Life is Strange is a narrative game about making choices. There are countless examples of this genre from RPGs to the popular modern Graphic Adventures but LiS embraces an element of save-scumming to remove the short-term experience of finality that drives a lot of those decisions. When players are allowed to fully explore every dialogue tree, a game about choices becomes one that can really focus on the cause and effect that occurs more than within the immediate moments after a choice is made.

Anyone who's played many games built around choices will remember plenty of occasions where the designers have reinforced the idea of consequences by inserting gotcha answers into the dialogue trees. Pick the wrong answer, see the "amusing" failure and either be thrown back into the same question to pick an acceptable answer or hit game over and reload from the last save. The equivalent of the tabletop GM getting tired of your crap and bringing the freestyle nonsense to a swift end.

The classic model, before gigabytes of audio data came with every game, was to have players read their choices, pick an option, and then jump into the response. The player was the protagonist who decided a response and then jumped into the corresponding reply, possibly with some key bits voiced for effect. Then "cinematic" because the only way to sell games and everything had to be voiced. Eventually the player character was forced into a voiced role (and so the narrowing of the avatar into only roles that matched the recorded dialogue) and it was decided that the player should not have to read the full dialogue before making a choice and hearing it delivered by the voice talent. A decision that has given us the modern dialogue wheel and which many people will push back against. Now you have to guess at roughly what your avatar is about to say and so are guessing at the reaction it will evoke once removed.

But Dontnod Entertainment, expanding on the time-manipulation sections in their previous game, Remember Me, have found a path forward that retains the voiced dialogue without requiring the player to guess at what is going to be said or putting paragraphs of text up before a choice is made. This freedom can clearly be felt in the long dialogue blocks that can be triggered when the player picks what to discuss. But none of it is a permanent, locked choice due to the mechanic by which time can always be rewound and other choices made. The player is never left screaming at the screen as their avatar does or says something they would never have wanted to role-play in a tabletop version of the story.

I've previously discussed how Life is Strange manages to carefully genericise the setting and story to allow this European young-adult tale to play in America or elsewhere (even tagged as a story in a fictional Oregon coastal town). It doesn't quite stick the landing on that, especially when measured against specific local expectations ("Well I didn't talk like that when I was a kid"). But it does provide widespread familiarity for a story that generally doesn't get funded by the publishing model for computer games. That's the reason why the narrative of this game is one of the most exciting things to come from a publisher in years: a reasonably highly funded studio project about two queer women finding love amongst the background of ubiquitous rape culture in higher education.

But it's also mechanically interesting and a step forward for the genre of games that provide the player with narrative choices. How can you go back to a game that offers some broad categories and emotions on a wheel and pretends that the player is making an informed choice to role-play by fumbling through the dialogue when this system offers the player genuine choices about how to interact?

The cost is that you can no longer embed gotchas into your dialogue systems. Players don't need to game the system with save-scumming to undo immediate reactions to their choices but this just means they no longer are playing a game of second guessing the writers and avoiding picking the selection under which a mine has been hidden.

Life is Strange is a game all about choices, tying the ludic and narrative strands together into a coherent whole. And none of them are a cheap way of punishing choices. When necessary, as seen at the end of episode two, the ability to see all options is restricted to avoid exploitation of the game (with save-scumming or reaching for a phone to look up a FAQ) but in general the point of a game about the effect of actions is to show them occurring over the spread of days and even years. At no point does denying the curious player the chance to see what other options the writers put into the dialogue tree ruin that.

[Republished blog, originally published here]

So I selected the "attach this to Life is Strange forums" option but it seems to have been attached to General Discussion. If a mod reads this and it's not a major hassle, moving this to the LiS forum would be appreciated (I don't think I can move it myself - tried deleting the blog and posting again but the same thing happened; tried editing the blog and changing the attached forum but no dice).

Edit: thanks to whichever mod it was.

Agreed. Early on I heard a lot of people suggesting that nothing you said or did mattered because of the time mechanic. I saw it a different way. As you mentioned it elmitnates the sour taste of sometimes inadvertently getting hoodwinked by the game. It also setup for one of the most powerful moments in the game.

In episode 2 Kate Marsh tries or does commit suicide depending on how things play out. The catch here is this is one of the few points in the game where you cant rewind and undo your choices. Your stripped of your power and in a moment of desperation have to try to reach out to your friend. I failed. Kate jumped in my game and it was an incredibly effecting moment to me. All the time reversing powers in the world and I still wasn't able to save her.

I really like how they used the rewind power in conjunction with the narrative even encouraging you to rewind to take acquired information into the past to get different responses out of conversations. And even in the moments that you can take your time and rewind and poke at they always do a good enough job in most cases to leave you with that lingering doubt of... "Oh well shit I should pick the other thing." Only to be confronted with another set of complications from the other choice.

