Visuals for KN

[Shinoki]

When it comes to kinetic novels, for a lot of people, they aren't all that appealing since there's no choices or anything-or at least I think that's why some people don't like them.

I enjoy kinetic novels, but the ones that I've really really loved are the ones with an interesting take on the visuals. Like-Shikkoku no Sharnoth had an interesting way of putting the characters as well as the unique type of backgrounds. There was a good amount of CG too.
Then for Narcissu (both of 'em), it was more of a sound-based thing with minimal, more or less water-colory CG for everything-actually mainly backgrounds and reused CG a lot of the time. Still, it was somehow a wonderful effect

So just wondering, does an original visual manner make a KN more enjoyable (though I'm aware that the plot and etc does matter quite a lot none the less)? And do you think it'd be good to try it out?

[Asceai]

I'm not sure if people that dislike KNs for the principal property that makes them KNs would find their opinion changed by the fact that one happens to look particularly nice. Obviously a unique and compelling style and atmosphere would make a KN more enjoyable, but the same is true for any VN.

[SundownKid]

I agree with the above, no amount of nice visuals would make it "not a KN". Generally I enjoy digital graphic novels, but I'm not too keen about KNs with no interactivity. Maybe if it looked mind-blowing or the plot looked amazing I would take a look, but a lot of people don't like KNs as much.

[Lishy]

Higurashi was a Kinetic Novel. It had neither good visuals, or good music (until it had actual composers from the fifth episode and on...)

I think it ultimately depends on audience. Why do we play a VN?

Personally, I prefer a KN, because it liberates us from the stress of decision making, and simply lets us enjoy a story for what it is.

[Katta]

I dislike KNs, in most cases I won't even open a thread marked KN, so all the nice art will be wasted on me.

[Lishy]

It boils down to a question: Why does one play a visual novel? For choice and interaction? Or for scenario and development?

Of course, there is also a line between KN and VN. For example, Saya no Uta only has a few areas in the entire story where you make decisions, and they serve more to choose an ending rather than to alter story experience. Another is Sharin no Kuni, where decisions really had zero impact besides running into a few bad endings, and choosing which heroine you anted a sex scene with. However, the "main" story arc itself was unchanged by decisions.

[Green Glasses Girl]

Juniper's Knot from Dischan was the first kinetic novel I have ever read, and it was fantastic.

I've already posted my thoughts in a similar thread about KNs, so I'll repost what I said here:

I never understood the "I don't play kinetic novel because I didn't come here to read a book" mentality. I've played visual novels more than 2+ hours long in which only got to make 2-3 choices. Additionally, I don't understand the "I prefer visual novels because kinetic novels are boring." Sometimes the choices to otoges are just to start a route with a new love interest, and the "happily ever after" endings tend to be the same.

At the end of the day, if you can impress me with your story and characters, I don't mind if your work is a VN, KN, or LN. What its classification is doesn't detract from the enjoyment to me. Heck, sometimes I don't want to make choices. I just want to read an excellent story, view great visuals, and not have to deal with the tediousness of going through X number of routes just to unlock different endings. Sometimes the endings don't even make a difference in the overall plot! Man, if there were multiple endings with everything single videogame I played...I would stop playing videogames.

So I don't believe KNs have to have special or better graphics or gimmicks just to compensate for the lack of gameplay. If you catch my attention with your art, draw me in with your characters, and keep me there with your story, I'm sold.

[Greeny]

I really don't make a real distinction between "Visual Novels" and "Kinetic Novels" at all. I think it's because I'm in the (seemingly rare?) boat of people who don't see VNs as a "game" but rather a storytelling medium.

Choices can be a part of that, but they're really not the whole of it. No choices is always better than lackluster choices that do nothing.

[Tempus]

I really don't make a real distinction between "Visual Novels" and "Kinetic Novels" at all. I think it's because I'm in the (seemingly rare?) boat of people who don't see VNs as a "game" but rather a storytelling medium.

Choices can be a part of that, but they're really not the whole of it. No choices is always better than lackluster choices that do nothing.

This is a good reply. Giving something a different name simply because it's linear is unnecessarily confusing (it's not at all clear what kinetic means in this context unless you happen to know already) and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it subconsciously affects the way people select their media. (In addition to the way it already consciously affects that selection.) You don't rename an RPG based on whether its linear or non-linear, and it's silly to do so for VNs. It's much more intuitive to say "linear VN" or "non-linear VN." This also allows for more accurate descriptions in cases where a VN has choices but is in fact linear — i.e., the choices affect nothing. But even that is a distinction which I don't think benefits people. To judge whether something is worthwhile based on linearity is incredibly shallow IMO.

"KN" is just another counter-intuitive acronym like "CG" and really ought to be done away with. They both make absolutely no sense.

[papillon]

From my perspective, I'm unlikely to play a long KN because my eyes get very tired having to read text broken down into very small chunks, constantly stopping and starting (and clicking) with no other interaction to give me a break. Not because I don't like to read, but because I *do* like to read, and find it uncomfortable not being able to read larger amounts at once.

That can to some extent be "compensated" for by action sequences where I can just watch - or by keeping the atmosphere heavy and verbose enough that it naturally lends itself to being read more slowly. And if it's short and the story is good I can certainly put up with the mild annoyance for awhile. In other cases, though? I may skip it until someone gets around to making a screenshot-LP of it. Because I can read the text a lot faster when it's all printed out in HTML!

