Light-Hearted vs Dark - How far should things go?

Okay, about time to start a new topic here.

So what is it about?
Well, in case the title didn't make it apparent enough already...
It's about the "Light-Hearted/Dark" Balance in Shantae games.

This topic was kinda inspired by some past discussions that I had here and in a few other places as well.
Should Shantae remain fully light-hearted and humorous, a la Mario and friends?
Or is she also okay with a darker, more serious plot? And if she is, how far should it go?



Now for my take on this...

To clear this up from the beginning:
OF COURSE I WOULD KEEP IT CLEAN FROM BLOOD, INAPPROPRIATE VIOLENCE AND OVERALL MATURE CONTENT!
I figure we all agree on this. But it doesn't hurt to point it out, now does it?

But now where I exactly do I stand here?
Well, it's a little complicated.

I am aware Shantae is a completely light-hearted and humorous franchise.
Supposed to be easy-going and funny.

But part of me thinks that ir shouldn't be like this all the time.
That sometimes it should be more serious and sinister.
Of course, I wouldn't blow it out of proportion. (Like Sonic games from Heroes on did, for example.)


I would make it dependant on the villain!
Risky is the more humoristic and light-hearted kind of villain. (At least most of the time)
However, as great of a villain as she is, she SHOULDN'T BE THE THE ONLY VILLAIN!

I still think that game series greatly benefit from having new villains every once in a while.
Of course, it's all good to have a main recurring villain.
But it would get dull and repetitive pretty quickly, if every game of the series were to be about confronting that said villain.
So I am all for multiple villains.

So like I said, whether a Shantae game is more light-hearted or more sinister would be dependable on the villain.
At least if you ask me.

I am pretty sure Risky Boots is not the only person in Sequin Land, who has a screw loose.
That there are other maniacs in Shantae's World, who seek for world domination, if not for even higher, more evil goals.


Let's take the "Evil Genie" concept for example, that I posted and talked about several times already.
That villain would play in a totally different league, than Risky.
She has vast, cosmic and magical powers that surpass even the Genie's.
Not only would that be the first time that Shantae faces an extremely powerful villain...
... but that'd also make this villain much more of a threat, which'd make Risky look like a cute, kind kitten in comparison.
And since she wields such vast powers, she also wouldn't hesitate to use them for her own evil desires.
Thus greatly influencing the overall climate of the plot and world.

So put it simply, the plot would be far darker and more sinister and serious, than if Risky were the main villain.
True, there'd still be some gags and light-hearted elements left, to not blow things out of proportion.
But you'd still be able to feel that things are far more serious than they were before.
Since the villain is a superpowered and sinister entity, who can do so much more than Risky could ever dream of.


Okay, now some of you might ask? "If the villain is so powerful and sinister, wouldn't she cause disasters and even deaths?"
Tbh, I would say strictly NO to the villain killing people. This would go too far.
If someone were to die in Shantae games, it'd be the villain (unless it's Risky or another light-hearted villain).
And even then it'd still be more kid-friendly, while still clearly making it apparent for the more mature audience, that the villain has kicked the bucket.
Like "dissolving into nothingness" or something like that.


But I am all for the villain causing disasters, as long as they still suit Shantae. And only if the villain is more on the darker side.
This would contribute to the serious and sinister climate of the plot.
And it'd give Shantae, and the player, much more of a reason to stop him or her.



Phew, this turned out to be much longer than planned.
But yeah, I think I made it clear where I stand.

What is your take on it?
Discuss!

This is just my opinion, but I think there's already a decent balance in place.
I can get as much kicks from seeing enemies exploding into bones, blood, or stars, so long as there's plenty to go around. Though I never mind seeing certain stuff sneak in under the radar if it's done correctly, like the lofty, suggestively shaped Bikini Island in Xtreme Sports. So yeah I'm fairly neutral on the matter, as I am with a lot of things.
Basically, I enjoy seeing the boundaries pushing slightly and in moderation, but not in a forced Shadow the Hedgehog manner.

As for a new supervillain, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a replacement for Risky, at least as far as personality goes. It'd be fine if this being was perhaps part of a plot twist towards the end that's spoken of over the course of the game.

