunks out of it to whittle it down to an appropriate size. My fault. So it's slow due to repetitive dumping the same information, which affects a single narrative in a negative way. Possibly fine as separate stories, but they're not separate stories, it's a single narrative, so there's problems. Now, you could say this is all a 'preference thing', and that Fata Morgana really does use flashbacks well, then put your fingers in your ears and go 'lalala' to all the criticism. True. Why not acknowledge that as a piece of entertainment (don't say 'art', like a pretentious artist) it has flaws as well as strengths? No? Well, you're free to think what you like. Heh, according to Bats 4 hours of a 16-20 hours VN. That's 1/5 or 1/4. That's a pretty long 'end', btw ... I see, an 'artist'. Pretentious youngster, or wordsmith? I'm only asking because a lot of youngsters wander around the writing circuit talking about 'art' without knowing much at all about writing. The cynical person within thinks part of the reason they use it is to invalidate all criticism 'you wouldn't understand, it's art. Don't judge, it's art.' The other end of the coin are actual wordsmiths who know techniques inside out and can bend the language to their will, that's how they create art. Not by wandering around in a cape thinking they're above critique. Good writing is any writing which succeeds in projecting the image of the scene to the reader. The rules are there to help the imagery, the manipulation, the use of language to good effect. Adjectives, for example, are so denigrated because they reduce descriptions down to a single word, shedding much detail, and relying on the reader to do much of the image creation. They also are not precise. Weak adjectives even more so. There's a 100 different ways a person can be 'sad', for example. Therefore the uselessness of this adjective, but its consistent use among beginner writers is why the technique is considered 'bad'. That being said, there are some wordsmiths who can create a metaphor using a single adjective which creates an incredibly powerful image. And there are some who use adjectives frequently yet adeptly. There are also many cases where using adjectives are fine - it's a valid technique provided you know the cons. The rules are there for people who don't know why the rules are there. Wordsmiths don't need to follow the rules, because they understand the pros and cons of techniques and can manipulate language at will. Are you that good? No? Do you understand the ins and outs of the technique you're going to use? Break the rules at your peril, then. Sorry for being a downer.

Please don’t do that. You can’t 'interlock fingers' without 'holding hands,' so the holding hands bit is redundant and kinda comes off terrible-like.

Wow! Art is brilliant!

Hopefully things become less hectic for you soon

It’s very possible to tell a story set around the actions of characters in the past while narrating in the present. One might even say more engaging. Flashbacks are just one of the easiest, most straight forward way of presenting past events to the reader, and it's rarely anywhere near the most powerful. Uncovering the past slowly through present events allows for much more mystery and tension (for starters) than is possibly when just dumping the past events onto the reader. But alas, the VN community has this thing where people aren’t allowed to comment on VNs without experiencing the whole Gorram thing. I had the same problem with people when I said 999 was told in a bland manner (after only experiencing half an hour of it,) and when I gave up on E17 a couple of hours in. So here’s the words of someone who has read the whole thing: https://vnrw.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/vn-the-house-in-fata-morgana/ I am shocked, SHOCKED at those conclusions. Truly, I thought flashbacks (and repetitive flashbacks no less) were the true pinnacle of dramatic storytelling. I won't read it because it's too dark for me.

*Researches Fata Moragana* Oh, the whole thing is one flashback after another. GREAAAAT. What a fascinating storytelling technique (this is sarcasm, in case nobody could tell.)

