#bc again i want people to get invested so i take the opposite route

[fatcowboys]

ok im copying what i said in another post abt my personal answer below:

my first answer is it depends and it depends on many, many things, including - is this person familiar with actual play ttrpg shows? are they familiar with ttrpgs in general? what sort of shows and genres do they often enjoy? what kind of time commitment are they prepared to set aside/engage in?

when im introducing someone to a show i take it a little too seriously if i am being honest. i really want them to enjoy it. so if someone is interested in dimension 20 and has watched a lot of dungeons and dragons actual plays or podcasts before, i am going to approach it VERY differently than someone who has never engaged with the media. similarly, if i have two friends who are interested, one who is a fan of lord of the rings esque high fantasy types of genres and media, and one who really has never been a big fan but has LOVED a modern fantasy kind of story, i will likely recommend different seasons.

i know a lot of people who started at the beginning with fantasy high and i definitely see the appeal of starting chronologically, but to me its one of my favorite things about dimension 20 is that it shows the variety and range of ttrpgs as a story telling medium. im definitely biased because i started with unsleeping city myself, but its SO nice having such a range of genres and vibes and casts to hand select something to share with a friend and feel like they will really appreciate it. one friend watched unsleeping city with me when i first got into d20 and didnt get into the rest like i did. but still loved tuc. another friend i got into d20 bc they read those a court of something books (and spent a lot of time bewildered by how wild they were) so of course i HAD to show them a court of fey and flowers and now theyve finished almost four? seasons now?

d20 lets me be a weird media sommelier where i can ask them about the vibe they are into and the shows they watch and then hand select an improvised ttrpg actual play season to suggest based on that. sure i dont always get it right 100% of the time but i LOVE trying to pick something out that they might connect with and really enjoy, whether they end up getting hooked on the show/actual play ttrpgs or not

my second answer is, if nothing in particular seems to call to them or catch their attention. i recommend either unsleeping city or a court of fey and flowers.

poll for my dimension 20 fans okay. obviously i cant include every season as an option so pls use tags for other answers and details BUT....

[mytumblogforgames]

disrespectfully, you genuinely have to not be a gamer to misunderstand so deeply what "shared world states" being in demand looks like, within context. if you want to make dragon age online, you need to do that OUTSIDE of the single player games (final fantasy, elder scrolls are both good examples, fallout maybe? didn't play that MMO 😂). you cannot just turn a thing into the exact opposite of what it is. and if you want to make destiny? then make it. and look, they tried! no one liked anthem. at ALL. bc that storytelling is just NOT a bw strongsuit! weekly storytelling is another beast. if you are going for only expansion drops, then you either need to have a remarkable enough story to bring people back in after they break or you need to have a good enough gameplay loop that people want to log back in (ideally, both). I have not once ever in my life heard a person say they loved a bw game for the gameplay, not ever. It's always "I love the characters" and "the world was very interesting" and "choices matter, which makes me feel satisfied and interested in replaying", and if anything, it is often the case at least for dragon age I would hear a lot of like, it's enduring the gameplay *because* the story is so good you'll just deal with a game you don't think is very fun or at the very least just not your general style.

now, people love playing together. this is just true, always gonna be. but "multiplayer" need not mean "live service" and this is a Certified Original Gamer Fact. I have never played elden ring or bloodborne or dark souls or whatever (in my mind those are all the same game, idk) but I know you can have people in your world that interact with you, either generously or nefariously. They could go that route, and maybe it could be interesting to, if allowed, have other players interact with your world and possibly alter NPC states or location states, or maybe instead bc maybe there's just assholes who murder Teagan over and over again before I get to flirt with him, you could just allow visitors. It could be relatively cosmetic like an animal crossing, or you could allow story interactions as well, like what baldur's gate 3 recently did. In the latter case, the online hosted/local mult players get to pursue dialogue interactions with companions (and thus, romances) so long as 1P the host isn't interacting with them. They advance in story with you, but they are like, ghosts ya know, like, they can't just pick up that character and then roll with it. They're there with you when you're both available but otherwise 1P is playing as usual while 2-4P are just stored in camp, waiting to be controlled by a person again. But unless I'm misremembering 2-4P cannot take these characters into a separate game....idk it's been like a year I can't remember but you get the point!!!!

