Visual Novels are a genre not a medium

[rainbowcascade]

Okay, I know we argued about the whole topic "Can Visual Novels be considered video games?" and you're all groaning at the fact that I'm re-opening this can of worms, but hear me out.

In games, we have, I believe, several different kinds: Board games, sports, video games, on-the-spot games(like pattycake or telephone).

delving deeper into a particular one, video games, you have multiple genres: FPS, Adventure, Platforming, Puzzle, RPG, etc.

these genres are defined by an action you perform in a few seconds. In FPS, you constantly shoot things, in adventure, you collect items and use it on something, in platforming, you time your jumps and hurt enemies in a quick simple action, and etc. Of course there are plenty of games that combine multiple game plays or are difficult to categorize because their game play is so out there, but nevertheless, my point is, the player must interact and take some sort of action within the game in order to progress it. That's a game.

I'm talking specifically about visual novels where players make choices. Players read the story and decide which choice to make based on what they learned in the text. If players want to go in a very specific direction (ex. Going for romance interest A over romance interest D) they adjust the choices they make in the game accordingly. For many visual novels, that's the core game play for the entirety of it's system.

At first, when the question was asked "Are visual novels games?" I believed the answer was that visual novels are their own medium. Like they were some kind of blend between books and video games, belonging in neither category, yet having traits of both. But I disliked the answer because this would allow game critics or gamers to dismiss visual novels because "they're not games" (Not that they already do). Reading up on video game criticism more, I started to agree that people tend to define interactive art as "not real games" because they have a very narrow way of considering what is and isn't a game. If it doesn't seem like a game, then it is not a game. "Real" games are where you can control a character and make them jump on blocks and kill enemies, yada yada. I was very close to categorizing visual novels as a completely separate medium on the navigation bar of my website:

HOME ABOUT GAMES COMICS VISUALNOVELS LINKS

But after some thinking, I thought against it. I'm pretty confident in the fact that visual novels ARE games and more specifically, they are a genre of video games.

So that's my thought. Visual Novels are a genre. Do you guys agree or disagree? I know some of you guys are probably going "No duh Sherlock!" But honestly, this was a revelation that took a long time for me to realize.

[blankd]

Medium = Mode of Delivery

Genre = Context/Structural Language

I'd also like to point out that your definition of a game is very flawed:

Of course there are plenty of games that combine multiple game plays or are difficult to categorize because their game play is so out there, but nevertheless, my point is, the player must interact and take some sort of action within the game in order to progress it. That's a game.

A game can better be defined as having these components:
-Rules
-A win/lose/end condition
-The "video" part of video games is how this game is interacted with by the player

A (video) game can actually enter a "lose" state if the player does not interact with it, but the game is running. Losing is still "progress" as you can still end the game by losing (Game Over).

All Visual Novels have end conditions but not all VNs have rules that affect the player's ability to achieve a win/lose and that is what I feel is the simplest but definite difference between them.

Of course I welcome thought exercises, if you have a VN that fulfills these conditions but ALSO does not rely on borrowing a "video game" component as a mini-game/diversion, feel free to bring it up.

A preemptive counter argument for a game like Phoenix Wright is that not correctly solving the case gives the player a game over and they will have to repeat that case until they "do it correctly"- this is present throughout the entire game and each case is structured like a "stage" or mission. Again the rules/end conditions are true of all games but not of VNs.

But yeah that's my two-cents.

[Tempus]

I think of visual novels on a spectrum:

Linear <--------------> Consequential Branching

On the left there's non-branching narratives and on the right there's narratives with choices that matter. In between there might be VNs with choices that affect nothing, those with few choices, etc. On top of this there's systems that can be added to VNs which shift focus from the narrative and/or role playing forte of VNs more toward something like winning, collecting, system mastery, (spacial) exploration, intellectual challenges (e.g. puzzles), and so on. These might be intermittent mini-games or core elements of the work. So rather than a spectrum you could imagine VNs on a plane that they share with games:

And you can imagine expanding this plane, or perhaps adding more dimensions. It breaks down for games with no narrative, for instance. I spent about 30 seconds choosing my examples and just tried to pick things people here would be familiar with. Also, it's worth pointing out that just because games and VNs share the plane it doesn't mean one is the same or a subset of the other. I guess the best way to put it is "everything is a hybrid." (Or a remix.)

