New Term for Visual Novels? [split]

[trooper6]

Another thing is that you can call your own works whatever you like. Just don't be surprised when people call your Phase-Shift Tactile Immersive Performance Art a VN =p

Dang! I thought I was the only one working on a Phase-Shift Tactile Immersive Performance Art project!

Boo!

[2dt]

I need to setup a trap for that elusive mugenjohncel, so that I may capture and interrogate him. If I carefully mention the world OELVN in a slightly negative light, it'll be like a mouse and cheese.

What about a "Digital Play"?

I think before running through a list of proposed terms, you need to come up with a convincing case that Visual Novel - the term everyone in the community is using - is not something we should just keep on using.

A few minutes ago, I came across this article. It doesn't define what a VN is, it just mentions a game that's being translated. A half-dozen comments also mention visual novels, and not one of them asks what the form is. Maybe this is a forum that's overly biased towards us - but I don't think we should throw out a decade of name recognition, without good reason.

When someone searches "visual novel" on google, they get a reasonable selection of results. The wikipedia article, vndb, a selection of sites covering the form - that seems sensible to me.

And so, I think you need to make the case that we should start from scratch with a new term - since I don't see what's currently wrong with Visual Novel. Worse, I think introducing a second term into the mix has the potential to simply add confusion, since it seems unlikely the entire community - creators, players, translators, media, and more - would switch. We'd wind up with a whole lot of "What's the difference between a visual novel and a digital play?" "They're the same thing." - and for what?

Allow me to explain why this topic fascinates me so. I'm well aware this is only my personal experience, and many may not agree, but I think it's valid point.

Though I've played them all my life, I've only gotten into creating VNs recently. When I explain to friends and family what I do with my free time. "I'm writing a visual novel engine". "I'm doing artwork for my visual novel." No one I meet (in person at least) knows what that is. That's fine, there's nothing wrong or strange with that.

The problem comes when I try to explain what a "visual novel" is. "Is that like a novel with pictures?" "Is that a graphic novel?"

"It's a text-based adventure game". "It's an interactive fiction." "It's a story game with visuals and sounds, where you might be able to make choices that might affect the outcome of the story." While those may or may not be accurate definitions, it's hard for anyone to get a acceptably accurate image of what it actually is just based on the description. Of course, that dynamic could be said about any unfamiliar idea or product. It's only natural. The only way that can truly come to understand it is to experience it.

Then the issue becomes, can I get them interested enough to try it? What makes this hard is the massive disconnect between what the words "visual novel" mean and what it actually is. So while describing, they can't get an accurate mental image of what it is, so I have to try and re-explain in different terms, and before you know it we both just sort of give up.

Or maybe I just suck at talking . Either way, I mention visual novel to anyone, they just sort aimlessly nod "Okay" "I see" "Wow that's so cool" until we change the topic.

So one day, in explaining that I'm writing a VN engine that can port visual novels to iOS, suddenly, it's "oh cool, is there an app I can download?" So I come up with the term "touch novel" and try mixing it into my conversations, and I can tangibly see the interest level rise.

So I start musing about, what if we changed the term into something that makes more sense and easier to relate to? instead of aimlessly bickering about "Kinetic novel vs Visual Novel vs Original English Language Visual Novel" (I'M READY FOR YOU JOHNNY)

And so here we are. I realize there's a high degree of futility in actually trying to change the terminology, so for this thread I'm wondering if can we come up with a term that, if conditions for change hypothetically presented themselves, most people can actually agree on?

Multimedia novel is no good. Accurate, but it doesn't roll off the tongue. And to me it sounds like the term of a foregone era where digital computerized media wasn't actually common.
Digital narrative: good luck selling that in 30 seconds.
Touch novel: I'm betting it would work, but I admit there are problems with it.

The best I have thus far is Digital Play. So for the sake of discussion, does it make sense? Does it have a ring to it?

[PyTom]

We might disagree, but there's no reason why we can't have a serious and interesting discussion. Let's keep things on topic, and try to get the most out of it. If you're not sure what you're posting contributes positively, why not wait until you have more to say?

[2dt]

We might disagree, but there's no reason why we can't have a serious and interesting discussion. Let's keep things on topic, and try to get the most out of it. If you're not sure what you're posting contributes positively, why not wait until you have more to say?

Wait was this directed at me? I thought we were doing pretty good.

