Lemma Soft Forums

I don't agree with the end message of the game, though I did still enjoy the game.

I think of choices in VNs as like routes from point A to point(s) B (,C,D,E...)

That is, it's a collection of paths from beginning to end. It's like if I wanted to get you from starting town Foopsville to an ending town in another country, Foobia. I build you some different highways and tunnels, and you get to choose which path you will take. Your experience will be different depending on which highway you take. That certainly gives you more choices in a single trip (playthrough) than if I just made it linear where you get one highway from Foopsville to a single destination in Foobia (single ending.)

I suppose you could argue that the choice is an illusion created by making the game "big" and only letting the player experience one path in a given play. That's true to an extent, but if you look at things that way, there's no game that gives you true "choice." I mean, even chess has a finite number of moves, as does a pure classic game like Super Mario Brothers (excluding -1 glitch world repeating which would open up an infinite number.)

It's all about the experience you create for the player But I vehemently disagree that having no choices gives MORE freedom than having some choices. For instance, maybe one of the highways takes you on the scenic route through Sparkling Yaoitown. If I avoid that route, I exercised a choice and freed myself from something I didn't really care for. If it's linear.... uh.... *crashes car*

VN choice also lets you experience "what ifs" that let you learn more about the characters. How would they react in this situation, what would have happened if I did this, etc.

I speak only as a reader and a player, I'm not claiming to know the truth about this or about anything, really.

But, what I wanted to say was that I feel that in order to attempt a deconstruction, you should love or have some regard for the topic you deconstruct.

Please forgive the geekiness of my example but, have you seen Madoka Magica? It's a deconstruction of magical girls. It makes the girls pay horribly for their pretty dresses and sparkly powers. But it's obvious that no matter how grimdark it can get, it loves the genre, it loves magical girls.

Last year, RisAsmo /Ristorante Amore was a game that wanted to deconstruct otome games. The programmers didn't hate otome, they hated cardboard characters and bad plotting. They wanted to write a nice romance, and that's exactly what they did.

You don't seem to like the genre much. So the ending of the game seems a lot like you want me, the player, to suddenly see "the light" to say "Oh, dating sims are stupid!" But I've played games with romance I've enjoyed very much. Games with a romantic story are not stupid, not on principle alone.

It's possible that I've completely missed the point, and I apologize if I did. I like stories more than big intelectual manifests or whatever.


This was not a bad game, and it has nice production values (nice art, clever dialogues, some funny jokes, etc).

I think I'd really like to see the kind of game you can make with a topic you really enjoy.

Blue Lemma wrote:[...]It's all about the experience you create for the player But I vehemently disagree that having no choices gives MORE freedom than having some choices. For instance, maybe one of the highways takes you on the scenic route through Sparkling Yaoitown. If I avoid that route, I exercised a choice and freed myself from something I didn't really care for. If it's linear.... uh.... *crashes car*

I suppose that if I had to take your road analogy, my argument would be that a game is more like a train ride to B or C, whereas a book is a walking road. The game keeps you on its track at all times by forcing you to answer in one of its options, it tries to encapsulate you in a structure, whereas a book has you walk the steps yourself. The latter's more about the road itself than the former. The significance of any point along the way of the train ride is quantifiable, how close it brings you to your goal, the significance of any point along a walking road has to be made by you. I argue that that makes a book a more personal experience.

The analogy doesn't quite work, though, but I think there's a different way of thinking between analysing something to get a result and interpreting it, and the latter is, again, the more personal and thus more free. As you say, chess has a finite number of moves. But Shakespeare is read in an infinite amount of manners. What's interactivity when you're not allowed to think outside of the box on your side of the activity?

Mind, my problem here isn't so much with choices in themselves, but with game decisions; the difference being that one is a statement of "I want it to be so" and the other is a means of getting to a goal that has been specified. That said, I am indeed not a big fan of choices, because a road that splits to lead to B or C is inevitably not as efficient for getting to B as a direct road to B is.

ludeshka wrote:But, what I wanted to say was that I feel that in order to attempt a deconstruction, you should love or have some regard for the topic you deconstruct. [...] It's possible that I've completely missed the point, and I apologize if I did. I like stories more than big intelectual manifests or whatever.

I don't think you've missed the point — I think you've made the most insightful post yet in a thread that has seen more intelligent posts than I had ever dreamed of getting. This is a very nasty habit of mine that you've pointed out. All my VNs so far have been attacks on something or other, which is why I've cleared my signature of their links. Next one will be better, I promise .

Carassaurat wrote:Even if it's only very subtle, you and I will never experience that rose in the same way, and our interpretations of it on the level of meaning will differ, and they're all equally right.

I think this is the fundamental point we'll have to agree to disagree on. I mean, it's not that I don't see all experiences as equally right. But not all interpretations are equally right.

Carassaurat wrote: Ha, I loved reading this — it's very interesting!

Hehe, I thought you would!

Carassaurat wrote:

if Eve were written as satirically as the Chief and the Doctor, it'd be easy to counter my argument by saying that this was just a very bad dating game.

Yes, and I think that was the right choice more conducive to the argument.

ludeshka wrote:So the ending of the game seems a lot like you want me, the player, to suddenly see "the light" to say "Oh, dating sims are stupid!"