Nai255 wrote:This is just my opinion, but I think there's already a decent balance in place.
I can get as much kicks from seeing enemies exploding into bones, blood, or stars, so long as there's plenty to go around. Though I never mind seeing certain stuff sneak in under the radar if it's done correctly, like the lofty, suggestively shaped Bikini Island in Xtreme Sports. So yeah I'm fairly neutral on the matter, as I am with a lot of things.
Basically, I enjoy seeing the boundaries pushing slightly and in moderation, but not in a forced Shadow the Hedgehog manner.

I think I did say that I wouldn't blow things out of proportion. Which Shadow the Hedgehog clearly did.
(Besides, it auto-failed. Due the protagonist being a swearing, unoriginal piece of trash.)

But I guess we're on an agreement here.

As for a new supervillain, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a replacement for Risky, at least as far as personality goes. It'd be fine if this being was perhaps part of a plot twist towards the end that's spoken of over the course of the game.

Who said anything about a replacement?
I wouldn't ditch Risky in favor of another villain.

I only said that every once in a while, there should be a new villain.
Just like Zelda-games do it. (Like Ghirahim)
Whether or not Risky should still appear in a such games, with less significance, is debatable.

For the "Evil Genie" concept, she'd still play a significant role. Albeit not so much in the villain-department, since the main villain is someone else now.
However, I do think she can still prove to be useful in other ways...

I feel like we've already talked about this before, but deciding what's appropriate for villains is definitely new.

It seems like the Zelda and Mario series already have the balance we're looking for. The same reoccuring villain with occassional bigger threats to mix things up. (Something I've only seen the Sonic series pull off recently, with enemies like Dark Gaia in Sonic Unleashed, and Eggman surprisingly starring as the main villain in Sonic Colors.) Although, who could be worse than Risky? Drafting a new villain, or villainess, to equal Risky's originality while besting her strong will and horde of loyal minions won't be easy.

Mario has had his dark moments too, (Super Mario RPG being a good example.) so it wouldn't be unnatural to see Shantae in a less than sunshine and rainbows situation. I think the ending of Risky's Revenge itself hints at a much darker narrative to come. Of course it'd likely still have its light and happy moments, but there's a good chance newer installments will sink into downright seriousness much the same as the sequel did at times.

As far as pushing the envelope of the rating system goes, I agree with Nai, the way it's handled now is surprisingly kid-friendly enough for an E-rating with its comical use of more mature elements, like bones flying out of defeated enemies instead of blood and guts. I mean, both Shantae and her equally attractive nemesis alone are already showing more skin than I thought was passible for a Teen rating, among other things, so tacking on anything else to bump up the rating might needlessly cut into the series' accessibility.

While I still play as many rated M games as the next guy, it's always refreshing to see what developers can do in their projects, content-wise, without swearing, large breasts and other forms of adult content. (Heck, even the M-rated games I play don't use any of that nonsense, they just conveniently have too much bloodshed and gore to be family-friendly, like Quake III or Mortal Kombat. =P)

Also, I gotta sound off on Shadow the Hedgehog myself, the "mild" language in an E-rated game (E+10 is stupid, IMO, that's just trying to work around a Teen rating.) annoyed me to the point of anger, an emotion games rarely trigger inside me. When I rented the game, I tried so hard to avoid getting hit or dieing only to avoid hearing him say, "**** it!!!". So much potential for a fresh new experience (Which it actually attempted to a point.) flushed down the toilet, or better yet, the gutter.

.Luke wrote:It seems like the Zelda and Mario series already have the balance we're looking for.

I don't think so. At least for the Mario series.
Mario would definitely benefit from new villains, if they were to appear more often.
These days it's only Bowser in the main games. And even in most spin-offs.
What happened to villains like Tatanga?

Point is: Bowser is used way too often and the story of him kidnapping the princess over and over again is repetitive.
Giving a new villain with a new backstory would give Mario something fresh and new.
And it'd be a great change from the "Bowser kidnapping the princess again!" deal and it'd add more variety.

I am not saying they should ditch Bowser. They should definitely keep him as main recurring villain.
But come on. Him kidnapping Peach and you having to save her again and again, in every new game...
It's getting old! :/

Zelda on the other hand has a larger variety of new villains.
And IMO a good balance between the main recurring villain (Ganondorf) and new, one-shot villains (Vaati, Ghirahim, Malladus, Majora, etc.).
So yeah, Zelda indeed is a good example for this.
But Mario... Not so much.

The same reoccuring villain with occassional bigger threats to mix things up. (Something I've only seen the Sonic series pull off recently, with enemies like Dark Gaia in Sonic Unleashed, and Eggman surprisingly starring as the main villain in Sonic Colors.)