[PyTom]

We might disagree, but there's no reason why we can't have a serious and interesting discussion. Let's keep things on topic, and try to get the most out of it. If you're not sure what you're posting contributes positively, why not wait until you have more to say?

Wait was this directed at me? I thought we were doing pretty good.

No, we cross-posted. It was a gentle warning aimed at the posts preceding yours.

The problem comes when I try to explain what a "visual novel" is. "Is that like a novel with pictures?" "Is that a graphic novel?"

"It's a text-based adventure game". "It's an interactive fiction." "It's a story game with visuals and sounds, where you might be able to make choices that might affect the outcome of the story." While those may or may not be accurate definitions, it's hard for anyone to get a acceptably accurate image of what it actually is just based on the description. Of course, that dynamic could be said about any unfamiliar idea or product. It's only natural. The only way that can truly come to understand it is to experience it.

Then the issue becomes, can I get them interested enough to try it? What makes this hard is the massive disconnect between what the words "visual novel" mean and what it actually is. So while describing, they can't get an accurate mental image of what it is, so I have to try and re-explain in different terms, and before you know it we both just sort of give up.

Or maybe I just suck at talking . Either way, I mention visual novel to anyone, they just sort aimlessly nod "Okay" "I see" "Wow that's so cool" until we change the topic.

So one day, in explaining that I'm writing a VN engine that can port visual novels to iOS, suddenly, it's "oh cool, is there an app I can download?" So I come up with the term "touch novel" and try mixing it into my conversations, and I can tangibly see the interest level rise.

I guess the question is - is there any reason to believe this is representative, and not experimental bias?

It seems that if you explained visual novels and "touch novels" in the same way, so that they were the same thing, you'd expect people to get them in the same way, and have roughly the same reaction to them. That you didn't makes me think that there might have been something else going on there - for example, you were more enthusiastic about the term you invented, and that carried over to your subjects.

It's also possible that they have some positive associating of "touch" with "modern", which is very likely to be a passing phase, as I mentioned above.

Perhaps there's some other reason, or maybe the effect is real. It's hard to tell.

Given how much time has already been invested in the tem "visual novel" , I think you'd need more convincing evidence to make the case then so far has been presented to make the case that a replacement term is worthwhile.

[2dt]

I guess the question is - is there any reason to believe this is representative, and not experimental bias?

It seems that if you explained visual novels and "touch novels" in the same way, so that they were the same thing, you'd expect people to get them in the same way, and have roughly the same reaction to them. That you didn't makes me think that there might have been something else going on there - for example, you were more enthusiastic about the term you invented, and that carried over to your subjects.

It's also possible that they have some positive associating of "touch" with "modern", which is very likely to be a passing phase, as I mentioned above.

Perhaps there's some other reason, or maybe the effect is real. It's hard to tell.

Given how much time has already been invested in the tem "visual novel" , I think you'd need more convincing evidence to make the case then so far has been presented to make the case that a replacement term is worthwhile.

That's a possibility. As I stated, I'm only sharing my observations, not that they are by any means incontrovertible. I do believe it has some merit though. I introduced this touch novel term both to people who had never heard of visual novel before, as well as people who had heard me explain visual novel to them before. Thing is, the increased interest level was visible both before and after I described what it was. Now granted, I only talk to so many people, so this sample size is like, uh, eight people. I guess what's convincing to me is that with visual novel, they didn't bother asking to see it. With touch novel, they all asked how to access it, including the people who heard me call the same product visual novel before. So maybe it's an accessibility thing? If it's seemingly easily within their reach, they'd be more inclined to try it? Perhaps touch novel just feels more personable? If I explain to average Joe that I'm writing espionage literature, he may think it's something far outside the scope of his interest. If I say spy novel, maybe he'd be more inclined to read it?

Thing is, within this thread alone, I'm clearly not the only person advocating a term change. Perhaps things would be clearer if the others had similar stories, assuming of course they're still following us.

[papillon]

Talking purely theoretically about terms:

Digital Play is something that makes more sense to the developer than the player, I think. It's relevant to a writer, especially a new VN writer, because it helps put you in the right frame of mind for writing something that should work easily as a VN: focus on characters, lots of dialog, limited sets. If you were a complete newbie looking for an existing work to adapt I suspect adapting a play's script would be easier than adapting most other forms of fiction.