Its smart and effective and keeps you engaged. And its one of my favorite games in years.

Don't quite agree with what you say in the middle - for me it's a reasonably big publisher funded game about friendship, love, nostalgia, youth and growing up. And especially about letting go, or not letting go of your past decisions. Don't really see where "rape culture" fits in, more like entitled pricks getting their way. Female characters were chosen quite astutely, because the relationship would probably have been a bit different if it were male characters. In the end it really really worked out well. Also, maybe because I'm European, none of the "teen talk" stuff ever bothered me, it really was generalized enough so that the teens say reasonably appropriate with their memes and silly slang.

But the way choice making interacted with the primary mechanic (rewinding) and was really PART of the primary mechanic, not separate - really brilliant game design. As well as it working into the narrative.

It makes me wonder if and when they decide to make a "2", or a "Season 2 ", whether they will keep the mechanic, think of something else, or what... Hard to imagine. I know the life is strange subreddit was abuzz with ideas, but nothing stands out in my mind as perfect.

@dr_mantas: I agree with you on the themes covered (I was breaking it down to what I read as the core Max/Chloe(/Rachel) theme but obviously lots of stuff is covered over the 15+ hour story). But, like, the story is explicitly about rape culture in higher ed. The whole Kate arc is about widespread (students and staff) victim-blaming, ignoring, and harassment of someone who has been assaulted. As the GBEast crew went back and forth over the choice to tell the cops or look for more evidence: that's the bind of rape culture being put front and centre. If Kate had been attacked in another way then there wouldn't even be a question: of course she'd be expecting more support (even with the wrinkle of Prescott/Vortex Club institutional power then that support would come from peers if not the police - but the police would be less likely to make things worse). The dark room is (ok, not greatly done) allegory for/obfuscated/implicit sexual assault (you can't have the bad guy explain his thing as "capturing the moment of innocence lost" from young women without making it very clear that this isn't about photography).

Young women, fighting a system that at every turn doesn't care about the crimes committed against them, up to an including the requirement that people not just go missing but their bodies are found before anyone even thinks there's something worth investigating. The background of the piece is set against rape culture and that theme entwines into most of the ongoing story (I would even put that the central relationship is a queer one into that, as rape culture is built on the heteronormative assumption). Entitled pricks getting their way is one of the major methods through which rape culture is perpetuated. Because the majority of pricks who are allowed (by society) to get away with things are straight men and boys.

"That's the reason why the narrative of this game is one of the most exciting things to come from a publisher in years: a reasonably highly funded studio project about two queer women finding love amongst the background of ubiquitous rape culture in higher education."

If there is any sign that you are reading too much of what you want to into this game... it's this.

Max and Chloe don't HAVE to be in a relationship. There is a perfectly valid way to play this game where Max and Warren are a couple. (To be perfectly honest, I think that's the more valid telling of the story since Chloe spends so much time angry and obsessed with Rachel Amber.)

I completely agree. The thing about the game is that it throws every single "teen problem" into the game. It's absurd, but it works. The game is almost a parody of teen media as it is a legitimate work about teenagers. It's so compelling because it's so overwrought.

But problematically, people see what they want to in it. Just like people see Max and Chloe as "queer" idols despite there being ways to play the game where that doesn't necessarily come up, people see "rape culture" where they want to see rape culture.

Personally, I first watched a playthrough of the game by two girls who were convinced that the central storyline of the game was rape right up until the very last second they could continue telling themselves that. They WANTED it to be about rape. (And it's not like they had to go far to make that assumption, the game head fakes that way, to some extent. Arguably it might be stronger if it was, even though I dislike rape as a plot device.)

@bananasfoster: I've previously said how this is a love story (soroal or romantic - my reading of my playthrough is clearly romantic). As you say, Chloe spends a lot of time really broken up about her romantic love for Rachel. So that's easy agreement on one queer woman in this love story. The fact that the range of choices Max can make, as the behest of the player, can involve flirting with Chloe or Warren mean she is, canonically, bi and so that's the other queer woman in the love story. You either take every playthrough as the only canon and so I point to my playthrough as where my interpretation comes from and Max is queer or you say all paths are the totality of things Max is inclined to do and... she's still queer.

I'd even go with the GBEast playthrough and comments on Warren's attempts to date Max as being clearly designed to be at least on the scale of creepy and inspiring players to use one of the many times to turn him down and comment. That's not to say that Max's ability to choose to say Warren/all boys are creepy/yuck means that's not a valid path through the game, only that the developers certainly intend to make a queer path a main one through the story.