The main recurring villain doesn't even have to appear, if there is a new villain.
And if Shantae were to evolve in a huge series of games, she'd definitely benefit from a game with no Risky at all and instead someone else, just as dangerous (if not even more dangerous).

Although, who could be worse than Risky? Drafting a new villain, or villainess, to equal Risky's originality while besting her strong will and horde of loyal minions won't be easy.

You're not serious about this, right? -_-
Either that, or you might have a lack of imagination in this apartment.

I have already given the concept of an "Evil Genie" here.
And I myself came up with several other villains for Shantae.

So at least for me, I have no trouble coming up with villains for Shantae.
Then again, it varies from one person to the next. In terms of imagination, I mean.


Either way, I think Matt is able to come up with several other villains for Shantae.
That can easily be just as bad as Risky, or worse...

Mario has had his dark moments too, (Super Mario RPG being a good example.) so it wouldn't be unnatural to see Shantae in a less than sunshine and rainbows situation. I think the ending of Risky's Revenge itself hints at a much darker narrative to come. Of course it'd likely still have its light and happy moments, but there's a good chance newer installments will sink into downright seriousness much the same as the sequel did at times.

This is what actually inspired me to come up with the "Evil Genie" concept.
Since to me it is apparent that something is inside that lamp, that should better have been remained untouched.

Spoiler:

As far as pushing the envelope of the rating system goes, I agree with Nai, the way it's handled now is surprisingly kid-friendly enough for an E-rating with its comical use of more mature elements, like bones flying out of defeated enemies instead of blood and guts. I mean, both Shantae and her equally attractive nemesis alone are already showing more skin than I thought was passible for a Teen rating, among other things, so tacking on anything else to bump up the rating might needlessly cut into the series' accessibility.
While I still play as many rated M games as the next guy, it's always refreshing to see what developers can do in their projects, content-wise, without swearing, large breasts and other forms of adult content. (Heck, even the M-rated games I play don't use any of that nonsense, they just conveniently have too much bloodshed and gore to be family-friendly, like Quake III or Mortal Kombat. =P)

Also, I gotta sound off on Shadow the Hedgehog myself, the "mild" language in an E-rated game (E+10 is stupid, IMO, that's just trying to work around a Teen rating.) annoyed me to the point of anger, an emotion games rarely trigger inside me. When I rented the game, I tried so hard to avoid getting hit or dieing only to avoid hearing him say, "**** it!!!". So much potential for a fresh new experience (Which it actually attempted to a point.) flushed down the toilet, or better yet, the gutter.

I ignore this. Since I already said that I do not want to blow things out of proportion.
Like using blood, gore, vulgar language or whatever.
This is something that I would never do.
(At least in the games...)

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:

.Luke wrote:It seems like the Zelda and Mario series already have the balance we're looking for.

I don't think so. At least for the Mario series.
Mario would definitely benefit from new villains, if they were to appear more often.
These days it's only Bowser in the main games. And even in most spin-offs.
What happened to villains like Tatanga?

Miyamoto generally doesn't use any Mario character that he himself didn't create.

Point is: Bowser is used way too often and the story of him kidnapping the princess over and over again is repetitive.
Giving a new villain with a new backstory would give Mario something fresh and new.
And it'd be a great change from the "Bowser kidnapping the princess again!" deal and it'd add more variety.

I am not saying they should ditch Bowser. They should definitely keep him as main recurring villain.
But come on. Him kidnapping Peach and you having to save her again and again, in every new game...
It's getting old! :/

Well, don't expect this to change anytime soon. Miyamoto outright stated recently that so long as he's in charge of Mario, the plot will ALWAYS involve Bowser kidnapping Peach.

The same reoccuring villain with occassional bigger threats to mix things up. (Something I've only seen the Sonic series pull off recently, with enemies like Dark Gaia in Sonic Unleashed, and Eggman surprisingly starring as the main villain in Sonic Colors.)

The main recurring villain doesn't even have to appear, if there is a new villain.
And if Shantae were to evolve in a huge series of games, she'd definitely benefit from a game with no Risky at all and instead someone else, just as dangerous (if not even more dangerous).

Although, who could be worse than Risky? Drafting a new villain, or villainess, to equal Risky's originality while besting her strong will and horde of loyal minions won't be easy.