THIS model, an online multiplayer model with co-op play is what I think they could have success pursuing and NOT the narrative live service model!! That is just NOT their bag! And if they wanna lock in and make it so then fine but they gotta appreciate that getting that formula right is *significantly* more difficult and it could easily be a decade plus before they really see any real progress. And when they're apparently hostile to writing, like, I'm sorry, but that DOES matter, both in long term live service models and one-time single (possibly with fun co-op multiplayer option) player titles. If you're not investing in your writers and allowing them freedom to tell the story they need to tell and instead ONLY banking on "good/fun/engaging" gameplay and then forcing writers to write around that, at a more rapid pace no less with live service, you're going to end up with a product that frankly, will fall off. Especially for this studio because wtf gameplay loops are we looking at??!?! What fun gameplay mechanics too??? The most interesting thing they ever did was a rivalry/friendship system but that requires investment in binary (at minimum) pathed companion writing, so we only ever saw it the once, with DA2, the ever humble goat, because this game was developed in like 18 months or some shit and they NEEDED to rely on GOOD writing to make a robust and still replayable game! And it fucking SLAPS.

Meanwhile compare it to DA4 which had, in its final incarnation a slightly longer by like a year dev cycle though ultimately it was *ten years*, but this time, the focus is on "gameplay". Bc that's what we play dragon age for 🙄 And how did this one fair? The worst they've ever done. And it's basically bugless! But there is NO replayability, and your choices *do not matter* so there needed to be strength in the companion or at the very least narrative/plot writing... And it just doesn't get there. It feels like it's 10% of what it should be. We only see people in two modes: kinda sad maybe but mostly tired, and determined. We get through all the formers with therapyspeak to get to the latter, every time. There isn't disapproval paths, and romance is not much additional content, nor with faction or lineage stuff (and the lineage stuff gets all over the place writing wise for elves over something as vital and core to the setting as dalishness...in THIS GAME IN PARTICULAR with an elven heavy plotline about dalish gods!). In short: all that extra time yet nothing of substance to show for it. Are you gonna replay it more than once to see the other binary choices (and play a new class since, yippee, we can't character swap anymore wow cool!!) just for "good" gameplay? Clearly not lol

It's just so annoying. World states mean something in dragon age, and it is almost universally seen as *the* thing that makes dragon age, dragon age. It makes every playthrough new, and all of them uniquely yours. People love this. Player agency and player choice is diametrically opposed to a live service model. You CANNOT have branching choice when you are releasing a story to every single player at the same time, you MUST tell One version of the story and Only One. That is *the opposite* of dragon age's DNA. If you want us to use this setting for "shared" world states, the only option you have is to give us incidental co-op, which is ultimately less a "shared world state" and more of a viewing party. You can make an NPC and join my band of companions alongside me, and even date one of em if you want but of course not my autistic wizard he is always for me first and you never if I am there, but you will bear witness to my incredible/terrible/stupid/extremely smart and correct choices. And maybe like in BG3 we can allow a proximity choice enabler, and it's a mad dash to the next quest marker to see who gets to choose what happens next... But no. These stupid clowns are like "let's try to do something we have no skills doing and also let's make sure writing is the last priority on the list even though we're like The Writing Studio lol". K. Fail. See if I care. But I ain't being bamboozled again you can't get me to buy ME5 not even if you use my autistic wizard wife as bait you can't get me lol her story neatly concluded along with everyone else's thank god goodbye

[sewerpigeonart]

literally no one asked but that’s never stopped me before; my inhibitions are low bc i’ve been awake since 4am and idk if any of this is even going to make sense when anyone reads it but i want to talk about my 𝑓 𝑒𝑒 𝑙 𝑖 𝑛 𝑔 𝑠

having to choose between hawke and alistair in the fade is literally like the most stressful video game decision i have had to make—and actually, considering i’ve done alternate playthroughs where i choose each of them, i still technically haven’t “chosen” because it’s. so. hard.