I would point to the harassment of developers and community anger about queer relationships in other games and even the difficulty this dev had with getting a publisher for this and their last game by not having a male protagonist as signs they could feel pressurised to include a straight relationship path (or at least a non-queer reading of the playable character). To avoid the messages of disgust that have flooded other devs due to homophobia in the audience (and therefore disgust are "being forced to play a gay character").

Don't worry, I've been doing games media criticism for long enough (paid to do so since the '90s) to not be worried when someone is scared of "reading too much into" the text of a work. Everything I've said is clearly linked to the actual text, none is fabricated. It is all defensible. This is a solid interpretation of this game.

Actually even the interpretation that Chloe is "queer" is entirely your reading. Chloe clearly states that she went through a "boy toy phase", and makes numerous comments about heterosexual relationship experiences. We're never explicitly told WHAT the nature of Chloe's relationship with Rachel Amber is. All we know for certain is that Rachel Amber was DEFINITELY "more than friends" with Frank.

So, while you can CHOOSE to say Chloe is gay, and simply hadn't decided to be fully homosexual due to being a teenager who didn't realize she was fully gay, that is very much a choice to choose to believe that about the story. It's not necessarily supported by the text.

The only thing we can say for certain is that Rachel Amber is definitely sexually involved with men. Possibly emotionally involved with Chloe. And that Chloe seems to be emotionally involved with Rachel Amber in a romantic context. (That is never explicitly stated, as far as I remember.) Max, is what you make of her. If you want her to be gay, she's gay. If you want her to be straight, she's straight.

Again, your reading of the game as being "queer" is just YOUR take on YOUR choices in the game. And that's fine. That's the way the game is meant to be played.

But saying the game is ABOUT homosexuality is like saying Fallout 4 is ABOUT sex with robots.

@shivoa: I think we have very different ideas about society and culture. That's fine of course. It's a testament to how universal this game is when someone like me, a bit rough and insensitive, a bit conservative, straight, male, all that, can find enjoyment in experiencing this game. It is a story about love, can be romantic or not, because it works either way. (I'm enormously pro Pricefield, I feel it fits the story best). And it's a very powerful journey this game has. But the way you interpret plot elements in the game has very much to do with your own experience. So your interpretation is no more right or wrong than anyone else.

I think the devs have said they chose more "stereotypical" characters, as is very obvious in the first episode, as a way to quickly get you into the story. But it works a different way as well - no character is truly one sided in this game, up to and including someone like Nathan - and the characters change during the game both by force of narrative, and our own perspective.

And the way the relationship between Max and Chloe can evolve from friendship to romance is so subtle and natural - I barely noticed the transition, it was so excellently done. And I personally have never seen any criticism of the romance, or the gay characters, or even main characters being female surrounding this game - not even on goddamn youtube. I think the devs have so completely accomplished their vision, that it doesn't feel forced, or fulfilling an agenda, or meeting quotas - it just feels like this story couldn't be ANY other way, and that's what makes it so approachable. Start with the story, not a goal you need to meet.

(I know people bristle when this topic is discussed, but lets remember we are having a nice discussion here so far.)

The game does work within the frame of rape culture, yet does not depict rape. The choices people make and the assumptions people make work withing the framework of how people think within rape culture. Yet, in the end nobody rapes anyone, or even tries. Which in itself might indicate that game shies away from the reality.

I was pretty sure that if the story had been a movie many of the girls would have been touch inappropriately, not merely kidnapped. The girls are drugged, kidnapped, put in 'comprising postilion' and then photographed...at that point if seems likely it would have gone further than that in reality or in a movie. However, the way I see it the game can be saying, "Well, drugged, kidnapped, and photographed is already serious assault without going a step further."

I think the "rape culture" comments are more directed toward what is going on with Kate than what is going on with The Dark Room.

Incidentally, if anyone is reading this, (SPOILERS FOR THIS WHOLE THREAD)

I think people are saying that the way Kate was treated by the school and by the school's authority is the "rape culture" element. I use the quotation marks because I don't believe in "rape culture". I think certain characters were behaving rightly in being objective in what they were being presented and I think other characters, like obviously Jefferson, were just being D-Bags.

I think that the bullying Kate got from the school was leveled at her by the girls as much as the guys, and that bullying isn't shown to be uncommon at the school. EVERYONE gets bullied. Kate was just the flavor of the week.

I think the game depicts a girl who is being bullied as an aspect of the teen existence, but I don't believe this game set out to promote an idea of "Rape culture". Unless I see information for a developer saying otherwise, of course.

