EP 13 — Why We Rewrote EULA After the Demo
The first version of EULA was much shorter than it is now. It was something we made mostly for ourselves, filling it with whatever we wanted to make.
At the time, we actually liked the full game's story quite a bit among ourselves. But it was the kind of thing people call ‘boring and pretentious.’ It felt like someone excitedly rambling about whatever they wanted to say. It had plenty of stylish lines and themes, but the story itself was hard for readers to follow.
We made the demo for the same reason. Like the full game, it was closer to the result of throwing in whatever we wanted to make. We joked around, pushed the direction too far, and kept adding things that made us ask, ‘Can we do this too?’
But when the demo drew more attention than we expected, we started to worry.
We could not just hand people who came because they were looking forward to it something that would make them go, "Huh? What is this?"
The demo was short enough that people could accept that personality for what it was and move on. The full game, however, is something people pay for and spend a long time playing. We wondered whether it was all right to make it the same way.
We did not think the original story of EULA was bad. We did think there might be a problem with how we were telling it. Quite a few people were looking forward to the game by then, and we could no longer ignore the question of whether it was right to simply throw only what we wanted to say at them.
The First EULA
The old version of EULA opened on a rainy scene and a long monologue. The protagonist watched rainwater run across his palm and asked what made human feeling different from machine calculation. From there came questions about what it means to make a picture, whether using AI changes that process, and whether two identical results should be considered the same kind of creation.
Those questions are still in EULA today. The old full game, however, explained them before it told the protagonist's story.
The story itself felt preachy, and the protagonist came across as mechanical, like a device built to carry the message. He kept viewing his situation pessimistically, which made him hard to care about and sometimes even unpleasant. The heroines each had a clear role in presenting a position, but they did not feel like real people. The message might get across that way, but it would not reach the reader.
It was a very convenient structure for talking about what creators face today, or about using AI from the perspective of someone who codes. But it felt closer to an essay or a piece of prose than a game. We thought it could come across as a sermon wearing the shape of a game.
Rebuilding the Protagonist
The idea of rebuilding the protagonist came from the writer we had asked for help. His theory went like this: pretty girls are practically a superior species, so even if one does something a little foolish, readers will give her a grace period until they see the reason why. He also said that if the protagonist fit his tastes, he could somehow write her in a short amount of time.
He also said that if he was going to draw the art, the protagonist had to be a woman. The reason was that he was not good at drawing men.
That process gave us Jua.
The protagonist in the old version was a beginner just starting to build his skills. But that meant people might read his problems as nothing more than a lack of skill. So we made Jua someone who is genuinely good at drawing, but gets far less attention than her ability deserves. Conflict, pain, and anger have built up inside her, but she rarely shows them to other people and suffers in silence.
Jua has a lot of rough edges as a person. She cannot package her feelings neatly. Sometimes she is far too childish, her words get tangled, and she cannot clean up what she just said. But she is not completely unbearable either. She is a little lacking, a little pitiful, and somehow someone you keep watching.
When shaping the character, we drew a lot from Hitori in 《Bocchi the Rock!》 and Nina in 《Girls Band Cry》. The many parodies in the full game are also our way of showing respect for those works.
We thought it was important to make people want to keep watching the protagonist and the story. We wanted to slip in what we had to say while players laughed or thought, ‘She is kind of an idiot~.’
We had some concerns too. The demo and the full game had always been different stories, but now even the atmosphere had changed dramatically. Still, the big thing was that the current version was not boring to read. We also liked that it no longer felt as though it was trying to lecture the player. So we pushed ahead in this direction.
What Remains, and What Still Bothers Us
We did not throw away everything from the old version.
<h3>What Remains</h3>
The use of AI, the reality creators face, the gap between the process and result of making a picture, and the way other people's attention can shake you are all still in the current version. We also kept both Organic and AI modes.
OrganicAI
Instead of explaining those issues first, we tried to show them through what happens to Jua and through her relationships with the other characters.
<h3>What We Still Regret</h3>
We were somewhat successful in putting the characters and the play experience first, but we also received feedback that the discussion of AI and creativity did not go deep enough. That part feels like a bit of a failure, and I am disappointed by it.
That is why we tried to make up for it, even a little, with the new Aikoi Radio corner. For those who wanted more from the full game's discussion of AI and creativity, I hope Aikoi Radio becomes a story they enjoy, even a little.
I will talk separately in the next post about why the radio was needed and where we got stuck while writing it.
That is all for today.