You're not serious about this, right? -_-
Either that, or you might have a lack of imagination in this apartment.

I have already given the concept of an "Evil Genie" here.
And I myself came up with several other villains for Shantae.

So at least for me, I have no trouble coming up with villains for Shantae.
Then again, it varies from one person to the next. In terms of imagination, I mean.

Either way, I think Matt is able to come up with several other villains for Shantae.
That can easily be just as bad as Risky, or worse...

More villains are nice, but I think it's best to keep Risky as the primary recurring antagonist. A few minor adversaries can pop up from time to time, and they can even replace Risky completely for a game, but none of them should ever fully replace her established character as the biggest baddie in Sequin Land. Of course, she would clearly be no match for the really big, end-of-the-world-type enemies, but you can't use those types of villains in every game, either, or else people will start complaining about the lack of originality in plots (no different from the whole "Bowser kidnaps Peach" issue). There needs to be a bit of balance in the use of baddies.

On-topic, I've noticed that in all of WayForward's games, there's always a certain level of satire: jokes towards their characters, jokes towards video-game cliches (such as pointing out the pointlessness of "glowing weak points" on bosses), even jokes towards themselves. Above all else, you can't take that satire away, no matter what you do with the plot. Otherwise, it's no longer Shantae (or for that matter, a WayForward game)

I don't think we have to worry about Risky getting replaced. It seems like she will always be the biggest threat on the seven seas, even if there was a bigger fish to steal the spotlight for a whole game. Never noticed they used video game cliches as comedy material, though, but then again I've only played the Shantae games, and not much else of WayForward's other original titles.

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:You're not serious about this, right? -_-
Either that, or you might have a lack of imagination in this apartment.

I have already given the concept of an "Evil Genie" here.
And I myself came up with several other villains for Shantae.

So at least for me, I have no trouble coming up with villains for Shantae.
Then again, it varies from one person to the next. In terms of imagination, I mean.


Either way, I think Matt is able to come up with several other villains for Shantae.
That can easily be just as bad as Risky, or worse...

I was more or less saying it would be a bit challenging to create a unique villain on par with Risky's caliber, both in appearance and ability. It's not something that usually happens overnight. We could conjure up villains all day and still have not one interesting character worth giving Risky the boot for an entire game. (Haha, I made a lame pun! =P)

That's not to say your own efforts haven't gotten anywhere. If we were to put our heads together on the character design, I think your evil genie idea would be conceptually sound in both aforementioned departments; it's worth exploring.

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:This is what actually inspired me to come up with the "Evil Genie" concept.
Since to me it is apparent that something is inside that lamp, that should better have been remained untouched. ;)

Spoiler:

So you got that inspiration from the game I mentioned? Convenient. XD

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:I ignore this. Since I already said that I do not want to blow things out of proportion.
Like using blood, gore, vulgar language or whatever.
This is something that I would never do.
(At least in the games...)

Yeah, I probably didn't to mention all that again in a somewhat unrelated topic, but I was caught up in replying to Nai on that subject. :#

Maetch wrote:Well, don't expect this to change anytime soon. Miyamoto outright stated recently that so long as he's in charge of Mario, the plot will ALWAYS involve Bowser kidnapping Peach.

That's sadly quite limiting of him to keep harping on the same old damsel in distress plot. It was revolutionary for his first games, like Donkey Kong and Super Mario Bros, but dang, as much as he loves telling stories you'd think he'd wanna mix it up. ;__;

Ah well, there's plenty of developers working on Mario games, like the RPGs and such, so it wouldn't get too old in-between the main titles like Super Mario Galaxy.

.Luke wrote:I don't think we have to worry about Risky getting replaced. It seems like she will always be the biggest threat on the seven seas, even if there was a bigger fish to steal the spotlight for a whole game.

Yup. Shantae (the series, not the character ) would be nothing without Risky.
Tho I figured I made it clear already.

I was more or less saying it would be a bit challenging to create a unique villain on par with Risky's caliber, both in appearance and ability.

Why?
It's only a matter of imagination and originality.

We could conjure up villains all day and still have not one interesting character worth giving Risky the boot for an entire game. (Haha, I made a lame pun! =P)

It appears that you are missing the point.
And like I said, it depends on your imagination, whether or not you can come up with a great and original character.

Like I said, I did come up with some concepts.
(That I think still suit Shantae, while being original and not resorting to typical VG-cliches)
And it's not about emassing villains.
Quality is what matters, not quantity.