But to a player, I think describing something as a digital play will set up the wrong expectations and lead to confusion. It's not the script that the audience is looking at, it's the stage and the actors. The limited sprites of almost all VNs (and the lack of voice acting of almost all EVNs) would be a big letdown. (And of course, some more experimental VNs are too far removed from plays for it to make sense at all. Digital/Analogue are not at all playlike!)

It's a term with enough relevance that if it had been the one chosen from the beginning instead of VN it would have worked fine, IMO. Many VNs aren't that novel-like either. But trying to insert it as a new term? No, I don't think it's actually any better at explaining.

[Tempus]

For this to become a productive discussion, i.e., one where suggestions and arguments can be said to be accepted or rejected, there needs to be some agreed upon criteria and a defined goal. A goal might be "decide a term for our medium", with "visual novel" being a default position. If the discussion is inconclusive, "visual novel" remains. If not the result could be anything from the simple observation that a good term has been found or perhaps something more.

As I mentioned, agreed upon criteria would be used to decide a term's applicability, or lack thereof. The criteria I've been using, which I made explicit in my initial post, are as follows:

1. Accuracy — Does this term actually describe what it represents?
2. Usefulness — Does this term aid in theoretical discussions? How so? Are there cases where it breaks down? How does it fit with existing categories?
3. Intuitiveness — Is the term clear to a layperson? Could they reasonably be expected to grasp what the term refers to?
4. Length — Is the term unnecessarily long?

I think it's important any criteria be somewhat concise, as well as at least partially prioritised. In this ordering, length is an important, but final consideration. Each criteria is considered in sequence with the term being discarded once it doesn't fulfil one. Accuracy was chosen first since I consider it the most important, though given the medium can only be accurately described so many ways it's likely to filter out a lot of noise too.

Adopting the view of someone else, my criticism of those criteria would be that they seem greatly stacked in my own suggestion's favour. I don't deny that, though I will say that I developed the criteria first, not the term. If the term fits them well it's because I've been thinking about this for the past couple of weeks, and testing ideas against my own criteria for as long. Starting with a definition, then choosing a term for it, rather than trying to assign a term to a vague concept. I was planning on presenting my suggestion after I'd more fully fleshed it out.

If I had more time I'd elaborate my post much further, but I like to spend a lot of time thinking about and writing (and re-writing) my posts so it'll have to wait until I'm less busy.

Multimedia novel is no good. Accurate, but it doesn't roll off the tongue. And to me it sounds like the term of a foregone era where digital computerized media wasn't actually common.

I don't think that sufficiently refutes the points I made back on the first page. The term "novel" pre-dates "multimedia" by at least a century in its common usage, so any age-based criticism which applies to "multimedia" applies doubly so to "novel." This leaves the criticism that it doesn't roll off the tongue, which is a concession I've already made and justified. That justification is what should be criticised. I'll quote myself below for convenience:

While ["multimedia novel" is] a little more verbose, people aren't going to be typing it longhand most of the time. It's the kind of thing you'd have in a site description, for example. In communities familiar with them it'll just be "MNs" and "branching MNs" or "BMNs", which is little different in length to what we currently use. The added benefit of the longhand is it's less opaque to newcomers, whether they be players or reporters, as well as more accurate.

In short, it'd be abbreviated upon repeated mentions just as "visual novel" (and really any other repeated term) would be. While I can certainly appreciate length being a concern in cases where the acronym itself is the length of one of its contained words, as is the case with "OELVN", that's not the case here. In fact, length isn't even the beginning of the problems with "OELVN" — "original" is literally meaningless, "English language" precludes the possibility of the medium containing other language releases (what's one released in French, an OFRVN?) and to cap it all "visual novel" is the very thing being disputed meaning the term, in the context of this discussion, begs the question.

[Greeny]

2dt is definitely right in advocating for change. There are still so many people who don't know what a VN is, and trying to explain it to them hits a number of roadblocks every damn time. The closeness to the far more widely known Graphic Novel (literally synonyms there!) is just needlessly confusing, and says nothing about the actual format, even misrepresenting it in a number of cases.

There's another reason for change, which I feel is a pretty good reason. Right now there's the idea that "visual novels are games", and I really don't like that. It brings with it a certain, unconscious maybe, a certain stigma on noninteractive visual novels. As though they're "lesser". This is plainly wrong, because some of the best western visual novels out there are noninteractive.