@monkeyking1969: I have a suspicion at least some of it is written as implicit and scenes are omitted to avoid being gratuitous. The text on "capturing a moment of loss of innocence" is too on the nose to really be read any other way.

I think it's worth looking at what would be added to make it explicit (and especially if doing so involved depicting it in a scene). Kate's arc already involved mention of sexual assault in the context of the party before she is taken to the Dark Room. I'd draw comparisons to Jessica Jones and deciding what not to show. That (far more adult oriented) story does need to make the mention of rape explicit (because it's a rape revenge story) but despite being a revenge story there is no rape scene. It wasn't needed, the show is already triggering in so many ways, why commit it to the screen when it isn't needed. "Would making that a scene be anything more than exploitative?" is probably a discussion in the writing room. Obviously Life is Strange is not the same story but I have to think there are valuable parallels to explore in a story about sexual assault and implicit or analogised rape.

Nope. Nope nope nope! Have no interest in continuing a conversation with you.

You jump into a thread because you really need to be heard to decry an incidental mention of the rape culture shown in the setting (in a blog mainly about the mechanics in LiS)? To state firmly this is reading too much into the game? But you don't believe in rape culture so no game could have anything to do with it by your logic. So what exactly was the point of your comment?

Yep. There it is.

Incidentally, while I haven't seen Jessica Jones, if the show is following the comic, she was explicitly NOT raped. Killgrave raped OTHER people, but not her. It was part of the mental torture. He made her want to be with him and then never was.

@bananasfoster: You need to get better at media literacy, it's not just retelling the comic book story. Which is why I brought up the show, because it is an explicit rape revenge story without the rape scene depicted on the screen.

@bananasfoster: There is culture that could be called such, just not in the West. That is beside the point, however.

But even if something like that was prevalent, you're right that in the game it isn't portrayed that way. I could list a bunch of examples and reasons, of how characters act and react to things that happen in the game, but I think you understand already.

How do I need to get better at media literacy when I a) Said I hadn't seen the show up front and then b) merely said what is the truth about the comics from which the television show was adapted?

I was merely putting it out there for your benefit. From the rest of what's going on in this thread you seem to have trouble parsing what is presented and what you choose to believe, so I was merely saying that unless the show clearly states that she was physically violated, it's best not to leap to the conclusion that she was, because the comic explicitly states that she wasn't. Killgrave was still a monster who kept her for his sexual pleasure, but it involved NOT doing things to her more than it involved actually doing things to her. It increases his insanity and creepiness, really, because for him it was all about breaking her down mentally for his satisfaction. It's the literal manifestation of the ideology that rape isn't about sexual gratification, it's about anger, control and domination.

Well, you are right. There are societies that are definitely built around possession and sexual subservience of women. (And that is always, unequivocally wrong.) But when "rape culture" is brought up around Life Is Strange, or similar works, that's not what is being discussed. The rape culture claims around Life Is Strange are more attempting to discuss, I think, the way in which Kate Marsh is victimized by the school for what happened on the video. Then, further, the handling of the incident by the school staff. The fact that suspicion was cast on Kate for what happened is said to be the manifestation of a culture that blames the victims of sexual assault.

@shivoa: Man, have I thought way too much about that very idea of not showing explicitly what is already being implied heavily; particularly with rape in fiction. Silent Hill 2 is a good example of how not showing a deliberately awkward scene just because it's "edgy" can actually HELP your storytelling.

As it applies to Life Is Strange, I think that the "concept" of rape - the idea of being violated, not necessarily in a sexual way - is heavily placed all around this game. It was a unique way of instilling the same feelings of violation and helplessness in both characters and players without needing to resort to more "blunt" means.

@bananasfoster: Seriously, give up with the idea you have a clue. You can't talk down to me because you've repeatedly shown it is you who does not know what you're talking about and yet is desperately keen to insert yourself into the comments on this blog post.

I commented on a show and your immediate reaction is (when you've never seen it) to imply I might not know what I was talking about. Because, I, having watched the show, might be less capable of talking about it than you, who has not. Really? Really?!

I look forward to your return to this thread after you've seen it to try and talk your way out of what is made incredibly explicit in the show. There are scenes dedicated to Jessica finally confronting her abuser and using the word rape (again, made explicit exactly what is meant, not just mind control).

I was merely putting it out there for your benefit

Oh go have a long conversation with yourself about why you felt my blog post was such a crime you needed to repeatedly comment on it. What blinds you to seeing rape culture is a thing that's endemic in the society in which you walk.