if Loghain or Stroud are the warden, they’re obviously the expendable option because loghain has no rights and stroud simply isn’t a character the player was given the opportunity to emotionally invest in.  unless you make a specific party decision in da2, you never even meet him. but when it’s between alistair and hawke, now the emotional stakes are astronomical, because not only is it hard for me to pick on an emotional level, even when thinking in terms of narrative for each of these characters it’s hard to decide which is the better option.

we’re invested in both these characters; we traveled with alistair through origins and either romanced him or became his best friend through our wardens, our wardens with whom i think most players have also developed an emotional attachment to because they’re our own characters.  and hawke was our character in da2, and you could sort of “mold” him into one of three general personalities, he’s still a pretty strong character on his own, regardless of if he’s snarky or angry or benevolent.  and sort of opposite the case with alistair, we know that hawke’s friends are attached to him.

so now it’s down to the wire and you gotta pick one. there’s no other way out. it sucks. and i think on one hand i can actually appreciate that because it means the games did a good job of making me care about not only both of these characters themselves, but their impact on the characters around him.  when i think of sacrificing hawke, my mind at once goes to varric, the living hawke sibling, and the love interest.  with alistair, my mind goes to my warden, who in terms of the game itself isn’t a strongly defined character because like most custom protagonists a lot of the emotional investment comes from our own imaginations and projections. but in that regard it’s like the relationship to alistair is more personal to the player themselves, in my opinion.  when choosing who to sacrifice, i think about who is going to hurt.  i literally burst into tears when i played the hawke route and varric comes up to you in adamant and says, “where’s hawke?” like i fuckin lost it man lmao, and when you talk to him later and he tells you the story and they play hawke’s theme sadly in the background?????? im like im going to pass away now but ANYWAY

so not only do i think about the emotional consequences on hawke and alistair’s companions (and myself), i struggle to choose which option is better narratively. because i feel that both of them have a very strong reason to stay behind. for hawke it’s obvious: with corypheus, it’s personal—way more personal than it even is with the inquisitor who is meant to defeat him. it’s literally in hawke’s bloodline. not only did his father cage the magister, but hawke is assuming the responsibility of “releasing” corypheus upon the world. of course he would give up everything remain in the fade and deal this huge blow to corypheus. it’s more than playing hero, it’s about vengeance for him, and you could even say it’s about protecting his family, if his sibling is a warden and if you romanced anders, protecting him too.

alternatively with alistair: all through origins alistair is characterized as believing himself expendable. “i wish i had died instead of duncan, i’ll kill the archdemon so you don’t have to,” etc. and yes he is young and insecure in origins, and it’s clear when we see him again in inquisition or even the cameo in da2, we can see him more confident, more assured, capable of making his own decisions. but—and i acknowledge this is largely headcanon, but this whole post is explaining why it’s hard for me to choose—i think especially with the romanced hero of fereldan still alive, in that pivotal moment in the fade i would assume alistair would be thinking of her, sorry to leave her and knowing she’ll be hurt but confident she could be the capable hands the wardens would need to recover, even if she is sort of in the shadows by that time, i project that the HoF would assume a sense of duty in helping them recover, even from the background somehow if she insists on kind of staying in “hiding.”

i think characterwise, alistair is always going to have some degree of innate self-sacrifice, that when it comes down to it, he’ll be the one to take the blow. so it would make sense that in the fade, he’d say “no, hawke, you go,” maybe no longer from a place of lower self-esteem like in origins, but i think in his mind, especially since he’s literally been a fugitive from the wardens, he makes the decision in a fairly rational state of mind. he acknowledges the wardens have messed up, and maybe this sacrifice can even be the start to redeeming their honor because he cares such a great deal about them. even hawke changes his tone in the final moments, saying yeah the wardens fucked up but they’re not beyond saving. so even then i think alistair would take comfort in knowing whether it be hawke or the HoF or the Inquisitor or whoever, the wardens will be left in good hands.

