LogFAQs > #977690595

adjl posted...

No, it means that you strive to make enjoyable gameplay even if that creates some inconsistencies with other elements. Trying to be consistent is still good, but putting gameplay first just means that your first priority is making enjoyable gameplay.

The gameplay should be there, and then the story should be written around it. Besides you are arguing semantics, my point is still the same. You can obviously disagree with it, but it's not really the type of thing that even could be refuted. Creating an inconsistency that damages the gameplay fantasy would necessitate putting something above the gameplay.

adjl posted...

And in cases like this (again, where it's done properly, not poorly), the sacrifice made is that moment of ludonarrative consistency for a small handful of players who have already been deliberately deviating from the narrative for the sake of indulging in more gameplay

It's going to be inconsistent for the vast majority of players, even if they aren't oneshotting. Winning in the gameplay and losing in the cutscene is always going to feel bad, no matter how close or tough the fight was. You are going to think "why isn't this second part of the fight gameplay that I could try to win?".

If the boss kills them in the gameplay with some sort of super move, and then somehow doesn't have that same level of power in the actual final fight against it, thats more dissonance.

adjl posted...

The grinding you've done does not establish a canonical power level. It can't, because you're dealing with a static story that can't change in response to you. Canonically, you're too weak to win the fight in question.

If the gameplay is non canon, why is it even attached to the story? And of course, if you always win, there is no dissonance. The player that struggled through the fight underleveled, the speedrunner cheesing it in two seconds, the person who did all the side content, and the person who grinded incessantly all have no dissonance if you just win the fight.

And I just have to go out onto a new tangent but when the villain can beat you, and you don't die, the villain is incompetent. It's actually almost always terrible character building. The stakes immediately plummet when you can actually lose to the bad guy, get captured, and escape with your life. It only even makes rational sense if the villain is stupid and cocky beyond reason, but thats not a very compelling or scary antagonist. This isn't why I hate this trope, but if my current problem disappeared, this would be making me annoyed instead.

adjl posted...

Neither of the abilities Rex had that gave him that kind of jumping power were available to him in that moment (and, extended further, it stands to reason that any other blades that might have helped would also have refused once they realized the situation).

Really? All of the blades would have chosen not to help? All 39 rare blades with their different personalities and values wouldn't have helped him close the gap? And it would have completely made their attempted sacrifice to protect rex impossible if rex was able to jump the gap. Rex doesn't even TRY to do it.

adjl posted...

"You should never put X in a story" is always going to be infinitely more constraining than "it's okay if you put Y in a story," no matter what X and Y are, by simple virtue of the fact that the former is a constraint and the latter is not.

Their constraint is to keep telling the same story in the same way with superficial differences. You are endorsing them to keep doing what they are doing. Any criticism written away with "it's shonen".

adjl posted...

If one plot loss makes you upset enough to ruin the whole experience for you, that's on you and you can't expect people to give up writing interesting stories to cater to that.

Maybe if any of them were actually writing interesting stories you'd have more of a leg to stand on, but even then, go ahead and write that story, but in a medium that is appropriate for it.