Romance VNs/Dating Sims are dubious manipulation games?

[Mad Harlequin]

I meant... what if you thought Character A would like it if you held his hand, but instead he jerks it away? Haha. Then things didn't go exactly the way you planned, and you couldn't have "manipulated" him, if we go by the definition that manipulation is influencing something to "suit your own purpose and advantage."

This is a thwarted attempt at manipulation---it has failed, but that doesn't change the intent behind the action.

[Ran08]

This is a thwarted attempt at manipulation---it has failed, but that doesn't change the intent behind the action.

Oh, I see. Haha. Aww, I thought it won't be considered anymore, but now that I think about it... haha, it's kinda funny. A thwarted attempt at manipulation. Hahaha. =)

[kisa]

Well... I don't know if I missed someone saying something like this or not... But...
If you want to make it less like manipulation and more organic... you could make it so that the earning of points based on their choices is random?
for example...
Character A asks if you could take them somewhere to meet someone. You're given the option to lead them where they want to go or go where you think the person is (Or for a dirtbag route, to lead them off course entirely).
make it so that where the someone is is random... and whether Character A appreciates it random as well.
(Based on Character A's personality) you could make it more likely that A will appreciate it if you just do what they ask or more likely that they'll appreciate you finding the person they were looking for. But, leave the possibility that A will just wander off with their pal and forget you.
Also make it more likely that if you don't do what they want, they'll be mad at you and you lose affection. (obviously)

the random choice thing in the cookbook for Ren'py (or other program codes that do something similar) could be used to greatly enhance the realism of games.

[Zetsubou]

Ah, one point I forgot to address. (Sorry for all of the long-winded posts!)
I think one way people might be looking at this is that they're "manipulating" characters by deceiving them for personal gain.
For example, you don't actually like music, but you join the music club to get on the Music Girl's route.

In that light, I think it's important to remember the actual relationships at play here.
You influence a character's growth and actions. Their growth and actions reflect on other characters. Other characters like or dislike them for it.
You don't need to like music for your character to want to join the music club. You are not in the game. As much as you want to immerse yourself, you're ultimately just influencing the actions of the character you're playing as.
If you make a decision for your character, it becomes their decision. If you choose from pre-defined choices, then those choices were already in the head of the character.

That description might not make a lot of sense... so let's use an example.
Your character is told he needs to join a school club. There are three clubs he considers joining: the music club, the art club, and the soccer club.
You want to pursue Music Girl, thus you tell your character to choose the music club.
But your character doesn't know Music Girl even exists. He chooses the music club because of his own interest.

If Music Girl comes to like the character because of their common interest, then have you deceived her?
Your character does indeed have an interest in music. He hasn't deceived anyone.
You have no interest in music, you may only choose the music club to pursue Music Girl, but you're not claiming that you personally have an interest in music.
She likes the character because of his interest in music. You didn't tell him to lie about having an interest in music; you asked him to act on one of three choices he was already considering. Her feelings are based on an interest the character really does have.
You've influenced your character for your own selfish reason, but Music Girl's feelings are based off something the character really does have an interest in, not because of your selfishness.

I think the key point to take away from this discussion, regardless of which "side" we choose (if indeed they even exist), is that there can be no real "romance" when one party is essentially a marionette controlled by the other, and I think we all acknowledge that on some level. Love is just arguing that we should be more open about it.

I understand what you're saying, but consider the following.
"Romance" comes from spending time together, acting in a manner the other person finds acceptable, gifting them, etc. This is true in both games and real life, and in both cases you either have a chance or you don't. In real life, if you say and do the right things, you may indeed end up in a relationship with someone. Conversely, in a game a character may or may not be pursuable. The possibility of success and failure exists in both.

The only differences between the two are how limited your options are, and the ability to try again.
In a game, you can't pursue everyone, and you can't say everything you want. You're being fed choices.
I believe the likeness to a "marionette" comes from the fact that choices and responses are pre-defined, and by trying again and again you may be able to get the response you want.
But this can't be helped; that's how programming works. In fact, that's how writing works too; you control how characters react to given stimuli. Even if you add in random chance, there will always be pre-defined responses and actions, and you can try again until you achieve your desired result.

In that way, yes, you could consider them "marionettes". But if you feel that way, then think for a second about the writing aspect of a character.
Rather than think of choices in a game as ways to "manipulate" characters, think of each choice as a separate story.
A writer can encompass dozens of different stories into the same game. By making choices, you choose which story you follow.
Each story (or "route", "branch", etc.) is predefined. It's up to the writer to decide whether a particular story includes a romantic element.
In that case, the player's choices actually have no effect whatsoever. You're not influencing anyone, you're not treating characters like marionettes. You're sitting through multiple different stories, then choosing the one that matches up with your own desires.