i know a lot of the alistair stuff is more headcanon than anything, but going off my own world history with the games and my own role play ideas and stuff, these are the associations in my head and how i interpret the cost of his sacrifice alongside hawke’s.  and i’ve even tried jotting some fic ideas exploring so many different post-fade concepts depending on which was left behind to see if i could construct some mental narrative to help me “commit” to sacrificing one of them, and in honesty, i think in the end i would go with hawke, because even though it’s more of an immediately impactful death (VARRIC IM SO FUCKGIN SORRY), it is personal, and i think that motivation is beyond alistair’s more “honorable” motivation. i think alistair could be convinced to help the wardens before hawke could be convinced to step back and let someone else take care of corypheus “for him,” for lack of a better term.

HOWEVER. it may be wishful thinking in order to cope, but i would be willing to bet that in da4, we find out whoever was left in the fade is not dead after all, because if it is hawke you leave behind, or even with alistair, these are both two protagonists that would have rather unceremonious deaths. narratively, that’s kind of lame writing if we were to forgo the closure of their actual deaths. even in the choice tree it says the person will “most likely” die; in the cut scene as the inquisitor and the non-sacrificed character run toward the rift, you see in the background the other character fight the monster and hit the ground under an attack, but we don’t see an explicit “death.”  they are then, understandably, assumed dead.  but there’s no actual confirmation. and i don’t know the writing team personally, who am i to say they’re indisputably above this, but i would like to have enough faith in them to expect they would not commit to such an unsatisfying ending for that character’s story. even with a more “expendable” character like stroud, i think there’s too many questions left behind. 

the introduction of walking physically in the fade and surviving is a huge revelation in-game. it’s reiterated that that literally hasn’t happened since the first magisters entered the black city.  that’s ENORMOUS. and if they’re only going to explore that twice—or more like one and a half times because we get the vague opening cut scene of escaping the fade, then the adamant sequence—it again feels very inconsistent and sloppy. dorian even says that essentially once people realize it is possible to survive the fade physically, they are going to try it, however unwise and irresponsible.  i think the da4 teasers alone (i haven’t followed da4 updates very closely tbh bc i haven’t been able to play trespasser yet bc i only have a ps3 and i’m trying so hard not to get too spoiled beyond the main inquisition ending asjkfd) imply our experiences with the “real” fade are so far from over.  and thus, i feel “comfortable” leaving hawke in the fade because i would like to believe he’s going to come back. i mean, he’s hawke right? and if hawke’s character can come back, that would then further suggest if you left the warden in the fade, they would have to come back too for whatever the da4 narrative might be.

ok sorry this is rly long and disorganized im bad at communicating ideas effectively but i have been thinking about this lately way more than i care to admit lmao

[icharchivist]

I was re reading dgm chapters and got to the part where Chaoji said he was going to fight Allen. That got me thinking, could Innocence refuse to hurt Allen? There's a lot of gray and unknown areas right now in what we know. But what we do know is Apocryphos and the Heart are very invested in Allen's survival no matter what. They consider him more connected to the Innocence then anyone else. The times Allen was hurt by Innocence was when he impaled himself and later when Kanda stabbed him. -

2 both times happened before the Apocryphos approached Allen. CC will act on It's own, even against Allen's wishes, to protect him no matter what. You could even say CC alerting Apocryphos to where Allen is is it's way of saving Allen from erosion of the 14th. Even Kanda stated CC's attachment for Allen seems unnatural. We also know even regular Innocence is at least somewhat sentient. Considering the Heart and Apocryphos can control/influence any Innocence. I bet if they wanted to they could-

3 stop any Innocence from activating. Who knows they might even have the Innocence turn on it's user and make them into a fallen one for 'betraying' the Heart's wishes by trying to kill Allen. Kanda dropped Mugen when he left w/Alma. But when he re bonded w/Mugen he started showing signs of falling (granted it's probably other reasons. But it's still something Kanda is falling while promising to kill Allen if it comes to it. While Allen isn't falling at all despite being a fugitive/Noah and-4 denying the Apocryphos, CC and the Heart's way of saving him from Nea). Over all it looks like a interesting route to consider. Allen is possibly the only human Innocence truly loves/desires to keep alive for unknown purposes (side note: also don't think we're ever getting a Allen vs Chaoji fight. If anything I see a lot of foreshadowing for a Krory vs Chaoji fight. Both keep getting more unhappy/angry w/the other). I'll be curious if there's repercussions for Excorcists attacking Allen.

