Premises
Referring to the main strand of plot of Cryo, the premises are:
1) Sometimes a problem cannot be solved at the time it arises;
2) Problems that are not solved become recurrent in different forms;
3) Old wounds are not meant to be forgotten;

The premises did not change since the beginning of the CWP.


Plot
"That is not a complete plot, it's only an initial incident and some rising action. How is Cryo resolved?"

You are correct that it is not a complete plot. I didn't give the complete plot because there are too many branches. I don't see how what I wrote was different from what you put. If I simply put it in the same format:


Initial incident: A human is resurrected into a strange world
Rising action: The human learns about the world and to adapt to it and to discover the history of the past
Climax: The human makes a stand about what is and what was, and claims a solution for himself and those around him
Resolution: The human faces the consequences of his decision, he may have made a good decision and live happily there after, or made a bad decision which brings chaos back to the new world.

So, the initial disturbance of the human being is carried on and integrated with the discovery and adaptation to the new world. The human's inner conflict is echoed in the aspects of the new world and worldbuilding, since the initial problem that wasn't solved was also carried on in the new world. By solving the unfinished problems and old wounds in the new world, unity is achieved. The keyword here is unity, not balance. Cryo is not about balancing between two unrelated directions, the two direction of movements are integrated and unified. All is one. If this terminology does not hold more meaning to you, just call it balance.


Worldbuilding

Quote: I don't understand how you can say, "they [fantasy worldbuilding elements] are not where the meaning of the story lies" and then say, "in Cryo the new world and new rules are created based on the meaning." That doesn't make any sense. Either the 'fantasyness' of the story is meaningful or it isn't, and if it isn't you'd probably be better off not putting it in the story. To me the 'frozen war' seems like a fantasy worldbuilding element where some of the meaning of Cryo lies.

Suppose you begin the design with a message, the premise. Before looking at the set premise, you go about designing the fantasy setting. Then, the fantasy setting is not where the meaning of the story lies, because it is created independently. On the other hand, the design of Cryo creates the fantasy setting based on the premise, therefore the new world and new rules are based on the meaning. You are correct that the fantasy setting in Cryo has meanings. And not just any meaning, but the meaning directly related to the premise.

'they' meant [fantasy worldbuilding elements created without the prior consideration of the premise of the story]. Not just the outcome, but the way it was achieved. So your notion that 'either the fantasyness of the story is meaningful or it isn't, and if it isn't you'd probably be better off not putting it in the story' is correct, and at this moment I am not discussing whether to have it or not, but the difference of how a story ends up including it, between the design method of a fantasy fan and my design method.


Unity
"It is also probable that we are using different definitions of the word 'coherent'. To me a 'coherent' worldbuilding is one which makes sociological and evolutionary sense, whereas to you the fact that it is thematically unified is probably more important."

This statement is misleading. Coherence is a must in the story. Thematic unity is higher level of coherence. The design method that I have been describing is all about achieving and ensuring these higher level requirements. So in some sense you are correct that I think thematic unity is more important. But it is more important in the sense that coherence is elementary that can be taken for granted.

To make the story make sense is the first level.
To make everything in the story that makes sense make sense together is the second level.

Cryo was designed systematically based on the second design objective.


*

Quote:

Quote: *I think that animal traits make the design worse for a story about romance for mature audience. On top of that you chose the anime style and decided to include BDSM. I don't see how it artistically romanitcises the story, other than making it less mature.

What does that have to do with Cryo? I know you feel that way about Xenallure and you know I disagree, so what's the point of mentioning it?

I am saying this because it seems to show the difference between how a fantasy fan would end up including fantasy settings in the story. In your example, it seems that the animal traits are the first thing you want to include in the design, before considering the meaning and the targeted audience. This is not very different from the general notion to 'include bigger guns' in the design. It is almost like a no-brainer to you, like an addiction. Normal romance is not enough, and so now you try to include BDSM. This is how a fanatic would go about including elements in a design.

Take a step back and think about it, will Titanic, Finding Neverland, or any other romance or drama movies be more mature done with animal traits (excluding angels and the like)? That is why I think that you chose the setting to artistically romanticse the story, it actually goes the other way around. You picked the setting, and then find ways to justify it. And I don't see how the resulting justification is valid, unless you are really addicted.