It's kind of like fanfiction vs original works. Fanfictions can take place in the same world as the original work, but branch off at a specific point so that the writer can take the story in the direction that they want. As a reader, you choose which version of the story you want to read. You aren't manipulating anyone or anything, you're simply choosing to read the story that appeals to you the most.
In a VN, it feels more like you're manipulating people since you're making choices for them. But since every choice and every story is predefined, you're not really influencing or manipulating anyone. Rather, the writer is feeding you the story you want in an interactive manner. Just like how you could read different fanfiction until you get one with the pairing you want, in this way you read different versions of the same story based off your own preferences.

Taking that approach, where each choice branches off into its own story with minor alterations, I'd argue that romance therefore does exist within a VN.
As long as romance can exist between two characters in a novel or fanfiction, it can exist within VNs; you aren't manipulating how characters feel, you're reading each story that the writer has written in the hopes that one turns out the way you want it to.

[Fungii]

Yeah, it is pretty much manipulation when you're going for a specific someone in a dating sim that requires stats and certain responses in specific situations etc (heck when it came to Absolute Obedience it was literally your job to manipulate your 'targets' into falling in love with you), but in the case of more story driven VN's with like, events happening around the romance, like saving the world/solving a mystery, I can't really say that I 100% agree with the sentiment.

I understand what you mean, but I guess I just don't feel the same way. When I play regular romance VNs I pretty much always start with a blind run, and only if the game is particularly convoluted/choice heavy do I use a guide and turn into a 'manipulator'. I don't know, the definition just feels like it's trying to demonise a genre that's been lobbied enough as it is.

If you don't want the romance interests as trophies, then don't make romance interest specific endings. That's the only clear cut way I can think of to avoid it. If a romance depends on a choice, then there's a right choice to make, which means you have to appease to that decision.

As for the suggestion of making their reaction randomised, that would just end up frustrating to players who did want to go for a specific romance, which a lot of people tend to want to do.

Honestly, I think this is more of a case of something being thought about a little too hard.

[Mad Harlequin]

Damn it. I had a veritable essay ready to post, only to find I was logged out. Time to rewrite this . . . I hope it hasn't lost any of its desired impact. I can't remember exactly how I phrased some parts.

I don't know, the definition just feels like it's trying to demonise a genre that's been lobbied enough as it is.

I don't necessarily think there's any demonizing going on here---nobody's saying that dating sims can't be enjoyable or that people who enjoy them are training to be sociopaths. Love's argument does, however, encourage a closer look at what we consider "romance," and I think we all agree that such a discussion is beneficial for everyone invested in VNs.

I understand what you're saying, but consider the following. "Romance" comes from spending time together, acting in a manner the other person finds acceptable, gifting them, etc. This is true in both games and real life, and in both cases you either have a chance or you don't. In real life, if you say and do the right things, you may indeed end up in a relationship with someone. Conversely, in a game a character may or may not be pursuable. The possibility of success and failure exists in both. The only differences between the two are how limited your options are, and the ability to try again.

You're mostly right---but those aren't the only differences. Remember, in real life, other people have agency and are not just recipients of actions. This isn't true in a game, as everything an NPC does is directed by the player (and the writer and programmer). Consider someone interacting with a vibrating blow-up doll that is only programmed to respond to certain actions. Is that romance?

I believe the likeness to a "marionette" comes from the fact that choices and responses are pre-defined, and by trying again and again you may be able to get the response you want.

That's part of the reason why I chose to use that term, yes. But a puppet has no agency. It only moves when someone is pulling its strings. Non-player video game characters are the same.

But this can't be helped; that's how programming works. In fact, that's how writing works too; you control how characters react to given stimuli [. . .] In that case, the player's choices actually have no effect whatsoever. You're not influencing anyone, you're not treating characters like marionettes. You're sitting through multiple different stories, then choosing the one that matches up with your own desires. In a VN, it feels more like you're manipulating people since you're making choices for them. But since every choice and every story is predefined, you're not really influencing or manipulating anyone [. . .]Taking that approach, where each choice branches off into its own story with minor alterations, I'd argue that romance therefore does exist within a VN.