I agree with Shivoa. Life Is Strange definitely incorporates rape culture into its narrative. It's not singularly about rape culture though; it also explores victim blaming/shaming, mental illness, bullying, and probably more I'm forgetting. The great thing about Life Is Strange's presentation of its themes is that it's not sensational or exploitative. I think Life Is Strange could go deeper, but not many games, if any, broach serious topics like this in the first place.

As for whether someone thinks rape culture doesn't exist? Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Please go read some material from the perspective you claim doesn't exist.

What I mainly wanted to add to this discussion was how I think Life Is Strange's mechanics in choice should get more people thinking about other ways of doing choice in games. Rewinding time and exploring all choices, especially how it works in Life Is Strange is such a wonderful way of solving the current problems with choice based games. This can't be the only solution though. I'm curious what other methods people can think of that aren't based around time manipulation that evolve the mechanic of choice in games.

@poobumbutt: Yep, absolutely. To talk about a small part of the whole, I thought the Jefferson monologues at the end were not greatly executed but they certainly tried to speak to the violation theme.

I was just reading an interview with the Jessica Jones show's creator in which she said:

We're very conscious to treat that aspect of the story with sensitivity and responsibility. For me, if I never see an actual rape on a screen again it'll be too soon. It's becoming ubiquitous, it's become lazy storytelling and it's always about the impact it has on the men around them. It's like, "Oh his wife was raped and murdered so he's going to go out and destroy the world." That's so often what it's about, just this kind of de rigueur storytelling to spice up often male character.

Could not put it any better than that. I'm glad that Life is Strange didn't throw anything explicit in there if they thought it was a hard topic to do right (with explicit mentions; again, sexual assault is made explicit earlier in the story arc so it's not like they completely avoided the implications or discussion it, if obliquely) and didn't want to look for the line. Better to be a few steps back than to step over that line. And it's not like they didn't cover a large range of difficult issues at various points.

Discussing this is reaffirming why I think Life is Strange was really exceptional. It really is great, even when that means taking slightly fewer risks with how far the story goes/what is made explicit.

While I think the mechanic of Life Is Strange is done well, mostly, I don't think it quite solves "problems" of the mechanic of choice.

I think it solves hangups from certain people. Those people being the people who want to know how all aspects of a conversation turn out. There's nothing WRONG with that, but it's a unique type of person who feels that way. If we're talking about the same thing, that is. I'm assuming you are saying that the thing you like is the ability to replay conversations over again.

I mean, really, all the game is doing is taking those players who will reload a saved game until they get their preferred outcome and turning that into a game mechanic. Clever, but not all gamers play that way. As a role player, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. If Kate died on my play through, I would be sad. But I wouldn't change it. I know other players who wouldn't stand for that. But to me, it's the letdowns and moments of failure that make the experience work.

@shivoa: I agree with the writer's quote, but there was a separate interview she did with Rolling Stone which actually turned me off from the show because she talks about Kilgrave like she's happy she found a way to make rape "interesting", rather than it just being drab and "average" like Game of Thrones as she says. Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/jessica-jones-creator-on-the-tony-soprano-of-female-superheroes-20151119

Sorry, I can't use block quotes or embed links using my Ipad.

She says rapists have a sick delusion about their victims actually wanting what they do and that he is the "ultimate" version of that (now I can't stop thinking of Brian Irons saying "the ultimate rapist!"). I thought it was creepy thinking of it like that.

Still, it's been this exchange over non-explicit scenes that convinced me I should give JJ a whirl.

Oh, good, I've completely turned this away from Life is Strange now. Go me.

Spoilers be ahead.

I know a lot of people thought the Jefferson stuff was tonal whiplash at best and just plain bad at worst. I personally thought it was fine, even if I had definitely seen this type of character turn executed better elsewhere. The most important thing to me was Jeff came off as a legit scary dude and his psychotic motivations were rather interesting to me. It wasn't my favorite moment in the season, but it brought the themes present together into an (for better or worse) unexpected package. Props for that.

Really? I hadn't heard that criticism or opinion about Jefferson leveled. Most people I know/watched play the game were pretty much like "THAT guys guilty of something. Now we just have to figure out what" as soon as they saw him.

I don't know if it was Dontnod's intention or not, but he came of pretentious and slimeball-ish as soon as he was introduced. He had a slight bump from people when he rebuffed Victoria, but he tended to lose all points with people with his behavior during the "what-do-after-Kate-Marsh" meeting.

@bananasfoster: Actually, that's not what I meant. When I said it solves the current problems with choice, I meant it removes the ambiguity and finality of choices in the short term. An effect of that is a way of exploring each choice without having to reload saves. This gives the player more confidence in their decisions. A subset of that is the people that want to see everything a game has to offer.