In general there is a trend of how the romaticness of a story correlate to setting. The more realistic the setting is, the more romantic the presentation can be. Realism takes many forms. For example, the animation version of Beauty and the Beast is not as romantic as a live-actor version. (If you don't see what I mean, think Lord of the Rings and the anime version of it.). Now, compare the live-actor version of the fantasy story, to the realisitic drama version of it, the drama version is likely to be more romantic. What is the realistic drama version of Beauty and the Beast? It is the version where the fantasies in the story complete decoded mapped back to a realistic setting (no castles, no beasts, no magics, ...) For example, the realistic drama version of Beauty and the Besat might involve a marriage where both of the couple did it not because of love but of formality. The plot will be about how the couple overcome the barriers and end up loving each other from their hearts.

I am not saying that animal traits have no place in mature romantic works. But the design has to be done unified from the inside out.

Quote: Original post by Xenik20
Beware that u copyright your stories before post them online. Other ppl can steal them. I know because i learned the hard way. I had my ideas stolen from me
as we worked on the game. He even said he has a deal with XBOX to create this game. He then moved away with my ideas, and isnt givin me any credit. I tried gettin in contact, but each time i failed. I am not askin you to have sympathy and play the worlds smallest violin, but i am tellin u to copyright this stuff so the same thing doesnt happened to you.

The original idea about Cryo was meant to be a toss up just for the sake of discussion. But I see why you think I need to copyright it.

If I put a copyright notice, it would dictate how I present the story. I might as well put Cryo in a design document.

You seriously think I am 'addicted' to using animal traits and BDSM in my stories, and use them without regard to my audience or what would best suit a particular story's premise? What an amazing misunderstanding of my writing goals and methods. It is taking a great deal of willpower for me not to be offended by this. It might be legitimate to say that I am addicted to romance, since all my stories are romances and I rarely read anything that isn't a romance any more, but just glancing through my portfolio ought to demonstrate that it is not a 'no-brainer' for me to use animal traits or write about a dominance/submission relationship dynamic. There are 6 stories (not counting Shapers and shaped because it's so short and has no character development) in my portfolio: Jessop's Story, Hearts or Nello, As the Moon Loves the Sun, Facepaint, Uke On Top, and Howl Together. Of these only 2, (Jessop's Story and Howl Together) have any use of animal traits, and only 2 (Facepaint and Uke On Top) have any mention of BDSM.

As for Xenallure, if you will recall, it's premise is, "Different types of people need different ways of life to be happy." The animal traits were chosen to say to the reader, "Hey! Pay attention to this character's personality type, it is like the animal they have the traits of!" and serve the additional functions of making the humanity of the magicals doubtful and making the magicals easily visually distinguishable from both humans and technos. Dominants and submissives are classic examples of people who need an unusual lifestyle to make them happy, and I do not consider a romance with mild BDSM elements to be unusual - in real life couples one person is often the leader and one the follower, one the talker and one the listener, one the caregiver and one the care receiver. In the genre of romance novels it is very common to have one character aggressively insist on a relationship (even to the extent of kidnapping or blackmail) while the other resists or flees. It is also common to have one character be an experienced seducer while the other is an innocent virgin, one have a forceful personality and a dark and violent past while the other is a shy pacifist, one have an inferiority complex or a superiority complex... Romance comes in as many flavors as ice cream does, and I really have to wonder what you are thinking of when you say a 'normal' romance, because I don't think there is such a thing. Romance, as I understand it, is about how characters with opposite personality types come together like yin and yang to make a balanced, dramatic relationship.

At any rate, animal traits, BDSM elements, and an anime art style were all chosen to appeal to an audience of highschool/college-age gamers of both genders who might be interested in romance; of the gamers who like anime I believe you will find that 80% of them like romance (while the other 20% only like mechas and explosions). Of romantic anime fans, I believe you will find that almost all of them like animal traits, with cat ears/tails and angel/dragon wings being the most popular, and most romance fans of all types consider mild BDSM elements to spice up a story, especially when balanced with a little comedy and sap to show that it isn't just a kinky lust thing, the characters' hearts are involved too.

*+ Off topic
I seriously think that you are addicted to using animal traits, the same as the rest of the 80% of the anime fans. The equivalent accusation go for the 20% that are are addicted to mechas. At this moment I don't see you as a person who would include something you don't like just to please the audience, therefore I would think that you are also in the group of the 80% that loves animal traits.

