The opening scene is where both Monkey and Trip are captured on a Slavers ship (Trip isn't a slaver, they are the bad guys in the game)Mr Cwtchy said:Perhaps I do, but my initial concern upon reading it is that the game presumably portrays Trip as a protaganist, and a protaganist that goes around enslaving people is not a protaganist at all.Elementary - Dear Watson said:I think you have to play it to get it... Monkey is in no way psychologically tied due to his captivity... and nearly attacks Trip on release... but realises that he also needs help as she did originally... he also realised that she did it due to being vulnerable, and that, due to the events that unfold in the game, he now feels a bit of responsibility towards her! A bit different to the Stockholm Syndrome effect!Mr Cwtchy said:Having just looked up the plot, I have to say that it disgusts me on a very deep level, and frankly I'm appalled that the writers got away with it without criticism.
It's rather disturbing at best and flatout Stockholm Syndrome at worst.
OT: To be honest I can't really think of any good examples. Ico was decent, but I'm not sure that's really romance.
Having not played it I can only speculate, but my main query is how the game tries to justify that initial event, if at all. And also whether that act actually gets called out for what it is.
Trip, in her desperation and fear to escape steals the last escape pod, which Monkey jumps on to the outside of to also escape. There is a mild misunderstanding from this.
Monkey gets knocked unconscious from the pods crash and awakes to find the slavers electrocuting collar around his neck, which is used to punish the slaves. Trip had put it there because she knew that she needed Monkey's help to get back to her family (who are holed up away from the city, and may need her help) and she didn't know whether he was good or bad...
Does that help?