Multimedia Novel is definitely a step up from Visual Novel, awknoweldging both the audio element and the interactivity (vaguely), but I think the abbreviation doesn't really hold up. MN seems a bit... generic, confusing, uncertain. The reason "VN" works well to abbreviate Visual Novel is because of the stupid fact it rolls off the tongue. "Vee eN". Also "V" can't stand for as many things as "M", I think.

There's another problem with it, and that's that I feel that "novel" just doesn't accurately represent the kind of flow a VN story has. I think it's inherently a different kind of script than a novel, as papillon pointed out.

Digital Play is on the right track. "Digital" unconfusingly, irrefutably denotes everything about a VN correctly. It's unspecific, but for a term, you can say it and nobody will get a wrong idea somewhere. So that leaves the second part to more specifically indicate what it's all about. "Play", I agree might be a little misleading, depending on the view of the person hearing it. That's why I'm still going to insist on "Digital Narrative" (DN). I feel like this, while not extremely specific, describes everything that makes the medium what it is.

There seem to be two points against change:

1) It works for all of us.
While true, we are the Visual Novel community. Anything could work for us. We could call it a cucumber and, if we all agreed, it would work for us. The thing about Cucumber Novels is that, when spoken about to an outsider, it evokes a certain vegetable mental image that might deter them from interest, or might confuse them.

2) It would just add another name to the mix and sow more confusion.
I disagree with this. I'm not saying it would be easy, but right now we're in a state were all the major players in the western VN market, the big shots, the Fortune-50 of VNs, they're all networked, and reachable for discussion. If we get all the top names on board, everyone else will follow. The action might even bring in some new people, to see what all the fuss is about.

[Hazel-Bun]

I think one big thing people are forgetting is that we are not the only visual novel, whatever you may call it, community out there. Fuwanovel, for example, I highly highly doubt would ever switch to a new term. I have no input for a name change but, would just like to offer that just because something is unknown doesn't make it inherently wrong. Plus, to those who want to get away from the "stereotype" of VNs being anime/manga based, I think it's also just as valid to realize to many that is what VNs are and a name change won't change... well inherent biases and perception.

I have never and will never consider visual novels games. Some will never consider them novels with or without this allusive "interaction" term we like to throw around. If we can't even agree on what requirements make a VN a VN, I don't believe we'll ever come to a consesus on what to name this medium.

Go you're own path, just don't expect a whole community to follow suit just because the "big" dogs (might) do so. I do like some of the suggestions so far though!

Edit:

Oh, and to clear up my point a bit...

I think it is not the name "visual novel" which confuses people so much, rather that when trying to explain, no one has a clear answer. For example, using VN and the name I liked the best, digital play.

Developer: "Oh well I'm making a visual novel."

Person: "What's that?"

Developer: "Ahhh... Well, it's more like a digital play you see."

Person: "So like, Shakespeare but on a computer? Wait, why is some art more eastern or abstract or etc.? Why am I changing the play itself? Is it a musical, aw there's no voices in this! Woah, the message is... girls in bikinis?"

Developer: "*sweating bullets*"

Here is where it gets messy. Do you call it a game or a novel with sound, music, etc.? Do you say it has origins in Japan, or quote western/other nations examples? Do you define it by having choices or not? Is it story driven or all about the presentation (art and so on)?

Same with the other names. Digital play? Multimedia Novel (I like that on too)? But, again, we run into the same issue of not having a cohesive, widely accepted "standard" to which all visual novels fall into. Hence the confusion, I believe, when bringing the term to newcomers.


That and the fact that some markets will never be accepting to VNs because you have to read to much, etc., etc., you get the picture.

Hope that made a little more sense!

[Tempus]

It's a reasonable, but incorrect, conclusion to reach that "visual novel" refers to a novel with pictures or a graphic novel. Before explaining what a VN is to people, I ask them whether they know what it is. The reply is usually something like "a long picture book?" Not that I want or need to argue the point with anecdotes; it's a foreseeable mistake simply by looking at the information the term alone gives people.

Multimedia Novel is definitely a step up from Visual Novel, awknoweldging both the audio element and the interactivity (vaguely)

The interactivity, assuming that refers to the ability of the player to make choices, is not a core component of the medium, and you said as much earlier:

There's another reason for change, which I feel is a pretty good reason. Right now there's the idea that "visual novels are games", and I really don't like that. It brings with it a certain, unconscious maybe, a certain stigma on noninteractive visual novels. As though they're "lesser". This is plainly wrong, because some of the best western visual novels out there are noninteractive.