That was about addiction alone. Nothing wrong with that.

As a designer, however, you should feel offended to be accused of deciding on elements with no consideration to the objectives. Your portfolio does nothing in defending yourself since it can be interpreted as a general trend for increasing intensity. In fact, it says that homosexually is now not enough, you are moving toward characters that are not only bisexual but are capable of physically perform both ways. Besides, all of the descriptions of the stories concern the sexual contents, as if you get excited just talking about it. This is not the way I would see a mature writer highlight their works even though the main topic is sexuality. Not to mention how you use sex as the main hook in each of the non-fanfic story. What did you think the reader is supposed to think when they read that? "Alright! I am going to read something about threesome and hermaphrodites!" Come on. I think your portfolio goes against you in this argument.

From your design doc, Anime fans is listed as the last group of targeted audience out of four groups. Did you pay equal attention to the other groups? Or did the Anime Fans get special attention in the selection of the design elements? I was simply saying that from the Mature audience point of view, animal traits seem unfit. And now you say that your targeted audience is highschool/college gamers. Did you forget the mature audience group? Or did your choice of animal traits alter your design objectives in reverse?

In your design doc you have already said that by 'mature' you meant 16+. At that time I didn't realize that you were lowering the standard of being mature. I thought you were mature when you were 16. At least when I was 16 I didn't go like, "Wings! I just have to have them!" In fact, I was already against those ideas when I was 16. I thought they were low-grade, insulting symbolism.


"As for Xenallure, if you will recall, it's premise is, "Different types of people need different ways of life to be happy." The animal traits were chosen to say to the reader, "Hey! Pay attention to this character's personality type, it is like the animal they have the traits of!" and serve the additional functions of making the humanity of the magicals doubtful and making the magicals easily visually distinguishable from both humans and technos."

This is what I meant by low-grade symbolism and decision. Do you see how you picked first then explain its functions instead of the other way around? Any implementation you pick that is different can satisfy the two additional functions. In what ways did you actually consider the alternatives, or do you just keep the first thing appeals to you and evaluated the rest based on that?

Quote: Dominants and submissives are classic examples of people who need an unusual lifestyle to make them happy, and I do not consider a romance with mild BDSM elements to be unusual - in real life couples one person is often the leader and one the follower, one the talker and one the listener, one the caregiver and one the care receiver. In the genre of romance novels it is very common to have one character aggressively insist on a relationship (even to the extent of kidnapping or blackmail) while the other resists or flees. It is also common to have one character be an experienced seducer while the other is an innocent virgin, one have a forceful personality and a dark and violent past while the other is a shy pacifist, one have an inferiority complex or a superiority complex...

I am not arguing against this, but when you put this and anime and animal traits together. You are targeting audience that are just wondering and fantasizing in that domain. If you look at any 'normal' romance plots and dramas, the idea that opposite personality attract and Ying and Yan still exist. However, they do not mention BDSM. Why?

The way you have been describing it and presenting it appears to me that you were just getting bored of the common romantic plots. You are correct, you need something to spice it up. What happened before is no longer satisfying, you need something more intense, something different. You need the characters to have animal traits, you want their behavior and emotions be expressed blatantly without restrains. It is this mindset that I was referring to as immature.

What kind of elements were you referring to as 'mild BDSM elements'. Maybe Dreambell, Cardinal Prime, and Cryo actually have some, but I don't see much of a reason to stress that whether there is BDSM, since the story is already intended for mature audience. If there is, then there is, if there is not, there is not. The design does not actively try to include nor rejects it, as long as it does not distract the story.

Okay I AM offended now. I wouldn't bother to argue with you except that I don't want this stuff that you've written about me hanging around in the forum unchallenged.