That’s... a very good question actually. 

Like you say, I think every innocence is kinda sentient. And they all follow their own rules and own stuff. For exemple when I see how Lenalee’s innocence acts I can totally see a very bitter innocence being all “I chose you, I do all those things to protect you and you hate me? wow okay screw you try to survive without me for a few days, we’ll see how much you hate me when you need me huh.”In opposition to Miranda’s innocence that was so gentle with her and just went “shhhh no need to keep fighting i’m with you, i’ll make it easy for you and give you your wish” for exemple. 

Like there’s a lot to be said about each and every single’s innocence’s “sentientness”. Lenalee and Miranda are the best exemple because they’re complete opposite extreme, but if you look at the others too: Suman became a fallen because he told a Noah where to find others Exorcists while he was under threat of death. also if i remember there were talks about how he wasn’t 100% compatible with his innocence. So the innocence took the betrayal very badly. Meanwhile we have Kanda’s “fallen” statue slowly settling in, of the innocence more.... sending warning signals of “you’re playing too close with fire.”

(In fact Kanda’s innocence sentientness is interesting in the Alma arc: we see the science division tried to force the connection between the innocence and Kanda which the innocence hated enough to hurt Kanda. When Kanda was in tears, remembering his past, the innocence willingly approched him quietly. Perhaps like an old dog seeing his master back again after having been left on the side of the road, unable to trust anyone else, not being aware it wasn’t his master’s choice. If you feel my analogy there.)

I think those are the major ones where the innocence seems to be sentient on its own, without even mentioning the Heart or passive sentient-ness we might not know about.

And then we have CC, definitly the most sentient one of them all. An innocence which remained alive after being destroyed, which changed shape as Allen’s evolved, and, who despite Allen turning into a Noah, is somewhat still supporting Allen, even if it wavers sometimes. There’s something with this innocence that seems so.... Kind to me? As in, it’s understanding of Allen’s circumstances and is trying to help him, to adjust with him. It seems to have Allen’s wellbeing to heart.

Now like you say (bc i’m only just rambling and expending on what you say there kdjhfd) we have Apocryphos and the Heart. We KNOW the Heart can act on the innocences around it and changes them - the Earl says that the Heart had been retrived by the end of the Ark’s arc and that it “is creating dummies to hide itself among the others”. So the Heart is sentient enough to affect the innocences around it (and at this point Lenalee’s and Allen’s were the one who majorly evolved, and Krory’s was.. quite unusual too).

Apocryphos is made of pure Innocence. He works for the Heart. But it depends also how much he is actually connected to the Heart. 

You’re right tho that CC seems to warn Apocryphos, but it also doesn’t make a lot of efforts for Apocryphos to catch Allen either. it seems CC is really walking this line of “doing this for Allen’s sake” rather than against the Noah inside him or for Apocryphos’s sake. 

As for why.. how.... Who knows. But it is interesting to consider that the innocence mirrored the Earl. The huge cape around Allen echos the Earl’s suit, especially with how it warps around them, and the sword is an ultimate give away. We know Nea used the same sword before though and that’s where it becomes blurry - is the innocence doing that because of the Nea’s memories, because of the deep connection between Allen and Mana, or for another reason? 

So.. ye CC is definitly being weird, and we don’t know enough to truly nail down why it’s happening. But also I think that if CC knows about Allen’s connection to the Noah but also knows that Allen’s heart is pure of intention and that he wants to save people more than anyone else (a lot of people just want to stop the war, some had been wrapped into it against their will. Allen wants to save people, and want to save Akuma’s souls as well.). Therefore CC might trust Allen to be worth of all the kind of protection.

And that’s not to mention we don’t really know when this innocence appeared do we? Did Past!Allen have it or did the innocence find Allen after he grew younger? If the later: Why? Did it see Allen’s potential? If the former: How did Past!Allen get an innocence willing to go through all of this with him? What was Past!Allen’s deal?