Exploring and experiencing everyone avenue of a game isn't a wrong way to play, but as Austin has touched on with Undertale, I don't think it's a better way to play than the alternative. I've definitely fallen into that way of thinking before, and it still tempts me. And I think this idea ties into something much bigger with the rise of the information age.

Now, back to what I was talking about with how Life Is Strange presents a solution to the current form of choice. A common problem with choice is the developer's intentions and the player's interpretation combined with the finality of the choice in the short term.

I think Until Dawn does a pretty good job of being unambiguous, and it's even clever at points, but there were two moments in the last 15 minutes of the game where the game didn't do a good job telegraphing what it wanted. This resulted in two of my characters dying. It felt unnecessary and at the fault of the game itself. Compare that to a choice much earlier in the game where the game's language was clear, but it was a trick. I fell for it and it also resulted in a character dying. However, it felt completely different. I thought it was clever and the outcome deserved.

Time manipulation is Life Is Strange's way of facilitating acceptance with one's choices. I'm curious what other ways choice can be evolved for a more satisfactory experience. I don't mean narratively; I mean mechanically, and not a non-answer like "just make better games" or the like. How can we push this part of the medium?

Well, I mean, personally I grimace at any point when "the game wants" something. I feel like, in the realm of adventure games, the game should ne ver "want" anything. It should just respond reasonably to my inputs. I'm the one who should have the locus of control.

Whenever a game is asking me to do a specific thing to continue the story they want to tell, I get frustrated. Take Uncharted, for example. I cannot play that game. I find myself repeatedly looking for what "the game wants" instead of being able to execute on the several valid solutions to a problem that I have solved. Twilight Princess gave me similar frustration. THere is a scene at the beginning of the game wher eyou are suppose to get a kitty to a person who lost it. I solved the problem at least 3 different "non-valid" ways before, after a stupid amount of agony, figuring out what "the game wants".

@bananasfoster said:

Maybe I didn't word that the best. I didn't mean "want" in the way that "this is the way the game is supposed to be played." I basically mean clarity in what is being chosen. Not what would the outcome of this be, but what is going on here. If I don't know what I'm choosing or my choice doesn't match my expectation of the choice, then it leads to feeling like the choice was presented in a poor manner and I'm stuck with a choice I don't accept. As Shivoa and Jeff mentioned, Fallout 4 is a good example of this, and this is why the full text mod exists. Reducing a complete choice to how that choice feels with a few words is tough. Fallout 4 does a poor job of this, resulting in a choice different from what was thought to have been chosen.

Oh, I see. I also really, really hate this in videogames. I feel like Bioware was the first company to start doing it, and I think they do it because of the full voice acting. I think they feel that it would be redundant to read your characters line and then listen to them say it out loud. Rather than ditch the voice (which I would prefer), they instead ditched the ability to read what you say before you say it.

I feel like Fallout was a better version of it because, while it still sucked, at least it truncated what you were going to say down to a shorter version. Bioware games will often have your character says something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. What read as a sarcastic line or an empathetic affirmation is instead transformed into a putdown or a dismissive retort.

Every time you say "rape culture", a small part of me dies inside.

@poobumbutt: Thanks for the link, I'd not seen it.

I don't think I took away the same impression you got from it, I think it reinforces the position that JJ is being careful with the subject matter (although the interview certainly is pretty bleak at "So he's a white man in America?"). I read it that, as part of that, it does centre the plot and characterisation around rape so it's not just inserted as filler or incidental to to narrative of a man who hears about it (the fridged woman motivation). In one way Kilgrave is larger than life but, I won't spoil it, but the dialogue choices are brutally realistic at points. You do stop thinking about superpowers and reflect on the underlying message of power, authority, and privilege.

My thing with the Jefferson stuff is that I don't think the dialogue was solid enough to sell it. I think the themes and inclusion was good but maybe another few revisions on the dialogue could have made a lot of difference for me. Bits seem hackneyed and on the nose but I definitely agree its inclusion was merited.

Everybody just be cool to each other and talk about how much we like Life Is Strange.

:D

I didn't read it, but I have to say, that mod for Fallout 4 for the full dialogue options is a nice touch. I haven't had much issue with it so far, but it's cool. Hopefully with the mods coming to the consoles, the PS4 version gets that... By the time that happens though, I'll probably be done with the game. Oh, and I really liked Life is Strange, though by the end, I was just wanting to take it off my console. To me, it's a long time to have a game on the system. I'm waiting for The Witcher 3's last big DLC to come out before I take that off. The only games I keep on are full on digital games, like The Last of Us, and Alien Isolation for example, as I bought those digitally.

Yeah, the distillation of a choice to a feeling does solve the issue of experiencing every line of the player's dialog twice. I don't think the relief of an annoyance is all it provides though.