If the choices can be entirely absent while the work remains part of the same medium, why should choice be implied by the medium's name to begin with, rather than being noted where necessary? The media (i.e., the graphics, music, writing, etc.) in a visual novel cannot be entirely removed, unlike choice. This indicates something fundamental about visual novels: media is essential, choice is not.

but I think the abbreviation doesn't really hold up. MN seems a bit... generic, confusing, uncertain.

This isn't a coherent criticism. The only thing confusing and uncertain is the point being made here.

The reason "VN" works well to abbreviate Visual Novel is because of the stupid fact it rolls off the tongue. "Vee eN".

"VN" rolling off the tongue is stupid, but it's not a fact. I can't recall ever hearing someone speak the abbreviation "VN" aloud. Even if people exclusively pronounced it as an abbreviation, are you actually suggesting that "MN" would be so difficult to pronounce that the only reasonable course of action is rejecting it? Besides, there are already popular acronyms with those sounds in them which are pronounced solely in their acronym form without any difficulty, such as "M&Ms", pronounced "em en ems."

Also "V" can't stand for as many things as "M", I think.

Plenty of acronyms start with common letters such as "A" or "I" — it's yet to be demonstrated how this is even a problem. Besides, you seem to have totally forgotten that you're arguing for "digital narrative", not "visual novel." Even if this were a valid point, it'd undermine your own position since your suggestion begins with "D", not "V."

Digital Play is on the right track. "Digital" unconfusingly, irrefutably denotes everything about a VN correctly. It's unspecific, but for a term, you can say it and nobody will get a wrong idea somewhere.

Asserting something is irrefutable is not the same as demonstrating it. "Digital" refers to a method of representation, not to media such as graphics, music or video. A "digital _____", where the blank is anything you please, is a thing in a digital format — the "digital" part does not indicate that any media is involved. The way you're using "digital" is as though it's a synonym for "media", which it's not. If it were, that'd mean a term like "digital watch" is a watch that involves various media. It'd also make a term like "digital music" confusing. Not a single definition I found listed media as being an integral part of "digital":

• http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/digital
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/digital
• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/digital
• http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... sh/digital
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/digital

Digital, in its most common use, means represented by discrete values. In terms of computers, those discrete values are, ultimately, binary digits — 0's and 1's which have some hardware corollary.

So that leaves the second part to more specifically indicate what it's all about. "Play", I agree might be a little misleading, depending on the view of the person hearing it. That's why I'm still going to insist on "Digital Narrative" (DN). I feel like this, while not extremely specific, describes everything that makes the medium what it is.

As I said above, "digital" means represented by discrete values, such as being represented on a computer. This means that a "digital narrative" is a narrative stored on a device like a computer which uses discrete values to represent data. Narrative is not a medium, it's something conveyed by a medium. Comics, movies, novels, interactive fiction, and so on have narratives. By saying "digital narrative" it could refer to any of these mediums represented digitally. It's as vague as a wanted posted which says there's a "person" on the loose.

Compare the definitions of "digital" above to "multimedia":

• http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/multimedia
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multimedia
• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/multimedia
• http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... multimedia
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multimedia

This is no trivial difference. It isn't that "multimedia" is slightly better than "digital" — it actually is irrefutably better. It's a comparison of terms where one doesn't at even correlate with the thing it's intended to represent and the other where it exactly matches. The term "multimedia" contains its definition in its very word parts: "multi" = multiple, "media" = the plural of "medium" — multiple mediums. You could almost call the "multi" part pleonasm since "media" already indicates more than one. In that sense you could call it "media novel" which would be both shorter and just as accurate. The only reason I didn't present it as such is because "media" can also be used synonymously with "press", though within developer and fan communities this wouldn't be a problem. When talking to the press or outsiders, the longer "multimedia novel" could be used instead. The beauty is that the acronym remains constant with either usage.

There's another problem with it, and that's that I feel that "novel" just doesn't accurately represent the kind of flow a VN story has. I think it's inherently a different kind of script than a novel, as papillon pointed out.

The applicability of "novel" is something I'll cover later. Actually, what the hell, I'll just do it now.