That's not to say your own efforts haven't gotten anywhere. If we were to put our heads together on the character design, I think your evil genie idea would be conceptually sound in both aforementioned departments; it's worth exploring.

Well, I take it you don't like the design. :/

So you got that inspiration from the game I mentioned? Convenient. XD

Yes, from the ending of Risky's Revenge.
(As insulting and frustrating it might be...)

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:Like I said, I did come up with some concepts.
(That I think still suit Shantae, while being original and not resorting to typical VG-cliches)

To be honest, sealed-up ancient evils like your Evil Genie are nothing new at all in video-games. Though if WayForward did such a idea, no doubt that they'd make fun of it a bit since satirizing such things is a trademark of theirs.

The threat is real and should be treated as such, but that doesn't mean everybody has to drop all their personality and just bellyache about it like emos. That's probably the worst offense the Shantae series can commit: to lose its tongue-in-cheek identity.

Maetch wrote:To be honest, sealed-up ancient evils like your Evil Genie are nothing new at all in video-games.

Well, with this argument you could render about 98% of all video games unoriginal.
Something completely original, that hasn't been seen before, it very hard these days. If not impossible.

At this point, so many concepts have been created and used already, that you cannot possibly measure the originality on "seen or not seen before".
No. These days, I think it's alright to base creations on something, while still implementing original ideas to not make it a copy, but something new.

Though if WayForward did such a idea, no doubt that they'd make fun of it a bit since satirizing such things is a trademark of theirs.

Tbh, I never saw any satire in Shantae-games.
I dunno about their other games, but Shantae has always been a humorous little game series to me.
But I saw no sign of satire.

The threat is real and should be treated as such, but that doesn't mean everybody has to drop all their personality and just bellyache about it like emos. That's probably the worst offense the Shantae series can commit: to lose its tongue-in-cheek identity.

Did I say anything like this?
Just what are you interpreting into my posts? :/

I kinda have to agree with Paragon on the subject of Sealed Evil in a Can. It is used quite frequently in video games, but movies probably even more so. I don't feel it's become an annoying cliche at this point, since there are so many directions you can take the concept in to keep it fresh. How many times has the Zelda series gotten away with using sealed away evils and not taken any heat for it? (Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess, A Link to the Past, Oracle of Ages/Seasons, Wind Waker. Holy crap, that's nearly half the series right there!) See how many ways Evil-in-a-Can can be used without getting old?

Shantae hasn't done it yet to boot, so that gives us fans an even bigger playing field in the writing department, with no obvious timeline or chronology for the series to limit ourselves too.

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:
Yup. Shantae (the series, not the character :P) would be nothing without Risky.
Tho I figured I made it clear already.

You did pretty much, I just figured it wasn't clear enough to some of the other posters here.

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:Why?
It's only a matter of imagination and originality.

It appears that you are missing the point.
And like I said, it depends on your imagination, whether or not you can come up with a great and original character.

Like I said, I did come up with some concepts.
(That I think still suit Shantae, while being original and not resorting to typical VG-cliches)
And it's not about emassing villains.
Quality is what matters, not quantity.

This is coming from a guy who redrew a character at least thirty times (Along with several name changes.) before deciding to scrap even all of that and try something else. Our imagination can take us in a multitude of directions, but in my experience, creating a design that I'm totally happy with takes a lot of time and thought. In other words, 1% inspiration and 99% persperation. If you want more than just a forgettable, throw-away character that 1% of the fanbase will care about, once again in my experience, you have to put as much time and thought into the character's personality, motive, and design as you can mentally and physically give it.

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:Well, I take it you don't like the design. :/

It's not that I don't like the design, I just feel there's more room to expand on it. We don't have to lavishly plaster her in decorations, but I think ornaments/jewels suggesting she's from a time period before recorded history in her hair and dress would be pretty cool. Once I'm done with this one request how about I take a crack at her? She's just dripping with potential in a blank canvas kinda way, if you know what I mean.

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:Yes, from the ending of Risky's Revenge.
(As insulting and frustrating it might be...)