I think you'll find I talked mostly about the technique in general and didn't claim anything (in terms of absolutes) about Fata Morgana. Firstly no, it isn't. No technique is 'necessary' at all, but merely one of many techniques a writer has at his or her disposal to create a certain effect. Those who claim that techniques are 'necessary' don't have a very good knowledge of the full range of techniques at a writer's disposal. Secondly, standard flashbacks are not used to establish grand things about the 'novel', they are used to establish facts about the past (which could possible include grand events, but is not mandatory.) That is why it's called an 'info dump' because you're (as the writer) effectively dumping background information in (what many people consider) one of the laziest manners possible. The flashbacks in Fata Morgana are no different, in that they are massive dumps of information to reveal background and past information. The danger of using this technique is that while it does reveal information, it also affects the pacing of the plot. Nothing happens in a vacuum, if your story has a plot (not necessary) then any time spent significantly developing anything will affect the plot in some way. Which is why many flashbacks in succession are usually enough to kill off reader's interest in novels, because even though it reveals information it does this in a way which negatively affects the story as a whole. This is because it halts the forward progress of present events. Quality writers will address themes, and develop characters WHILE moving the story forward. If you need to dump all that information in a series of flashbacks near the end, in a series of flashbacks which includes much repetition, chances are the writer has cocked things up somehow (if done intentionally) or just got lazy (if done unintentionally.) In general, I'm sure there are people who have done it in an effective manner but the majority don't. The VN community seems to have a thing about long scenes which do nothing other than 'develop character'. 'You need those long scenes of nothingness to develop emotional ties with characters', they'll say. Codswollop, you need no such thing. There are a multitude of stories that develop deep ties between characters and the reader without such stuff being present. Those long scenes which do nothing, they're considered 'bad writing' in novels with a plot. So don't be surprised when readers turn their noses up at them. People may enjoy them, you may enjoy them, I enjoy many writers who write badly also, but I'm not going to try and claim that techniques considered 'bad' are actually quite good because I enjoyed them. Or because they are 'necessary' (this is never the case, btw) to the story. But I have seem writers warned again and again about the dangers of flashbacks turning off readers. So you shouldn't be surprised that SolidBatman felt the way he did, because it's quite a common reaction. And yes, I'm doing this while not reading Fata Morgana. How dare I!? xD I've seen it used often enough though (and I float around the writer community enough) that I don't need to see the story in question to tell you why people are turned off by the use of it or to tell you about it. Background character information dumped on the reader. Standard use of flashback, really. Nothing special about it. Is that so ... conscious? Like the repetitive 8 episodes in the second season of Melancholy of Haruhi was 'conscious' and done for effect? Sorry, couldn't resist. People are too concerned with 'ideas' sometimes. Writers are warned to be careful of 'long flashback sequences', 'numerous flashback sequences', and we may as well include 'numerous flashback sequences which repeat shit over and over again' precisely because it bores the bejeezus out of most people xD

Problem solved. I'm glad to have been of assistance

The technique you specified in your spoiler tag is an info-dump technique. It can be used well, but often (especially in anime and some VNs) is used poorly. While I haven't read Fata, and I probably never will, Milestone One (for example) used it in such a way as to kill off all mystery about a certain character and to kill the pacing of the first episode. It's so often used poorly, it's one of those techniques writers are told to 'beware' of. While the plot may demand certain information be revealed to the reader, that by itself doesn't justify the use of any technique - the HOW and the WHEN are up to the writer. If it's revealed poorly then a credible defence ISN'T 'well, it needed to be revealed'. Reading Bats' review, the use of the technique in question sounds lazy and tedious for the reader.

Will be buying this. Anyone know what the price will be?

Isn't that what the internet is for?

With multiplayer games, instead of "cheating" I employ "strategy". For example, when seated next to a person beating me convincingly, I would yank his controller cord out of the console. The lengthy 'WHAT THE FUCK' and his subsequent scrambling granted me plenty of time to rack up an advantage. A little bit harder to do now that wireless controllers have become a thing, but a hearty overhead chop should be enough to make him drop his controller, granting you a few precious seconds to do what you will. ... ‘Strategy’ :3 Note: Shielding your controller and your person against retaliatory strikes is a must.

I did. It sounded perfectly decent … to me

I liked it better in the old days, when there wasn’t a lewd meaning for every verb under the sun

You’re forgetting that every time I pound on them, and I'll definitely pound on them, they fracture into separate parts. Each part having only a fraction of the life span of the original. And if I pound on them again and again, say 75 times, that separates them into 75 parts. Each part with only 1/75th of their lifespan ... 11205/75 = 150 And then when I sit on them, all of them, they’ll deflate. Like a lot. Let’s say I ate a really big lunch, 2 lunches, no 3, then I sat on them. And that lunch was baked beans and cabbage, which gives me a lot of gas. Why then, that would shave off a great many years, let’s say about … half their life. 150/2 = 75 And then let’s say I found this massive dog …

Well, we've already been waiting for 8 years, what's another few months I suppose On the positive side, Persona 5 is looking good :3

And Nekopara Vol.2 has sold close to 80,000 units, so it seems the support is there if they want to milk the series for all its worth.

Quotation marks indicate direct dialogue, a text box with a name indicates direct dialogue, so quotation marks are not needed in this instance. It's like saying the same thing twice To be honest, they look like incomplete square brackets [ ]

Oh dear.

I'd like to point out something also. Only Americans use the double quotation marks for speech. All my physical books (well, I'm not going to check all of them) use single quotation marks for dialogue because they were printed outside of the US. Americans use the double quotes (") for quotations and single quotes (') for quotations inside a quotation, but British punctuation guidelines suggest the opposite - single quotes for quotations and double quotes for quotations inside a quotation. I know what you're all thinking and I agree, the British format is obviously superior and I really don't know why the Americans like to be contrary Just checked my Kindle and the punctuation between books is a total mish-mash *wrinkles nose*. Observe: “The marquis has arrived, sir.” (The Theft of Swords) ‘Initiating VKT ranging, cross-match RL acquisition data,’ (Pandora's Star)