The term "novel" refers to a piece of fictional prose of a given length. There is no guarantee that it'll be in a given form (such as a physical book or represented digitally) and there's no guarantee of structure. A dialogue heavy novel is still a novel, as one with minimal dialogue. Definitions I've found are consistent with this:

• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/novel
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/novel
• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/novel
• http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... lish/novel
• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421071/novel
• http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/novel

All these definitions consistently mention length, being fictional, being in prose, and dealing with human experience as important parts of what defines a novel. Not the presence, absence or degree of dialogue, nor the form of the story, i.e., whether it progresses linearly (e.g., whether it shows the end at the start etc.), or whether it branches or doesn't branch.

The term "novel" also allows us to borrow existing terms to create the following taxonomy:

Multimedia Fiction

• Multimedia Short Story
• Multimedia Novella
• Multimedia Novel
• Multimedia Verse / Poetry
• Multimedia Comic
• Multimedia Graphic Novel
• Games
• Film

More can be added, but I'm sure you can fill in the blanks. The terms are borrowed, therefore they don't require a great deal of explanation. And since they include flexible mediums such as the novel which can and has been written many different ways, it encompasses most existing visual novels. The listed items can be combined with each other to account for hybrids, such as those between multimedia novels and games.

[2dt]

Multimedia novel is no good. Accurate, but it doesn't roll off the tongue. And to me it sounds like the term of a foregone era where digital computerized media wasn't actually common.

I don't think that sufficiently refutes the points I made back on the first page. The term "novel" pre-dates "multimedia" by at least a century in its common usage, so any age-based criticism which applies to "multimedia" applies doubly so to "novel." This leaves the criticism that it doesn't roll off the tongue, which is a concession I've already made and justified. That justification is what should be criticised.

You misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't criticizing its age, I was criticizing how commonly the term is used. Novel is still used as part of everyday language. I can't remember the last time I or anyone I knew used "multimedia" in a sentence. It's not necessary to describe something as "multimedia" simply because in today's heavily computerized age, that a given digital product is comprised of different content forms is a given, unless it's specifically a singular medium: music, literature, etc...

Here's how I evaluate multimedia novel using your rubric:

1. Accuracy - It's very accurate, but almost to a fault, in that it's a pretty all-encompassing term.
2. Usefulness - The broadness of the term is actually a double-edged sword. It encompasses what we call a visual novel, but can also encompass things we wouldn't consider a visual novel. A book, with text shown on a computer screen, playing sound only and no visuals nor interaction would technically qualify as a multimedia novel. Hell a movie with subtitles could be considered a multimedia novel. So we would need to specify what kind of multimedia novel we're talking about. Join us for our inaugural interactive visual romance multimedia novel discussion.
3. Intuitiveness - On paper, this seems like it would work. Thing is, imagine saying this to one of your buddies. Do you think they would get anything meaningful out of it? It's more like, they wouldn't get the wrong image, like they probably would with visual novel.
4. Length - Poor, as I've said before. But this is pretty subjective.

Basically, it's too much of a lowest common denominator, to the point where it serves no real purpose. Multimedia game. Multimedia website. Multimedia user interface. Multimedia novel. Multimedia fiction. Multimedia story.

You make good points about the digital thing. I guess I'll scratch that off.

WHAT ABOUT: iNovel. Holy shit, as in like "interactive Novel"! Nothing screams hipster douchebag and cheap knockoff accessories more. "I'm reading my iNovel".

For touch novel, here's how I rank it:

1. Accuracy - Iffy. It captures the idea of interactive fiction quite neatly. Biggest problem with it is that it relies very heavily on what we currently associate with the word "touch".
2. Usefulness - Surprisingly enough, I actually think this could be quite useful academically. For something to be touch, it inherently has to be visual and interactive (not necessarily in the "choose your path kind of way, but in the sense that you'd have to manipulate as a piece of software). People will know it's software, and thus multimedia based. And due to the uniqueness of the term, I doubt anyone would mix it up with something else.
3. Intuitive - 50/50. Relies on current understanding of computer trends.
4. Length - Excellent. Touch novel. Simple. Unambiguous (once you actually know what it entails). Unique. Not likely to be forgotten.

This is really hard. But rewarding in it's own kind of way.

[Tempus]

I wasn't criticizing its age, I was criticizing how commonly the term is used. Novel is still used as part of everyday language. I can't remember the last time I or anyone I knew used "multimedia" in a sentence.