There is a total difference between being addicted to something and liking something. If you are addicted to something you do it compulsively, all the time, and can't force yourself to do otherwise. If less than half the stories in my portfolio contain any element, you can't logically say I am addicted to that element. I would think that as a writer you would want to be more careful with your choice of words than that. >.<

Here, just for you, to aid your effort in analyzing how my writing has evolved over time, is The Way Of the Dragon, my first attempt at a novel, written when I was 14-15, and, importantly, before I had ever watched any anime. As you might expect of something written by a 15 year old, it isn't very good. I won't asky you to actually read it. But let me describe to you the elements in it: An introspective main character, characters named after animals, characters with vivid, anime-like appearances, romance and sex in all 3 varieties (het, homo, and bi) plus incest, which I haven't had the audacity to do since. Humans genetically engineering themselves into hermaphroditic dragons, and one of these dragons then getting into a romance with a human who things sie is truly an alien. Not to mention male lactation, telepathic lifebonds, tarot cards, communism vs. capitalism, spies, and government-ordered hormone injections.

So. Maybe I have immature, sensationalist taste. (Since when is trying to write intense stories a bad thing? Of course I'm trying to write stories that create an intense experience for my readers!) But I think it's safe to say that I have not been grasping after more intense elements because I am getting bored or normal ones; I was bored of normal ones and craving intense ones from the very beginning. Maybe when you were 16 you took yourself too seriously to fantasize about wings, but when I was 16 I thought turning myself into a dragon and being able to fly was a damn cool idea, and I believe you will find that 'mature gamers' (16+, highschool and college age), especially the ones who would be interested in a romance game in the first place, are a lot more likely to share my POV than yours.

The descriptions of the stories concern their sexual contents because the are WARNINGS so that people who do not like like that content will not accidently read the story - this is a courtesy to readers and a standard convention of fanfic writing. Mild BDSM is usually considered to exclude torture and rape (yuck) but include bondage, captivity, and voluntary submission (yum, as seen in Skew's subplot).

So if you think I have bad taste, fine, but don't call me an irresponsible writer because I'm damn well not! I am a mature writer, and everything that goes into one of my stories I put there on purpose and with awarness of the consequences of putting it there. If anything I'm too rational and cautious in choosing my story elements, or I wouldn't still be agonizing over my novel's outline, I'd be writing the damn thing. And I think it's particularly rude of you to start insulting me when I was only answering your questions about Cryo. Sorry if you can't take the criticism, but in my honest opinion Cryo is a flawed design that would not be much fun to play, other designs I have seen from you have a lot more potential. If you don't value my opinion or want my help, just quit asking me questions, because I certainly have better thngs to do with my time than try to explain to you how to improve a game design that isn't even what you really want to make.

The discussion was about the design between the story and the characters. With respect of Cryo, I have been showing you how the characters (and other elements) were chosen based on the message of the story. That took a while to get across

You mentioned how you also chose the elements based on the story. I did not see that happen in your designs. Therefore, I think that you misunderstood the flow of design in Cryo.

In the original * comment I showed you plainly my view that the choice of animal traits does not enhance the romance as you claimed its effect to be. Therefore there is a need to clarify the differences between the design methods. I don't want someone reading this to think that the two are the same (maybe they are, but at this moment I don't believe they are).

It just happens that the main topic involving that discussion was presenting maturity and what appeals to a mature audience. And regarding that topic I showed you why I think that that choice does not fit the paradigm, and you countered with the view that it does fit the paradigm in the narrower domain of anime fans.

This shows a sign that you are retro-fitting the objectives to the elements. If you recall the order of the design, the notion of having animal traits existed before the existence of the premise of Xenallure. This is another sign how the elements alter the choice of the objective, instead of the other way around. This is a major difference between the two ways of design. Moreover, since animal traits were chosen to visually distinguish the Magicals, how is the same done to the Technos and the Spirituals? What are their equivalent design considerations? I know you want the Spirituals to have tendrils, but what is the point, what is the meaning? The difference between the two design methods is whether the idea of tendrils is accepted before its meaning is accepted, and, suppose all of them have meanings, how does the meaning of the animal traits of the magical correlate to the traits of the spirituals? Does that association exist? Or will you have to make it up? This is the fundamental difference between the two design methods.

If you recall the beginning of the project, this was what you said, "I believe that I can pick the elements I want first, and then cook up a story with a meaning." It seem to take awhile before the idea that the meaning of the story should go first to sink in half way. I am telling you to take another step back and look at the big picture.