Anyway, this is what I used to think. It's hard to say this is particularly useful now. What do I gain from looking at works this way? Does it enrich my experience of them? Does it help me make better things? I'm not so sure.

[kitsubasa]

Ahh, we're opening the ol' hive of 'what makes a game' discussion.

As Blankd states, games are defined through containing rules and containing a win/lose/end state. Visual novels and other borderline-case 'interactive fiction' texts are hard to put in the video-game pile because of the fact they lack concrete rules. For example, if you're reading a visual novel and it only has one choice, which leads to equally valid endings-- are you really engaging with a rule set? Yes, you've made a choice and there has been interactivity, but was it one that required prior knowledge of the game's logical systems? Was there any learning or skill required making it?

But, on the other hand, if interactive fiction is disqualified from being considered a game, then where else can we lump it while it's not large enough or academically/culturally respected enough to be its own major medium? It doesn't appeal to people in the same way as books and written literature, it doesn't necessarily include enough systems to function as a rule-based game experience. On a case-by-case basis, some IF/VN experiences can be categorised as games quite easily (such as romance games where you learn the 'rules' of dating each character and gain skill at manipulating the addition of points signifying 'love') but in other instances, they're nigh impossible to list as true games (like the one-choice VN example I posited above).

In other words... some visual novels are games in the rigid, classical sense of systemic experience with end conditions, but others are not. However, for ease of categorisation while they're too uncommon to encompass an entire medium to themselves, yes, we're best off saying they're games, since many of them have enough crossover to be considered as such. And when we bunch them under the category of games, what do they become? A genre of gaming! So, you're totally right on that point. : D

[sasquatchii]

I don't understand why they can't be considered both a genre of gaming and a medium. Who's to say that the two are exclusive?

Since video games are still a fairly new invention, gamers and the people that make games have not come up with a good enough way to classify games. I think at this point there are so many games that blurr the lines between different genres of games. Sure, you've got classifications like FPS shooters, Platformers, RPG's, MMO's, RTS's, etc. Steam only lists 10 different types of genres in their store- Action, adventure, strategy, RPG, Indie, MMO, Casual, Simulation, Racing, and Sports. To me, this seems like a very limited approach to grouping things. What about games that are none of these? What about games that are a combination of 2 or more, or that blur the lines in other ways?

Let me switch gears for a second and bring up visual novels as a medium itself. To me, visual novels are similar to comic books, literature, and movies because most of them all tell a story. And within stories are different kinds of genres- romance, science fiction, fantasy- all of these genres can be found in visual novels.

So why do visual novels have to choose? What's wrong with considering them to be both?

I guess it just depends on how people define art. My definition of art is pretty loose (that's all thanks to going to an art college for four years) but I consider art to be something that someone created that is able to provoke an emotional response in others. Visual novels and games definitely do that! Whose to say that they're not art?

[blankd]

As a dickish 180 from my sleep-post, a really big correction:

VNs are already classified as a sub-genre of Adventure Games (as is IF). The thing about digitally delivered games is that sometimes the rules are taken for granted since the design of the game can make you forget them (this can be a very good thing). The rules for the VN is (if the game was designed properly) that you must use logic to achieve a certain end and by immersing yourself in that role or figuring out the rules you can achieve that end. Those are the rules are as another poster mentioned (again, assuming that the VN in question was properly designed).

I personally am not fond of the "why not use both" since it can lead to redundancy and uninformative as looking/asking for recommendations of a Novel Novel (Genre, Medium) instead of Romance Novel (Genre, Medium) or even a misunderstanding of differences.

A crude analogy is to recall the taxonomy of animals, yes we could all use every level of if we REALLY wanted, but at the end of the day these terms are to convey information. Mediums can be considered how the experience can be well, experienced, and genres give an idea of what that experience is.

"Then why not let people refer to it as both?"
The criticisms and demands of a medium and of a genre are very different. Especially if these criticisms or demands only apply to a certain genre. Keeping them separate has advantages but is likely not in the scope of this thread.