I think distilling a choice can make for a more fluid and affecting experience, and there's all sorts of narrative value in expressing dialog vocally.

When the full dialog is given as an option, it puts less emphasis on the vocal performances, reducing their effect and value on the player. The dialog wheel that Bioware pioneered in Mass Effect mitigates this by distilling each choice to a few words. It's pretty clever, but comes with the difficulty in conveying what each choice actually is. Not saying they can't innovate or do better; this is just one way choice has been tackled. I think the general lack of innovation in choice just goes to show how tough of a problem choice can be.

I also definitely really enjoyed the fact that the game will often throw the mechanics in your face at different points, most explicitly when you revisit the diner in Chapter 5 and the game explicitly calls you out for the creepy, immoral stuff you've been doing the whole game (despite Max having no problem calling out other people on doing the same thing, natch)

Also,

Come on duder, this is a SUPER nonconstructive response to someone critiquing your editorial.

It's not a critique, it's a climate change denier trying to dump on a discussion of global warming. A flat-Earther. An anti-vaxxer. There is no way to engage, hence the polite request to just stop - especially as it wasn't even about the point I was making in my blog post.

How is there constructive engagement with someone who reads a blog about the mechanics of Life is Strange which offhandedly boils down some narrative themes in passing and just has to repeatedly post to try and show their cred at denying reality. First the analysis is attacked as not being supported by the text (false, as I justified); then the thing being discussed is denied as real and so impossible to be read in any text (ie this was never about the analysis, if rape culture isn't real there was no reason for the first response - except the burning need to deny the daily reality experienced by millions of people); then my later statements are attacked from a position of pure ignorance about the media being discussed (under some bogus claim of being "for my benefit" that my views were being rejected without a clue about the thing I was talking about).

If someone is an anti-feminist then clearly there's nothing to discuss about a feminist analysis of a text. There is no common ground on which to build a dialogue - it's pointless to go back and forth about it. I mean, am I meant to engage until literally told to go back to the kitchen? Sorry, no sandwiches are incoming.

I opened this thread, pressed ctrl+f, typed in "rape" and it turns out it's been used 62 times.

@shivoa said:

You seriously used the word "rape" 6 times in a forum post and you have the audacity to use the word "triggering"? Wow, you really show a lot of compassion to rape victims, dude.

This is the worst thread I've ever seen on the Giant Bomb forums.

@shivoa: Except what is the entire point of your original post if you aren't willing to engage with people critiquing it? An entire thread that just turns into an echo chamber of people agreeing in drone like fashion does nothing to discuss the merits or faults of the story. And yes it is a critique you're just plugging your ears and choosing not to engage with it.

Yikes.

I'm not even going to engage in any discussions about rape culture n stuff, because as you said, it's not really relevant about the mechanics of Life Is Strange. However, since you yourself say it's not really relevant, why did you bother spending a paragraph responding to someone just to gloat about how you're not going to dignify him with a response? If what he said really didn't warrant a response, then just... don't respond to him. Especially when it's, as you said, a very minor part of your editorial.

(PS citing Feministing on anything is pretty bad form, and their stuff is openly filled with tons of logical fallacies and appeals to mob emotion. The link you posted fits right into the example - People need more evidence to convict a man of rape than they do to call a woman promiscuous because the latter is essentially just insulting people, while former is a criminal offense that puts you in prison for years and brands you for life. It's a really silly comparison [and for the record, I'm very sex positive])

@thebadyetiman: So you start with "you need to respond to this person" and then when it is explained to you why constructive engagement isn't possible you... call out that response as too verbose and providing too much of a response to the original complaints. If you don't agree it didn't warrant a response then you should be happy I provided one, just for your benefit. If you do agree it didn't warrant a response, why did you demand one in your post I was replying to?

Like, my media analysis will always be influenced by the queer and feminist (academic) schools. If someone wholesale rejects those (which is what rejecting the concept of rape culture is) there isn't any meaningful dialogue to be had. But I'm happy to explain that point if you need me to make it explicit. The 'nope's was shorthand.

@bisonhero: Smile, Maxaroni!

(I'll only be commenting on the original main point, i.e. the redo mechanic in LIS and its relation to choice)

Should note, I haven't played through LIS (only episode 1).

It's an interesting point. But the way you're discussing it seems kind of upside down. As in, it's not like this system was designed to solve the ambiguous choice problem. Clearly you can do this because that's what a person with this superpower would do. And right from the start, rewinding is more than just a redo, since trying one path and then rewinding opens up new paths that weren't available before (with many paradoxical aspects of that conveniently ignored, but maybe later episodes touch on that). So it's a bit different from "save scumming" because whether you did some option or another is relevant to the game itself, not just which dialogue path you end up committing to.