(I don't see how your introduction of the Way of the Dragon help your argument. As you already know, the argument was not just about animal traits, but the pursuit of sensation. The line is drawn on how you define an 'intense experience', and how that pursuit dominates over other considerations. I don't think it is a misnormer to refer to it as an addiction. As you defined it yourself, an addiction is about compulsive pursuits. From the evidence you provided it does show a compulsive pursuit, where animal traits is one of the outlets of that need. If you don't already notice, I have additions also in my designs. I don't see how calling someone addicted is an insult. You simply have to accept that you take that part of the desgin decision for granted. However, there is no excuse that it is a flaw in the design procedure.)

I don't see why you would think that I can't take critism. The whole point of this thread is to get someone to attack the idea. And you were not the only one attacking it. The difference is that you locked on to some assumptions that I told you were wrong many times but you still don't accept it.

You said that the design was incoherent. I showed you exactly why you might feel that and how the design had already accounted for them by unifying them. You said there is a misunderstanding about premise, so I use your definition and listed the premises for you to see. She said cryo's plot may not work. So I described the plot. You said what I described was incomplete, so I put in in the exact same format as the way you would describe yours.

So far there isn't really anything that you have strongly attacked, except saying that you see a fatal flaw, but you can't describe it. A fatal flaw is supposed to be big and obvious. And you are a writer. If you can't describe it precisely there is a problem.

If you see a flaw, I would expect you to be able to verbalize it. Just as I would verbalize why I thought animal traits are unfit for mature audience, more accurately, I see it as a parody of a potential more mature version. There are certain major flaws I see myself. By now it should not be a surprise that I see flaws in anything. But this ability is the basis for improvements.

I see what SunandShadow is tryna do. I am not much of a writer so u have the power to toss my opinion to the side. I believe Sunandshadow is trying to create a breakthrough in the game industry. He is trying to make a contravesal game. In order to be the best u have to stretch limits of the imagination, or to do something that no one dares to do. Look at the traits of Eminem (rapper)and Richard Priar(comedian). Grand Theft Auto made a breakthrough, because it to a hard risk.

[Edited by - Xenik20 on April 6, 2005 1:25:01 AM]

What do you think in her design that is stretching the limits of imagination?

not that is my place but since being online allows me the peace of mind to know that I wont have the crap kicked out of me I'll give my opinion.

SunandShadow - Addiction is a very strong word. I read your work some time ago and would not call you 'addicted' to tails, tits and whips I would say that you are in danger of being classified as a 'niche' writter, one who deals exclusivly with a certain subject matter and who's writting is constantly monodirectional. That might not be (and probably isn't) the case, however I can see how Estok might be under this impression. Some things to consider however; (1) anime fans are not either all mecha (20% apparently) or all romance (80%). They are a widely varying crowd who wish for a mix of everything or heavy doses of certain things but they cannot be classified. (2) Yes, it is transparent that you like animal parts in your story. We all know that you have a point to get across, always, like most good writters; however, In my opinion there are about 78,908,312 other ways to get across the point you are trying to make NOT using animal parts or BDSM; you have simply choosen one and stuck to it which makes you an ineffective writer in many ways and an extremely effective writter in only one. Why would you choose to limit yourself in something you clearly have a passion for? It was apparent that you were trying to give Estok construtive critism but what it turned out like was de-constructive because you gave solutions that seemed heavily influenced by the one way of writting it is that you know how to do, yes, it is flawed, but not so much as most of your stories which are heavy on unrealistic character relations driven by raw emotion, mostly dealing with sex. Frankly your stories are repetative and boring, if your point is to reach people then you should not exculde the use of elements on the basis of your preference of content, but use your style and voice (which is your strength) to reach a wider base while getting across the original message which would otherwise be powerfull. There is alot of potential in your writing and message but not your use of elements, devices or overall work (thus far)

Estok - Addiction is something to be taken very seriously, to call someone it because you have a grudge is grossly out of line(it downplays the things that people really do face. Paramount to calling someone a 'fag' as a negative term), at the most she has a fetish that she enacts through her writting, but if our writing lacks a part of us it lacks substance in emotion and message. I also do think agree with SunandShadow that it is lacking in some way, however I hope that because I do not understand why you do not attack me like you did SunandShadow, she was trying to help by giving you her first intuitions about the game, it is by this intuition that we are most effective analysts. Like when you go somewhere and something feels out of place or eerie, just because you cant activly describe why something seems wrong does not mean all is well. I thought that the things you said were out of spite and felt like attacks, sunandshadow is a good writer and has alot of offer the forum but she is also still learning and has alot left to learn; if something sounds like ignorance it probably is, however its best to take what we can get, even if we dont agree with it or like it for what it is. She took part of her day out to give you advise, that gesture in itself is meaningfull. The last thing I will say is about sunandshadows comment about your not taking critism well; it's true. When someone in this thread gave you critism you were more apt to explain either why they were wrong or explain that you thought they must not understand it if they didn't think it was perfect, then you were to explore their opinions about it.