I got that feeling, too... I would call this "satire" more than "deconstruction." It didn't have much as far as "real world" implications, for the characters or for players who find dating sims enjoyable. (I mean, it's not like they're suddenly not going to enjoy them.)

oogah. too much verbiage. sry, i just can't read all of that without getting a headache. i'm just not into the whole philosophy thing.

sry if i missed any points but from the first couple posts, i think you might be making a few too many assumptions. i could be wrong, of course. i prolly missed something or other.

i don't really play games much, but it seems to me that dating sims are designed to user expectations.

not to simulate reality or its complexities. it's intentionally the opposite.

if they wanted to, they could throw in genetic algorithms, neural networks, and a simplified language construct command syntax thingy to create dynamically robust behavior that adapts, evolves, and responds in a diversified manner to natural speech-like patterns. hell, throw in some non-linear chaos theory for fun with multiscale hierarchical complexity in a competitive evolutionary ecosystem or something or other.

it's possible to push it beyond x+y=z.

but i don't think people would want to play that game.

why?

because behavior would be too friggin lifelike and annoying hard to get them to do whatever the heck we want them to get them to do. i really don't want to spend ten months developing a deeply committed relationship with a visual novel character just to see the ending, heheheh.

edit: just a quick analogy. essentially dating sims are functioning as intended/designed - like a hammer. it serves its purpose/satisfies the needs of the consumer. so, a hammer shouldn't be criticized for not being a screwdriver. hmm, mebbe that's a dumb analogy. i dunno. ah well.

anyhoo, thought the ending was clever, and i really like your sense of humor/style.
but man, she is a talker. augh. my attention span just can't handle all that, lol.

So I just played this game and I have to say this kind of game is very refreshing and kudos with the plot twist !

How many endings can I achieve by the way ?

arachni42 wrote:

ludeshka wrote:So the ending of the game seems a lot like you want me, the player, to suddenly see "the light" to say "Oh, dating sims are stupid!"

I got that feeling, too... I would call this "satire" more than "deconstruction." It didn't have much as far as "real world" implications, for the characters or for players who find dating sims enjoyable. (I mean, it's not like they're suddenly not going to enjoy them.)

That's only all too true, although, to be honest, I didn't expect anyone to change his ir her ways over me beating them over the head. I am, in fact, rather surprised by how much people are saying they've enjoyed Jones!

unknown5 wrote:i don't really play games much, but it seems to me that dating sims are designed to user expectations.

not to simulate reality or its complexities. it's intentionally the opposite.

Thank you for playing! I don't really disagree with you in what dating sims are — the question is whether media are allowed to be reckless wish fulfilling entertainment or whether they have a responsibility and must exhibit some moral values. I must admit that I was kind of deeply into Adorno and his whole 'es gibt kein richtigen Leben im falschen' when I wrote Jones, and a bit less so now that I've got time to cool off, but I'm still very skeptical of creating fake worlds in which interaction with people is more predictable, manipulable and 'rewarding'. It's easy to say that just because we behave well enough, unrealistic media have no effect on us and they're just harmless, but I think at the end of the day the notion of media that doesn't have effects on people is quite silly.

tiya_nofurita wrote:So I just played this game and I have to say this kind of game is very refreshing and kudos with the plot twist !
How many endings can I achieve by the way ?

Thank you! There is only one 'true' ending. There are game-overs that say that they're good endings, but they're just text screens without credits, and the sarcasm is thick enough to cut with a knife in those.

Carassaurat wrote: Thank you for playing! I don't really disagree with you in what dating sims are — the question is whether media are allowed to be reckless wish fulfilling entertainment or whether they have a responsibility and must exhibit some moral values. I must admit that I was kind of deeply into Adorno and his whole 'es gibt kein richtigen Leben im falschen' when I wrote Jones, and a bit less so now that I've got time to cool off, but I'm still very skeptical of creating fake worlds in which interaction with people is more predictable, manipulable and 'rewarding'. It's easy to say that just because we behave well enough, unrealistic media have no effect on us and they're just harmless, but I think at the end of the day the notion of media that doesn't have effects on people is quite silly.

there are benefits/costs to everything. also, are you making water flow uphill (not impossible, but have to create the proper societal mechanism)? in addition, people may react differently. majority in the middle of bell curve, while those at the ends respond strongly positively or negatively to stimuli. ex. violent movie - a segment of population that react adversely vs. those that are excited by it, etc. dunno.

don't have much experience with philosophy. limited to one political philosophy class and flipping through a book on the history of great philosophers. skimmed adorno's wiki, but couldn't find a good summary of his ideas =(. for me, the problem with philosophy is that ultimately it breaks down into a subjective set of core values/principles that cannot be proven to be better or worse than a different set of subjective values. liberty vs. equality vs. happiness vs. morality vs. .... ultimately, they are all artificial constructs. imho, the only true objective law is maximization of (relative) stability. it is the single, inexorable, universal law that crushes anything that opposes it (heheh, just being a wee bit melodramatic). don't want to sidetrack the thread tho, lol. you can pm me, if you want. but honestly, i have very little experience with philosophical thinking, other than my own stupid thoughts and ideas.

(sorry for the late reply)

I'll be honest with you, I didn't get much of a chance to read more of Adorno than a handful of articles, because I was already busy enough with creating the game; but for so far as I have understood him, the fact that he's the guy who invented the word crypto-fascist says a lot about him. Basically, he argues that the task of the media is to train people to critically analyse in order that they may also pierce through dangerous lies of politicians. Media should incite and call to action, not confirm the status quo. Hence also the Kafka quote I used; a book should bite and stab, or else why read it? Media that are comforting and easy and tell you everything will be all right will put people in the wrong mindset when there are all kinds of crypto-fascists plotting behind the scenes. So okay, it doesn't really overlap that much with what I'm trying to say because it's not really fascists I'm afraid of, but media as a training device is the common theme here.

-

I'd rather have left this thread in slumber on page 2, where it belongs, but Clua drew me a picture of Eve and I think it would be a shame if nobody else ever got to see it because it's gorgeous, so here you go:

love the memes that populate your mind. =D
and clua's pic definitely deserves a bump!