I don't know what's insulting or frustrating about the fact that we were talking about two completely different games. It seems we're not on the same page here. XD

.Luke wrote:I kinda have to agree with Paragon on the subject of Sealed Evil in a Can. It is used quite frequently in video games, but movies probably even more so. I don't feel it's become an annoying cliche at this point, since there are so many directions you can take the concept in to keep it fresh. How many times has the Zelda series gotten away with using sealed away evils and not taken any heat for it? (Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess, A Link to the Past, Oracle of Ages/Seasons, Wind Waker. Holy crap, that's nearly half the series right there!) See how many ways Evil-in-a-Can can be used without getting old?

Shantae hasn't done it yet to boot, so that gives us fans an even bigger playing field in the writing department, with no obvious timeline or chronology for the series to limit ourselves too.

Nothing to add.

You did pretty much, I just figured it wasn't clear enough to some of the other posters here.

I don't think that's the case. But whatever...

This is coming from a guy who redrew a character at least thirty times (Along with several name changes.) before deciding to scrap even all of that and try something else.

WTF, man? What are you accusing me off?
Where did you even get the idea that I did that? :/

Our imagination can take us in a multitude of directions, but in my experience, creating a design that I'm totally happy with takes a lot of time and thought. In other words, 1% inspiration and 99% persperation. If you want more than just a forgettable, throw-away character that 1% of the fanbase will care about, once again in my experience, you have to put as much time and thought into the character's personality, motive, and design as you can mentally and physically give it.

Don't think everyone is like you.
I for one didn't have much trouble thinking of characters and designs so far that I am satisfied with.
Of course, if I drew them all, they'd probably go through an evolution. But that's a different story.

It's not that I don't like the design, I just feel there's more room to expand on it. We don't have to lavishly plaster her in decorations, but I think ornaments/jewels suggesting she's from a time period before recorded history in her hair and dress would be pretty cool. Once I'm done with this one request how about I take a crack at her? She's just dripping with potential in a blank canvas kinda way, if you know what I mean.

I'll be honest with you. I have no freaking idea about jewelry and accessories (other than gloves and bland rings that is).
So that's why I can't think of any fancy jewelry and stuff. Since I normally do not give a **** about them, in real life.
Sorry if that deficit annoys you so much. :/

I don't know what's insulting or frustrating about the fact that we were talking about two completely different games. It seems we're not on the same page here. XD

I meant the ending. :/


EDIT: And why the F is the word D-A-M-N being censored, while words like moron or idiot are allowed?
It seriously makes no sense. Heck, it isn't even a real swearing word. There is no reason to ban it here.

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:WTF, man? What are you accusing me off?
Where did you even get the idea that I did that? :/

Nothing, actually. It was poor communication on my part; I was referring to myself. :#

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:
Don't think everyone is like you.
I for one didn't have much trouble thinking of characters and designs so far that I am satisfied with.
Of course, if I drew them all, they'd probably go through an evolution. But that's a different story.

I don't. That's why I put "in my experience" as a disclaimer. =P If I'm not exploding with excitement over a design, I'm not happy with it at all. (Not that I have high standards; I just want to design characters that would excite me as much as other people who like it.) So even if I don't have much trouble designing characters myself, I go crazy looking for things to add or remove that would improve what I already have.

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:I'll be honest with you. I have no freaking idea about jewelry and accessories (other than gloves and bland rings that is).
So that's why I can't think of any fancy jewelry and stuff. Since I normally do not give a **** about them, in real life.
Sorry if that deficit annoys you so much. :/

It doesn't actually annoy me. (Although that is probably the first time you mentioned jewelry and accessories aren't your area.) I know it was just your first design, so there's a lot of room for improvement and change.

I'm not too crazy about jewelry either, but it is a fun element to play with on female characters. It's probably why I enjoy creating females more than males because of all the little things I can do to spice up their appearance. How we dress and maintain our bodies is an outward expression of ourselves, but I know appearances aren't everything; its importance is just more emphasized in fictional characters than people in real life.

An Edit in response to your edit : That word is actually a curse, depending on the context. It could be to just flat out curse somebody to suffer a horrible fate, (So the word itself isn't a problem in that case.) or just spew annoying trash talk at someone; I couldn't take a chance at the latter. We could open a topic in General Discussion if you want to talk about this, since both it and Heck are affected by the curse filter.

.Luke wrote:Nothing, actually. It was poor communication on my part; I was referring to myself. :#

Oh...

I don't. That's why I put "in my experience" as a disclaimer. =P If I'm not exploding with excitement over a design, I'm not happy with it at all. (Not that I have high standards; I just want to design characters that would excite me as much as other people who like it.) So even if I don't have much trouble designing characters myself, I go crazy looking for things to add or remove that would improve what I already have.