So it’s. tricky. and i guess we wo’nt know more unless we gt more expended stuff on the innocence orz

(and you have a good point. Tbh I do think Chaoji and Allen are buidling up to something, not because of Chaoji’s recent development but because the turning point for Chaoji was when he was ready to let Allen to die when Allen tried to save Tyki during the Ark’s collapse. This is to me the moment that means they might face each other at some point because that beef was here for a while. But you’re right in term of recent events: Chaoji being on Allen’s track doesn’t seem to me lie it will have them face each other. It does seem to build up more toward Krory (and perhaps even the rest of the exorcists) to face Chaoji and refuse to give up on Allen. This would be one of the ultimate test of loyauty toward Allen. And lately with both Krory and Chaoji on Allen’s track, Krory who loves Allen so much and Chaoji who have resentment against him even before it was known he was part Noah - seems to make for a perfect foild for the time to come. But gods know what will happen then...)

Take care!

[treeplays]

spoilery Batman: The Telltale Series thoughts below….

With the Wayne family plot twist I like that they’re doing their own thing and not just rehashing for the billionth time. But at the same time they kindof… are… just rehashing for the billionth time. The only scene we have with young Bruce interacting with his family is this same scene we’ve seen every other Batman incarnation ever that everyone is sick of by now. So why not show other scenes in Bruce’s life with his parents or even give the player control over Bruce in these scenes? They drop the twist on you and then that’s just kindof it.. you see a tape w Thomas Wayne being evil and you hear from other people how he’s evil but that’s it. I actually WANT to feel invested here guys! It’s like with the other characters, I feel like I’m expected to automatically care about them just bc of who they are and not bc of actual interaction with them. Batman is hot for Catwoman bc she’s Catwoman, Bruce cares about Alfred bc he’s Alfred, Bruce broods about his family bc he’s Batman, etc etc etc. Like yeah ok I get it, but I want to care about THIS Alfred, I want to be conflicted about THIS Wayne family. And there wasn’t as much set-up as I’d have liked for the big moments to really matter as much as they should have.

I liked the thematic element of the Batman vs Bruce choices, also makes lots of room for divergence in the plot but then again they ran the risk of being repetitive by constantly repeating the same choice of Go as Bruce or Batman, and ofc we have the old problem of branches that don’t actually make a difference in the story. I’m probably repeating myself here but imo it’s fine and understandable for these types of games to be somewhat railroaded but the problem is when your “tailored” story is only actually “tailored” in one branch and super clunky and awkward in the other, it’s painfully obvious which route is the one the creators were expecting to you to take so the opposite route just feels purposely wrong. And I feel like this wouldn’t be a difficult problem to fix if closer attention was given to the flow of dialogue in relation to all previous choices and not just the one that the writers try prodding you into doing. (Which btw is a separate issue from bugs like Alfred chewing you out for supposedly beating up a guy you barely touched lmao. ughhhggggg)

And I’m a bit iffy on this repeat of The Wolf Among Us-style “good cop or bad cop” thing, I mean, it totally fits but it just feels so been there done that. And again irritating that just like in TWAU the game treats you like you’re being a ‘monster’ even when you’re not, regardless of whether it’s a case of bugged dialogue or just the feel of the plot in general. So by first episode’s end when I realized this was the road they were going down again where people are going to treat u like a baddie no matter what then I mean fuck it I’m going to brutalize the mobster anyway since that’s apparently the only valid choice, I just didn’t care anymore so it was just like screw this. And that sucks bc it just ruins the whole thing, the illusion of choice just gone and my investment goes completely down the drain.