That's one way to look at it, yes. And I'm certainly not going to say that there's no value in works of this type---I've enjoyed reading the stories that unfold and watching characters grow and develop, even in "dating sims." But I don't believe that the romance between characters in a novel or fanfiction or what have you is comparable in a great enough way to "romance" in VNs. In reading a novel, a person becomes a spectator to the story. The attachment that may be shared by characters---romantic or otherwise---is something for readers to observe. There's no manipulation on the reader's part beyond how the story is interpreted.

In a video game, the dynamic is a bit different. Yes, you can reasonably say that the player is sitting through stories tailored to meet his or her needs. But the player, in being able to direct the story and characters freely, albeit within a set number of circumstances, assumes some responsibility, in a sense, (after the writers and programmers) for what happens. That, combined with the lack of agency shared by NPCs, is how I differentiate romance in books from "romance" in games. I think daring to deconstruct this mechanic, and being frank about what it entails, is a good thing.

Some of you may be asking yourselves why I've taken this view when I'm helping out with a "romance" game myself. Well, I've actually lost quite a bit of sleep over this, believe it or not, and I've wondered to myself whether it will help me get any closer to my goal of ultimately making a contribution that challenges, or even rebuilds, the established paradigm in some way. I discovered dating sims when I was a young, stupid, and lonely kid. Besides noting whatever story and character development was present, I got rather drunk on the power I was able to wield---power I definitely didn't have in my social life (and still don't). But Rome wasn't built in a day. I suppose I have to start with deepening my understanding first.

[Zetsubou]

Damn it. I had a veritable essay ready to post, only to find I was logged out.

After being told you need to login, and after logging in, hit back a couple of times.
It may depend on your browser (I'm currently using Firefox 30), but your response will likely still be cached.
Needless to say my responses have timed out on LSF before >.>

You're mostly right---but those aren't the only differences. Remember, in real life, other people have agency and are not just recipients of actions. This isn't true in a game, as everything an NPC does is directed by the player (and the writer and programmer).

Agreed. However, in order to look at this objectively, I think you need to take one of two stances: either the character is a lifeless program, or they're the mind-child of the creator.
If they're a lifeless program, then you can't manipulate their feelings and the like to begin with. It's "just a game", and they're just code, just as a character in a novel would be mere ink on paper.
If they've been given life by their creator, and all of their actions, feelings, etc. are dictated by said creator, then I'd argue that their creator is the one giving agency in lieu of the character. Since the character can't think for themself, the creator does so for them, and their programmed/written responses are hence the responses that the character would give if capable of personal thought and free will.

Consider someone interacting with a vibrating blow-up doll that is only programmed to respond to certain actions. Is that romance?

I think that analogy is a bit off. From the beginning I've been talking about romance between characters, not between the player and a character. If you're thinking of the latter, then I agree. I don't believe in romance between a player and a character. What I'm arguing for is romance between the fictional characters being given life through the game, just as romance exists between two characters in a novel.

That's one way to look at it, yes. And I'm certainly not going to say that there's no value in works of this type---I've enjoyed reading the stories that unfold and watching characters grow and develop, even in "dating sims." But I don't believe that the romance between characters in a novel or fanfiction or what have you is comparable in a great enough way to "romance" in VNs. In reading a novel, a person becomes a spectator to the story. The attachment that may be shared by characters---romantic or otherwise---is something for readers to observe. There's no manipulation on the reader's part beyond how the story is interpreted.

In a video game, the dynamic is a bit different. Yes, you can reasonably say that the player is sitting through stories tailored to meet his or her needs. But the player, in being able to direct the story and characters freely, albeit within a set number of circumstances, assumes some responsibility, in a sense, (after the writers and programmers) for what happens. That, combined with the lack of agency shared by NPCs, is how I differentiate romance in books from "romance" in games. I think daring to deconstruct this mechanic, and being frank about what it entails, is a good thing.

I'd say this is largely where we differ in opinion.
I don't believe that a VN having more than one possible relationship, or more than one path to a relationship, or allowing for player interaction, makes the relationship between two characters moot.
Even if your choices tailor your experience to feel like you're in command, like you have something to do with the outcome, it's ultimately a specific storyline created by the writer. They meant for this to happen. They wrote it in. It was there from the start. You didn't make it happen; you're still just an observer.
If you disagree with the novel analogy, consider instead a "choose your own adventure" book. Every possibly outcome has already been written into the book. Your choices may dictate which path you take, but it's still the author's story, the events that unfold are still not within your control, and the characters are still as real as they are in a standard novel.
(I'd elaborate, but I've gotta go.)