Also I feel it's a bit incongruous, because there are very clearly "decision points" whereas if this was "really" happening, there wouldn't be. I mean, I understand that from a gameplay perspective there has to be some artificial construct like that, but the way it's done in LIS doesn't seem especially novel...it seems to me like the most straightforward thing you could do in this vein. Of course, maybe they tried other approaches and it ended up too confusing or aimless...I do think what they have works well.

Adding this kind of system to an arbitrary game where the time travel isn't related to the story / has no effect on the character doesn't seem like it would work that well. I'm sure some people would like it though. No question that dialogue wheels in games like Mass Effect are perennially unsatisfying and poorly implemented; I wonder if it would be more effective if a game asked you questions like "do you like or dislike this person" and then sent you down a corresponding path (tough to make that work if you're trying to get some specific information via dialogue though).

Prior to LIS, there have been games that have done this kind of thing before. Not exactly the same (LIS seems to focus mostly on dialogue choices), but at least in terms of letting (requiring) the player to explore various options; Virtue's Last Reward and Radiant Historia come to mind. Perhaps others could come up with examples that are more similar to LIS. The most interesting thing to me about LIS was the production value behind this type of game, since it gave some confidence that the result would be well written (so far, I think it has been).

I pointed it out not to say "you need to respond to this person", but to say "hey, this is really not productive at all". You're basically just mocking the person. If you really don't desire to spend your time on his response, then just... don't respond. Don't spend a paragraph explaining just how beneath you he is, it's just needlessly insulting and kinda immature.

Also you're making a lot of assumptions and speaking for a LOT of people here when you say that if someone disagrees with the existence of rape culture (in first world countries at least), they can't be a feminist or invested in LGBT causes. Not even weighing in on rape culture, but blanket statements such as "You disagree with X? You can't be Y!" are almost always incorrect.

Thanks though for calling me out personally on your Twitter as an object of mocking for disagreeing with you as opposed to attempting to try and construct a dialogue instead, it really just helps everyone all around when you do that.

@thebadyetiman: So, I don't get it. You say another poster has something critically worthy to say. This person is discussing a particular, rather small section of the blog. They also overtly deny the existence of said section's subject (rape culture). Starting from zero would serve no purpose here, as they'd simply argue over the concept's credibility. In order for progressive discussion to be had, Shivoa would have to first explain why rape culture does, in fact, exist - particularly in the West, as it's applicable in this case. Considering this is a blog about well executed video game mechanics, taking the time to prove the existence of an entire concept - which is tangential to both the game's themes and Shivoa's post - would seem ludicrous to me. I assume this is why Shivoa denied further discussion; they weren't being insulting, they simply saw that this discussion would go nowhere if her critic didn't even believe in the subject matter. Fair enough.

If you think this is them simply being ignorant of a critical analysis, that's cool for you, that's a viable opinion. However, they actually explain to you why they decided not to continue discussion - essentially a more eloquent version of my text here. You proceed to mock them for being, what? Too wordy? Come on, duder.

Bah, on more interesting matters...

@shivoa: What you describe makes it sound like this is actually going to be a tough watch for me, to be honest. But in a good way, I think...? Saying it is specifically not a "fridged woman" situation (admittedly, I had to look this one up, but I recognize the concept) goes a long way for me, so thank you. This seems like it has the potential for me to feel uncomfortable in the "right" ways and legitimately hate the villain because of who his character is. Rather than "well, you showed me a rape scene, and now I'm a little bummed, great villain development". I had worried Kilgrave was going to be portrayed as a villain who essentially is a dramatic version of a scary ghost. "Booga booga, I'm gonna get you, Jessica!" Sounds like this couldn't be further from the truth.

That would seem to be the modus operandi. "If you don't agree with me then you are wrong and not even worth acknowledging"

Someone posted the question of why I would feel the need to even debate the OPs point of view and then deleted it, but the answer is because I find it baffling. I had no idea it would become a back and forth. I thought I was pointing out the obvious. The OP said Life Is Strange is about "queer" kids in a background of rape culture. I thought maybe they were only watching the GB play through and thusly legitimately didn't know that Warren was equally romancable and that all the "queer" content was optional. Little did I know that the OP was going to come back with the point of view that they dismiss all that as not being valid and that they personally feel the developers do to. That is utterly baffling to me. It reminds me of a guy who created a thread a few weeks ago who said, in short, "I don't like Fallout because I think the setting is boring and dumb compared to The Elder Scrolls and I think the developers do too."

Well, this thread has gone fully off the rails.