I get that it makes for more drama or whatever and normally I would gladly comply, but not when the only difference is characters being pissy with you for a bit and then continuing on with no noticeable difference in the plot. In TWAU it worked better for me because there were situations where they make you genuinely WANT to give in and go the “bad/violent” route, but here it’s different. I don’t want to go around beating the shit out of mentally ill people lmao! Especially when it feels like TTG is actually putting more time and effort into villains’ tragic backstories than the terrible things that they’re doing right now. Idk maybe I just wasn’t paying enough attention I just wasn’t convinced that these people I’m supposed to want to beat up are actually that bad, I guess I just didn’t see the evil things they did because the entire time I was po’d that there was no “Hey Oz has a point!” option. It’s like Telltale is expecting you to be so invested in the “I’m Batman” role that they expect you to step right into the grimdark beat-em-up version without giving you a reason to.

I guess I have to give credit where it’s due here tho bc I did appreciate that we can also be compassionate like telling Harvey to talk to his therapist and chances to empathize like in the scene with the Vale kid, the Episode 5 Harvey confrontation, and in the end battle. I guess it’s really Oz here that I’m mostly thinking of, they just didn’t give me enough to reason to resent him as much as it seems you’re supposed to and there are barely any options to be nice to him. He’s introduced as an old friend and the conversation goes fine but suddenly in the next episode I’m supposed to believe that he’s a terrible person and I hate him? It just feels odd especially since the Wayne family plot twist comes so early that you know he’s right the whole time and yet you’re supposed to be all offended that he’s badmouthing your family when he’s actually 100% correct????

I actually really like the idea of interacting with the Joker before the whole arch-enemies thing, him and Bruce meeting each other before they interact as hero and villain is an interesting dynamic and gives a lot of meaning to their potential future encounters. I didn’t especially mind the plot convenience there bc i Mean, he’s the Joker lol. Although I have to admit I kindof facepalmed at the fact that he’s still just hanging out in Arkham even though no one knows who he is or where he’s from lol. That’s Arkham for you I guess.

I found it weird how in episode 5 Catwoman’s “betrayal” is treated like some big reveal but then shrugged off immediately and she just hands back the device to you no problem. No fight or quick time event and it was just a repetition of their previous interaction I felt like it was more anticlimactic than anything tbh.

Also kindof odd how Harvey becomes Two Face even when you choose to save him. I’d assumed he would just get the scarring another way but instead he gets the behavioral issue without the actual look which is a little weird when at one point the tv reporter refers to him as Two Face even tho his face is fine lol. 

And there again, the issue with the “tailored” story being only tailored for one branch, all the foreshadowing indicates TWOFACE INCOMING or BATMANxCATWOMAN HERE so it just feels anticlimactic when that doesn’t happen, and the plot line continues on very similarly anyway so it’s just like ok what’s the point then? That imo is what Telltale needs to work on most here, making their multiple storylines more cohesive and not so obvious which works best and is intended as the ‘default��� or 'right' choice.

[sometimesrosy]

Love can be scary but it shouldn't be in Bellamy&Clarke case when they could die any day at any time. What can be worse than losing your beloved one? I blame the writers for developing a "1 step forward 2 steps backwards" kind of relationship since they're using every trick to stretch out a love story that should already be happening and where CL should have never occured since, by loving L, Clarke betrayed Bellamy, her people and herself. The Clarke Griffin I learnt to love... 1/2

2/2 … would have never acted like this. Yes, I’m still mad at the writers and despite your confidence in BC becoming romantic this season, I still don’t trust them. They have messed up this story too much to earn my confidence.

Aww man, I’m going to have to take issue with multiple points you make.

First of all, falling in love with someone is always scary. You might feel the rush more than the fear, but it’s called “falling” for a reason. And it doesn’t have to be in the apocalypse. Normal love is just as scary.

And then, the fact that they can die any time does in fact make it more rather than less scary. Like you say, what could be worse than losing your beloved? Nothing! That’s why they would hold back from admitting or exploring it, because it’s terrifying and they both already have experience with losing the people they’ve been with… almost like they are cursed and whoever they are with dies. Nothing scary about that. 

You “blame” the writers for their one step forward two step back thing, but that’s a pretty standard romantic storyline. They didn’t develop it. It’s part of the conventions of the genre of a romance (which begs us to question their claims of it not being romantic.) A romance story without romantic obstacles is what we call “boring.”