[Mad Harlequin]

After being told you need to login, and after logging in, hit back a couple of times.
It may depend on your browser (I'm currently using Firefox 30), but your response will likely still be cached.
Needless to say my responses have timed out on LSF before >.>

Thanks, but I did just that and it didn't save. *sad trombone*

Agreed. However, in order to look at this objectively, I think you need to take one of two stances: either the character is a lifeless program, or they're the mind-child of the creator.

If they're a lifeless program, then you can't manipulate their feelings and the like to begin with. It's "just a game", and they're just code, just as a character in a novel would be mere ink on paper.

If they've been given life by their creator, and all of their actions, feelings, etc. are dictated by said creator, then I'd argue that their creator is the one giving agency in lieu of the character. Since the character can't think for [himself or herself], the creator does so for them, and their programmed/written responses are hence the responses that the character would give if capable of personal thought and free will.

I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as that. Perhaps I should have been more specific. When I say a character has no agency, I don't mean that the character is lifeless or meaningless. Of course there are no actual feelings to hurt, but that doesn't change anything about the role of the character doing the wooing (and by extension, the player).

I think that analogy is a bit off. From the beginning I've been talking about romance between characters, not between the player and a character. If you're thinking of the latter, then I agree. I don't believe in romance between a player and a character. What I'm arguing for is romance between the fictional characters being given life through the game, just as romance exists between two characters in a novel.

I was using that analogy, ill-formed though it was, to demonstrate the need for agency, but yes, you're right about romance between characters. I suppose it depends on whether the player considers himself or herself as just assuming the role of the PC or moving beyond that and being the player using the PC as an instrument within the narrative. (This is some Stanley Parable stuff right here.)

I don't believe that a VN having more than one possible relationship, or more than one path to a relationship, or allowing for player interaction, makes the relationship between two characters moot.

I never questioned anything regarding the relationship between two characters---at least not well written ones. I think we can both agree on that. (Apologies if I sounded that way. I often get my words muddled when I'm addressing a multifaceted topic such as this one, especially at this hour.) What I'm in support of is the need to more openly acknowledge the player's role as a director of "romances"---it's a bit scary sometimes, at least when I think about it. Eros himself is no match for us . . .

[Rozume]

Wow! This topic has been really informative for me so far and I think everyone has some valid points on it. It really makes me think how I write and structure the romance games I want to make.

I was actually influenced by this thread to not gamify the romance in the VN I'm developing and make each choice not only equally valid, but critical to the game. The result ends up in a more organic storyline, but gosh darn it, there are flags everywhere. xD Luckily, there's only 4 choices to be made so I don't have too many of them but still, it can get hard to track of with all the flags and variables.

I guess from the writer/programmer's perspective, it might be easier to gamify the romance. All you need to do is collect a certain amount of points, and the number of points you get determines what route or what ending you get. It might be a little bit more complex to make a game that doesn't gamify romance.

[Mad Harlequin]

Yes, I'm very glad this thread's here. It's actually reminded me of some thoughts I've had for a long time now, but had locked away deep in my mind for some reason.

Perhaps I'll be making something out of them in the near future.

I guess from the writer/programmer's perspective, it might be easier to gamify the romance. All you need to do is collect a certain amount of points, and the number of points you get determines what route or what ending you get. It might be a little bit more complex to make a game that doesn't gamify romance.

Well, I'm definitely not experienced in any coding languages, but Blue Lacuna's primary NPC apparently took a very long time to put together, which doesn't surprise me. His many actions and reactions are quite complex. (Aaron Reed is amazing . . . I really wish I had the patience and energy to sit down and learn how Inform works. I'll have to change that.)

[Miodvla]

Hello,

i'm glad to read about this question too, and this conversation made me take some decisions about the project i'm into.

As several people said it, I think the answer to this question is to stop gamifying the romance, in order to not "score" the persons you meet. But then... wouldn't having sex (as an example) with the people you talk to still be a goal for you? a goal that you'd set up for yourself for free?

As some people pointed it, can the answer be in the fact that the people you're interacting with should be free to answer randomly whatever they want? But then again, wouldn't you be clicking over and over until they give you what you want?
Are we acting like creeps in those games? ^^

That's why the problem may be in the concept itself, but it's still really interesting to talk about it. i'm really interested in making "safe" games in terms of what they teach you on relationships

[Ammeh]

I think the problem with manipulation in VN's really comes out when you're interacting with multiple characters over the course of a game. It's pretty easy to have a personality for your character that happens to match up with what a single character likes--but if it's a game where you build relationships with more than a single character, players are incentivized to pick their responses based on what the person they're currently interacting with will like, frequently resulting in an inconsistent personality that you have to interpret as "manipulative" to make sense of.