You haven't shown the logical connection between the unfitness of "multimedia" as a term and the commonality of it. Why would how common it is matter? Unless you're suggesting people wouldn't know what it means, which seems like a stretch since the default media player on Windows for 10+ years is called "Windows Media Player" (I'm pretty sure people can put "multi" and "media" together), it's been used in a news story written today, and is used on various university websites. I don't think the commonality of a term matters, but if it does, "multimedia" is clearly still in regular, prominent use.

It's not necessary to describe something as "multimedia" simply because in today's heavily computerized age, that a given digital product is comprised of different content forms is a given, unless it's specifically a singular medium: music, literature, etc...

This is contradictory: you assert that it's a given that something digital is comprised of different forms of media but then immediately concede that this is not true. Popular media such as literature, music, and art are regularly represented and consumed in isolation in digital form. (Deviant Art, imgur, iTunes, SoundCloud, BandCamp, short stories and novels in general.) Those examples are not edge cases and massively undermine the preceding assertion.

Also, there's been a subtle change in the thing being discussed here: a digital product is not necessarily an artistic medium. Digital products may be artistic media, but they might also be things like calenders, GPS', non-artistic data, and so on.

Here's how I evaluate multimedia novel using your rubric:

• Accuracy - It's very accurate, but almost to a fault, in that it's a pretty all-encompassing term.
• Usefulness - The broadness of the term is actually a double-edged sword. It encompasses what we call a visual novel, but can also encompass things we wouldn't consider a visual novel. A book, with text shown on a computer screen, playing sound only and no visuals nor interaction would technically qualify as a multimedia novel. Hell a movie with subtitles could be considered a multimedia novel. So we would need to specify what kind of multimedia novel we're talking about. Join us for our inaugural interactive visual romance multimedia novel discussion.

These points together say two different things: a.) the term is very accurate. b.) The term isn't accurate enough. Which is it? Also, back up these points. Why would a movie with subtitles be considered for a visual novel? This doesn't happen now, so why would changing the name cause this? I recognise you're saying a movie with subtitles could be considered a "multimedia novel", not a "visual novel", but those are, in the context of this discussion at least, different names for exactly the same thing. The thing we now call a "visual novel" doesn't change by giving it a more accurate name and there's currently no confusion between visual novels and movies with subtitles. The hidden assertion here is that the only difference between visual novels and movies is subtitles. Further, "multimedia" is not synonymous with "movie", a point demonstrated by the different media discussed and displayed on the sites I linked above as well as by the definitions I shared in my previous post.

A book, with text shown on a computer screen, playing sound only and no visuals nor interaction would technically qualify as a multimedia novel.

I don't know how a non-interactive book could reasonably exist, since progression through it is necessarily interactive either by turning pages or interfacing with a device. So in short you're suggesting a visual novel without visuals. Many interludes in VNs and demos are already like this. I don't see any reason to change the term "multimedia novel" / "media novel" if someone intentionally releases one without visuals. (A good example of where "visual novel" breaks down.) I've thought of this before and I don't see why it's a problem, and merely mentioning it doesn't make it one. Also, I'm not actually aware of a single full release of a VN without visuals.

• Intuitiveness - On paper, this seems like it would work. Thing is, imagine saying this to one of your buddies. Do you think they would get anything meaningful out of it? It's more like, they wouldn't get the wrong image, like they probably would with visual novel.
• Length - Poor, as I've said before. But this is pretty subjective.

The point about intuitiveness sounds like a criticism, but I don't see one. Is there a typo? Did you mean "would get the wrong image"? If that's the case, then yes, I do think the people I know would find "multimedia novel" more meaningful than "visual novel" or "touch novel", mostly because both those terms are misleading. Length, as I've also said in my previous post, can be mitigated with the interchangeable use of "media" with "multimedia" (as can be seen with "Windows Media Player") in development and fan communities, as well as the use of its acronym which is similarly short.

Basically, it's too much of a lowest common denominator, to the point where it serves no real purpose. Multimedia game. Multimedia website. Multimedia user interface. Multimedia novel. Multimedia fiction. Multimedia story.