You are also acting as if stretching out the love story is a problem, but there’s lots of us here who are enjoying the slow burn. Finding it more realistic and deeper than the quick relationships with less development. I might be impatient for kisses, but if they want to pull a Pride and Prejudice in the apocalypse, I’m not going to complain, because that’s one of the best love stories of all time. Plus, my desire to see them get together is put up in direct opposition to my desire to see them develop slowly and fight through the obstacles to get to each other, so it builds my own tension and investment in the story. 

Also I dispute your claim that CL should never have happened. Why not? It was an important story line, for political reasons, for literary reasons, for symbolic reasons, for character development reasons, and for romantic tension reasons. Just because you didn’t like it doesn’t mean it didn’t belong. It just means you didn’t like it. I didn’t like it either, but I can see the story being told and it’s part of Clarke’s story. And important. 

And Clarke didn’t betray Bellamy by loving L. Bellamy rejected her. They had no romantic relationship. She didn’t owe him her faithfulness. They were not together. She betrayed him by leaving and by choosing L as her political ally over Bellamy. That’s the betrayal. She didn’t come home and she aligned herself with L’s suspect motives. Not falling in love. 

And if you learned to love a Clarke Griffin who doesn’t come to understand, care for and love her enemies, you didn’t learn to love THIS Clarke Griffin, because the exact same thing happened in season 1 when Clarke allied with her enemy Bellamy Blake, came to trust and care for him and developed strong feeling for HIM. So where’s this Clarke Griffin you love so much who didn’t cross political lines to fraternize with enemy? Because she wasn’t on The 100. Ask Finn how he felt when she switched over to Bellamy’s side. I might actually add that she was trying to replicate her relationship with Bellamy with L, because that paid off so well, she thought that trusting L would turn out like trusting Bellamy did. It didn’t.

Messed up this story. No. They may have made some mistakes, but frankly, their biggest mistakes in season 3 were not with story. The story all fits together and develops very well. It’s crafted and all makes sense on multiple levels. And if you pay attention to the story as it’s shown onscreen, you can see all the things that people say weren’t shown, like WHY Bellamy did what he did (it was absolutely shown) and Clarke’s struggle in Polis, and what was going to happen with L. They spent too much time with some stories and it messed up the pacing and had us wallowing in a darkness that seemed like it had no end. But the light was STILL planned, and they still pulled it out. 

I’m sorry. I just disagree with everything you’ve just said. 

And the reason why I have confidence in Bellarke is because I’m looking at it in regards to the WHOLE story, s1.ep01 all the way up to this interminable hiatus. 

You’re looking at the Bellarke romance and expecting something from the story that is NOT this story. You keep saying it “should” be happening the way you want it to happen, and I don’t get this.  If you want a romcom or even a dramatic romance, you  must be VERY frustrated with this show, because it is neither of those things. It is what it is, and the more you accept it for that, the easier it is to see how the Bellarke romance is tightly intertwined with the non romantic storyline and leading to eventual canon Bellarke. 

Including all the the things that keep them from being romantic. If you follow the story, without your ship goggles, you can see that it is following a very clear, although stretched out, path to romantic Bellarke. Call it the scenic route. All the stories that happen along the way contribute to Bellarke development. If you take out all the things you say shouldn’t be there, Bellarke would not be as deep or rich or realistic.  So, here I am disagreeing with you again. 

Besides, if you want to ship Bellarke, you don’t need it to become canon. You can ship it anyway. I see it in the text. I ship it because I see it as an essential part of the story. You don’t agree with my interpretation, it doesn’t bother me. You don’t trust the writers or like the story? I don’t know why you’re still watching. You can always stop watching and then catch up after you find out that it does become canon, instead of putting yourself through the horror and anguish of “will they/won’t they”.

My confidence in the story doesn’t have anything to do with your own lack of confidence. But I wouldn’t be watching it if I didn’t like the story they were telling. That’s what it comes down to. I LIKE this show, and I LIKE Bellarke. I like the story THEY are telling and I’m not trying to make it into the story I want to hear, I’m trying to understand the story THEY are telling. They don’t owe me the story I think I deserve.