(Even many VNs wear me out and I can only play a little while at a time, tabbing back and forth into doing other things. This is a personal quirk, I don't think it's that common, but I don't know.)

Now, in general, I play visual novels because I really like branching and choice-making and alternate perspectives... but only when they're meaningful, and have been known to rant that games with very few choices (like where the only choice is 'who date?') would have been better off as KNs or multiple KNs. I don't have a problem with choiceless stories existing, and I'd rather them be upfront about it.

OTOH... I still have yet to play Higurashi.

[Applegate]

Common consensus appears to be that a good Visual Novel does away with the Novel part and exchanges it for Gameplay; you "play" a Visual Novel, you do not read it.

"Kinetic Novels" then are outliers for real, as they concentrate on storytelling over gameplay. Does a unique visual presentation help? Depends on if it's a good visual presentation. For the most part, you have to realise that "Kinetic Novels" (where do kinetics come in?) have a different audience from "Visual Novels". The kinetic novel is the red-haired stepchild of visual novels, complete with being the only subset that gets ostracised by not even being called a visual novel. Rather than look to appeal to the "visual novel" main gang through clever presentation styles, I'd recommend finding your own audience and writing with the mindset that you'll find readers anyhow. You can do artsy stuff to distinguish yourself, but remember that no amount of artistic ingenuity is going to mask that you have no gameplay to offer.

[Asceai]

Common consensus appears to be that a good Visual Novel does away with the Novel part and exchanges it for Gameplay; you "play" a Visual Novel, you do not read it.

Er, what? Common consensus where? I'm pretty sure most people care quite a bit about the 'novel' part, and equating selecting a choice or two every couple of hours with gameplay feels like a stretch.

"Kinetic Novels" then are outliers for real, as they concentrate on storytelling over gameplay.

Wait, isn't that what VNs already do (concentrate on storytelling over gameplay)? From a gameplay perspective I don't think many VNs (except those that are explicitly gameplay titles, like VN RPGs, some sims etc.) would hold up very well at all. Besides, given the amount of effort that necessarily goes into writing these things (compared with non-VN titles of the same level of production quality) it would seem like a waste if people are just "playing" these for the "gameplay".

[fioricca]

So just wondering, does an original visual manner make a KN more enjoyable (though I'm aware that the plot and etc does matter quite a lot none the less)? And do you think it'd be good to try it out?

Yeeeees. Juniper's Knot is quoted often (it had cut-ins, CGs and well-placed ATL) but one look at any of Donmai's works should encourage anyone looking to try something that's out of the box. Donmai's VNs have a strong cinematic feel to it as there was no character sprites -- all the VNs are 100% event art.

Saguaro's Locked-in isn't a KN but it's also an outstanding example of unique graphics and great ATL spam.

Rising Angels: TRR is a KN and it got enough attention for Komi to want to expand it!

Finally, this is a shameless plug but The Dolls' Stories is essentially a kinetic novel (there's very bad chat gameplay, but it's still very very linear). I was able to add cut-in scenes though, and that broke up the monotone considerably.

Hope those references help?

[Shinoki]

Nod, nod, nod, nod.

Yea, the visuals can't make up for the plot~
But a lot of time, they keep me going along with the story for a longer time- good or bad, either way.

Thank you all for the references~
And as for Higurashi, since I'm already really biased towards the characters
(Me: the otaku who spent a year fangirling and enjoying Higurashi and the other When They Cry stuff)
I couldn't really use that as a good reference

But~ okey~

[Applegate]

Common consensus appears to be that a good Visual Novel does away with the Novel part and exchanges it for Gameplay; you "play" a Visual Novel, you do not read it.

Er, what? Common consensus where? I'm pretty sure most people care quite a bit about the 'novel' part, and equating selecting a choice or two every couple of hours with gameplay feels like a stretch.

No, it's gameplay. Perhaps saying "does away with the novel part" was a bit too sweeping; I mean the emphasis is on the idea that it's a game, and you play a Visual Novel. You don't read them. I consider it gameplay, because for one, they're often referred to as games, and for two, the choices still engage the player and make them an active component of the story insofar that you made decisions to led you to where you are (or make you believe they mattered). If a visual novel does not contain these elements, we are wont not to call them visual novels but kinetic novels instead. It's a distinction: there's the expectation that a kinetic novel offers only story, where a visual novel will offer more than just that.

Wait, isn't that what VNs already do (concentrate on storytelling over gameplay)? From a gameplay perspective I don't think many VNs (except those that are explicitly gameplay titles, like VN RPGs, some sims etc.) would hold up very well at all. Besides, given the amount of effort that necessarily goes into writing these things (compared with non-VN titles of the same level of production quality) it would seem like a waste if people are just "playing" these for the "gameplay".

Considering I see very few people say they "read" a VN, and most will say they "played" one, I think they hold up fine enough from a gameplay perspective: People still experience them as games. Something like the Kansei series tells a detective mystery story, but it is complemented by quasi-investigative portions where the player decides where to go and who to question, and ultimately who to pin the blame on. (I think, I haven't much looked into the later parts.)

These small portions give the player a sense of being involved, and wherever you end up, the player can feel a little proud that they managed to navigate around the bad endings. A kinetic novel doesn't have this. It has to rely completely and wholly on its storytelling, offering no girls to romance, no villain to uncover, and no bad endings to avoid. By necessity they focus mostly on the storytelling. A visual novel can detract from a bad story with a compelling (mini-game), and can complement weak prose with dialogue decisions that give the player control and involve them that way.