It's true that, if misused, "multimedia _______" serves no real purpose. I can string together all sorts of nonsense by prefixing it with "multimedia", such as "multimedia fries", "multimedia aeroplane", "multimedia sleep" and so on, which aren't particularly useful for discussing our medium. That's a problem that exists on a term by term basis, and a criticism that applies to one pairing does not necessarily apply to all of them. Furthermore, one shouldn't be obligated to defend terms they've never suggested. "Multimedia novel" is still a sensible and coherent term, even if "multimedia fries" and "multimedia game" are not. The whole reason I didn't prefix "multimedia" to "game" and "film" in my post above is that I was aware of the redundancy and thus never proposed them. "Multimedia user interface", aside from being something I didn't advocate, isn't even a medium. These are mostly strawman positions. While two of the terms you mentioned I did suggest, merely repeating them doesn't constitute an argument against them.

(I hesitated with "multimedia graphic novel" and don't think it really fits in hindsight; "multimedia comic" fits better for graphic novels accompanied by audio and/or animation.)

For touch novel, here's how I rank it:

• Accuracy - Iffy. It captures the idea of interactive fiction quite neatly. Biggest problem with it is that it relies very heavily on what we currently associate with the word "touch".
• Usefulness - Surprisingly enough, I actually think this could be quite useful academically. For something to be touch, it inherently has to be visual and interactive (not necessarily in the "choose your path kind of way, but in the sense that you'd have to manipulate as a piece of software). People will know it's software, and thus multimedia based.

This depends on a series of tenuous, unsupported points. The first point being made here is that for something to be touch, a term which hasn't been defined, is inherently visual and interactive. This is true for a touch device that doesn't cater to blind people, but outside of that specific circumstance it isn't true.

The second point made is that people will know it's software and I actually agree with this since people are familiar with touch devices, though it's only logically connected to the previous point if you mean "touch" as in interfacing with touch devices. The third point is a totally disconnected assertion that anything that is software is based in multimedia. Software is not inherently multimedia, as it clearly demonstrated by numerous text-only applications. I've argued this point above regarding the term, "digital product" — "software" does not imply the presence of any artistic medium such as music, images, video, or literature. Besides, using "touch" because it connotes "software" and then using the connotation of software because it connotes "multimedia" represents an absurd level of indirection even if it were logically sound. The mention of "multimedia" here highlights how much more fitting it is to directly say "multimedia" rather than imply it through a disconnected chain of logic.

• Intuitive - 50/50. Relies on current understanding of computer trends.

While it's true it relies on awareness that touch devices exist, that's not the problem. The problem is that it relies on your personal definitions of what "touch" means, rather than the definitions already associated with it. Academics benefits from clarity and directness. As stated numerous times before, the device isn't what makes the medium. Jane Eyre is still a novel whether it's in the form of a paperback book or a PDF. Citizen Kane is still a film whether it's in the form of a reel of film or a MPEG file. A visual novel, by that or any other name, is still a visual novel whether it's interfaced with via a mouse and keyboard, a gamepad, a touch device, an intricate series of ropes and pulleys, or magic.

ETA: Touch is not the pinnacle of interface technology. On the horizon we can already see challenges to it in the future, such as thought interfacing, as is already possible with limb replacement patients. To be sceptical of such technology ever becoming widely used is to make the same mistake those who criticised touch devices did.

[ThisIsNoName]

I have to admit I've only been glossing over the thread, but I just wanted to point out that "multimedia _______" anything makes me immediately think of 50 year olds with PowerPoint and laser pointers.


Oh, and cheesy gifs.

[Greeny]

Let me just skydive back into this thread to state that I still really like the term "Digital Narrative", and I hold that as much as there are good reasons for no change, there are also good reasons for change (not the least of which being that a new thread about it pops up like every three months), however, I admit defeat, my arguments were pretty stupid, I came across as an idiot and I was probably a little too gung-ho about a term that took me literally ten seconds to come up with.

Well. That was embarrasing. Note to self: don't debate and drive. ...wait

ETA: Touch is not the pinnacle of interface technology. On the horizon we can already see challenges to it in the future, such as thought interfacing, as is already possible with limb replacement patients. To be sceptical of such technology ever becoming widely used is to make the same mistake those who criticised touch devices did.

Very true. There are prototypes for thought interface being tested as we speak. Probably. I did not actually call to check if they were on break or something.


I'm just gonna use another ten seconds and propose a new term: "Virtual Novel"
All we'd need to do is gather our red permanent markers and go over every 's'..