I was actually thinking the other day about how to avoid that, and the best I came up with was a hidden relationship score that started at max and got points subtracted when you did/said things the person would really dislike. Thinking in terms of "what would this person find objectionable enough to permanently mar their impression of you?" rather than "what would this person like?" seems to leave much more room for the player to pick based on what they think the character would do. (I think it's also easier to give the player indications that a hidden relationship score just went down than went up--for the most part it's easier to tell when someone strongly disagrees with you than when they're happy with you.)

I was thinking a while back that it would be fun to make a VN where there was a major ideological conflict in the world, and pursuable/befriendable characters who fell on both sides. If you consistently agreed with them in dialogue, it'd be easier to befriend them...but still possible if you consistently disagreed with them as long as you could defend your position. But if you paid lip service to their side only to choose the other way in a plot-critical decision, they'd never want to speak to you again.

[breadslam]

I've been thinking about this issue for a while, much longer than I've been interested in making games even. Whenever I played, say, a Bioware game or anything else with "relationship points", I felt like all you really had to do in said games was to be a doormat to whomever you'd like to befriend/romance. As long as you agree with them, you won't lose "points" and I think that's a really horrible way to think about other people. (Though, to be fair, Bioware and other developers have gotten better at this -- such as with the "hardening" system in Dragon Age Origins or with Sweet Fuse's "what's wrong with you" interaction.)

It sets an expectation that people want a bobble-head friend, someone who just nods at whatever they say and does whatever they want. That's one of my biggest problems with romance/dating games that have the player "get" someone, a la the Tokimeki series. You can be the best of friends with someone and disagree with them on some key issues in real life. You can wind up married to someone who, despite the fact that neither of you see eye to eye on political issues, loves you very much and you feel the same.

The biggest problem I see is when developers, especially of romance/dating games, try to appeal to a wide variety of players with a wide variety of friendship/romantic interests. Since they focus on niches, there's less emphasis on making Classmate #3 deeper than just fulfilling that niche. That's not to say that you shouldn't include a variety of characters in romance/dating games, just that they need to be characters instead of cardboard cutouts to get a certain subsection of the population to buy your game.

[SinSisters]

Personally, I don't mind trying to 'win points' through dialogue. What I dislike are stat raising games. It's one thing if you raise a stat that makes sense (Like in the Flower Shop, how you have to go running to show your determination in order to impress a girl), but when boys require 50:Science, 55:Math, 21:Computers, etc. When I like someone, it's because of what they look like and what they say, not because they got an 89 in PE (vs boy #2 who got an 82, gasp). I don't mind dialogue based games because I consider this flirting. Which is how most people end up going out. Or by spending time with them. But yes, it is true that in real life, saying something that you don't find disagreeable will not make you like someone any more, true, but I wouldn't consider VNs and Dating Sims to be dubious manipulation games, especially regarding VNs and how good ones have such great plot behind them. Are we to ignore all of the things that don't happen when we don't make dialogue choices, or choices in general? It could be considered 'winning' someone, yes, but unless you control both sides of the characters (oh my gosh, that actually sounds like a brilliant idea. I wonder?), it's nearly impossible (I wasn't going to use the word 'nearly', but then this would come back to bite me in the butt) to create a good, entertaining romance story with options for people to actually have a gaming aspect. Maybe games delusion some people to think that the real world works like that (like 'Friend Zone', God forbid), but mostly everyone else is aware that real life relationships are much more complex and often, not something we control (at least, easily. I'm sure we could be friends with any person if we tried hard enough. Like, really hard.)

-Nat

[Taleweaver]

Stat raiser games don't show realistic relationships, they're basically management games, with the game factor emphasised.

I remember playing a lot of TokiMemo back in the days. What I always hated was the fact that you couldn't be in a steady relationship with a girl while not going out on dates with other girls. Seriously. If you ignored all girls' requests for dates except that of your main love interest, the other girls started badmouthing you, which in turn made your relationship with your main love interest crash and burn. What sort of relationship is this that goes sour because you don't date other people?

Then again, it made for interesting gameplay. It was fun simply because it required careful management of the different "relationship meters". It was a game, for gaming's sake, not for the story.