Okay then.

It doesn't actually annoy me. (Although that is probably the first time you mentioned jewelry and accessories aren't your area.) I know it was just your first design, so there's a lot of room for improvement and change.

I'm not too crazy about jewelry either, but it is a fun element to play with on female characters. It's probably why I enjoy creating females more than males because of all the little things I can do to spice up their appearance. How we dress and maintain our bodies is an outward expression of ourselves, but I know appearances aren't everything; its importance is just more emphasized in fictional characters than people in real life.

Well, since I am not into jewelry and stuff, I also cannot think of any designs, I am afraid.
Sorry, but I can't.


Also, have you seen the EDIT-note?

Nothing wrong with not being able to come up with jewelry, it wasn't my strongsuit for a long time either. XD It may come naturally to you over time as you draw more females with those little details in mind; an appreciation for necklaces and stuff should never be forced.

And I did see your note too, but you edited your post some time after I started typing my reply, so I didn't see it until I posted. Sometimes a double post is more effective, attention-wise, when you need to make a justifiable ammendment to your response. Either way, there's an edit to my last post for you to see. =P

I can't really find any room to fit myself into this conversation at the moment, but I'll comment on the curse filter.

It really doesn't bother me whether it's censored or not, though I find myself typing the word alot. But I also think it's not a big deal to unfilter "D" either. Just my opinion, but I personally don't find the word offensive. I don't ever use it an offensive way as you all have seen though, and if you see ****, then you also know what word goes there; it's the only "cuese" I use.

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:Tbh, I never saw any satire in Shantae-games.
I dunno about their other games, but Shantae has always been a humorous little game series to me.
But I saw no sign of satire.

So, you didn't notice lines like Shantae saying "Didn't you die in a big STAGE CLEAR sequence?" to a previously-defeated boss? Or Rotty's whole gag with the "interweb" and how it's getting bugs and a worm? Or pretty much all of Double Dragon Neon (which isn't Shantae but is made by WayForward)?

Maetch wrote:

Paragon-Yoshi wrote:Tbh, I never saw any satire in Shantae-games.
I dunno about their other games, but Shantae has always been a humorous little game series to me.
But I saw no sign of satire.

So, you didn't notice lines like Shantae saying "Didn't you die in a big STAGE CLEAR sequence?" to a previously-defeated boss? Or Rotty's whole gag with the "interweb" and how it's getting bugs and a worm? Or pretty much all of Double Dragon Neon (which isn't Shantae but is made by WayForward)?

He's got a point.

If satire is there, then it's subtle. I haven't seen enough of Risky's Revenge to know if that quick jab at glowing weaknesses is there, but the first game overall is anything but serious most of the way through, so I'd have to agree the series' atmosphere is quite "tongue-in-cheek". (Even if it does have a few serious moments.)

Maetch wrote:So, you didn't notice lines like Shantae saying "Didn't you die in a big STAGE CLEAR sequence?" to a previously-defeated boss?

Tbh, that is no satire. It's "just" an in-game joke.
Jokes that other games like "Banjo-Kazooie" are also well-known for.

Or Rotty's whole gag with the "interweb" and how it's getting bugs and a worm?

Apparently you have forgotten that I am not able to play "Risky's Revenge", since my 3DS cannot go online and my inability to buy stuff online through certain programs/services (like Steam).

So small remarks like those generally get past me quite easily.
Especially if I watched the playthrough long ago AND I was alienated so much by its ending, that I didn't want to go back. :/

Or pretty much all of Double Dragon Neon (which isn't Shantae but is made by WayForward)?

Didn't check it just yet. So I can't say.

If satire is there, then it's subtle. I haven't seen enough of Risky's Revenge to know if that quick jab at glowing weaknesses is there, but the first game overall is anything but serious most of the way through, so I'd have to agree the series' atmosphere is quite "tongue-in-cheek". (Even if it does have a few serious moments.)

Even tho I have to agree with your first statement, what exactly is your point?

I have a little trouble following you guys. :/

I'm still trying to figure that out for myself; all I know is that Shantae is just about humorous as, like as you've said, Banjo Kazooie. Nothing is meant to be taken that seriously, if at all most of the time, so that might be the point Maetch was trying to get across with "tongue-in-cheek".

Although at this point I think this is clearly understood across the board, just articulated with differing terminology in each case.