So all, those were my thoughts and unfortunatly neither or you can spit at me, scratch my eyes out, yell in my face, knock me down or drown me in a pool of saliva. Or, in the case of SunandShadow, kidnap me in my sleep, glue a cotton ball to my bare ass and whip me unil I lick your clay model of a werewolf penis or some other prostetic animal part that has become part of your addiction (joking). Good luck in both your endevors and please someone read my post "dancing the edge" which should be changed to "dancing the thin line" or simply "dancing the line" sometime soon and give me something critical I can work with.

There are a lot of times I type something and then delete it think that it is too much. Addiction has a bad connotation in a design, but you can also take advantage of it and use as a signature. This is one of the basic method of transforming weakness. But in order to do that you need to know that you are addicted and then think about ways to actively reinterpret it. Therefore in my view 'addiction' is a neutral word.



The communication model between S/S and I is abnormal. If you think that I attack s/s too early, it is because there is a history behind it. There is a history of s/s to not believe the things I say (because I use a slightly different terminology and often times discuss in a more abstract level than expected. If you believe that she is a niche writer, you can also understand this situations by recognizing that she often reply to the posts in a narrower context then presented. This is why I constantly need to clarify the misunderstanding.). Basically this is the current situation:

I show up with what I claim to be a bullet-proof vest. She says it is lacking this and this, so it is flawed. I say it actually has this and this already. But she can't believe it. Therefore, in another thread or in the same thread I attack her with my gun. The effects of those attacks are undefined, but it is evident that after she have seen how I attack, she can now attack me using the same method. So she shoots me with my own gun thinking that it won't be bullet-proof, but it was bullet-proof. This is the current model of communication, by making her shoot me with my own gun and see it for herself.


I don't mind someone attacking the ideas, but I want them to attack in context. The idea here is not to simply give the intuition of whether you like something or not like something, but to attack the idea within the framework and premises of the design.


For example, it is meaningless to attack a story design involving a war by simply stating that 'I don't like it because I find warfare distasteful.' This is not an appropriate attack because it ingores the reason why the designer thinks that war is an important part of the design. The attack is ill-framed. Obviously the designer cannot complete describe or expect the viewer to know all of the underlying reasons. Therefore, when this type of attacks occur, the normal action the designer will take is to clarify and provide the reason why the feature is being chosen. Without this, the discussion cannot continue in a meaningful way.

After this, the viewer is not expected to simply think, "Well, I told you what I thought and you are defending it and not accepting my view, why bother commenting?" The actual discussion has only begun. The commenter is expected to reframe the attacks from the design standpoint. In other words, this is the type of meaningful attacks that should follow after the initial exchange:

"I see that you are presenting warfare as one extreme in the spectrum of conflicts, but warfares come in many forms and reasons. Since warfare is only a catagory of conflicts, what motivation behind the war will you select?"

Attacks that target the link between the objectives and the decisions.

This is the same type of attack that I would make against her design:

"Your design targets mature audience, what makes you believe that the choice of having animal traits is appropriate for the group?"

I don't think this is the type of discussion most would expect. Most of the time 'feedback' stay at the 'do you like it? what are your preferences?' level.

Quote: When someone in this thread gave you critism you were more apt to explain either why they were wrong or explain that you thought they must not understand it if they didn't think it was perfect, than you were to explore their opinions about it

So this is correct. But I also want to explain to you there is no other choice than to explain it.

For example in the discussion where s/s said that having two mysteries at the same time is distracting, I replied by saying that I have already considered that and that is why the 'two' mysteries are in fact one. The discussion stopped after that, but the expected attack can come in this form:

"I don't believe that you can unify them, can you show an example of what you mean by unified world mystery and personal mystery?"

The objective of this attack is see whether the two can actually be unified, and whether is it more satisfying than the implementation of keeping only one of the separated mysteries.


Does it make sense?