flowerthief wrote:I grade dating sims on the strength of their story or lack thereof. But I grade them on a lot of other things as well. I contend that there is no one thing that can make or break a game.
lemme stop you right there: the story in the given example ACTIVELY UNDERMINES THE ENTIRE EXPERIENCE, and when you have something like that, no amount of pretty graphics or good gameplay mechanics will save you in anything that would be called a romance game.
What I was pointing out is this double-standard you've imposed. People would like to have both good story and good gameplay as much as they can get. But is it fair to expect one medium to deliver on both of these, and the other to deliver only on one, especially given the natural conflict between narrative and interactivity? More of one tends to result in less of the other, you know.
I'd bring up the endless debate over whether or not visual novels are games, but that's counter-productive to both of our arguments at this point.
At the risk of becoming pedantic I had better explain what I mean by a natural conflict between narrative and interactivity.
If you've ever heard the terms Ludology and Narratology, or discussions which contrast the two approaches in game design theory, this is what I'm referring to. The Narratology approach assumes gameplay (or interactivity) to be subservient to narrative. The Ludology approach assumes narrative to be subservient to gameplay. The conflict exists because one puts the author in control of where the story goes while the other puts the player in control of where the story goes.
Good point, and I think I can extrapolate some more details from there:
Visual Novels generally place story first, gameplay second, so I'd figure most of them are probably best done under the Narratology approach.
with Dating sims, again, there's a need for story (due to a little thing that I'll be the first to mention called
immersion), but gameplay is a bit closer to the foreground. I wouldn't say a full Ludology approach is warranted since when you lose the linearity of a dating simulation, it stops BEING a dating simulation and just turns into a simulation game, but the same Narratology approach clearly doesn't work.
Which brings me back to the post that started this chain of conversation:
Of course you could say the reverse about VNs. "People take it as an excuse for having less well-thought out game mechanics and having flat gameplay. VN's should have the same standards for gameplay."
first off, pedantic note: Even if A implies B, B doesn't necessarily imply A. Just because the VN guys can call out the Dating Sim guys on lack of a story doesn't mean the Dating Sim guys can call out the VN guys on the lack of notable gameplay mechanics.
I'm gonna grab a different example to demonstrate, one that, despite no release in an English-speaking country, has managed to get an English translation. My example is Galaxy Angel - you know, the actual game that Broccoli released. It's mostly VN, part strategy game. The story is decidedly linear from chapter to chapter (all routes inside a chapter generally lead to the same result) until one very specific chapter in which the game forks off into 5 different routes. In the VN portion of it, your actions are pretty much limited to "respond X way to event" (none of which are random) and "go here", so it's not exactly what either of us would really call a dating sim. The strategy portion of the game pretty much entails you keeping an eye on the Angel-Tai and your ship making sure none of them get shot down, and don't even take up 10% of the overall time from start of story to finish (and all the missions are the same on all routes, just in case you were wondering). It's rather easy to get through most of them unless you've just been a prick to the Angel-Tai (in which case, sucks to be you)
anyways, back to previous post:
I think simulations and novels make for a good comparison because they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Simulations have you managing mundane details of a character(s)' daily life; interactivity is frequent or even constant. (In a game like The Sims those details can be as mundane as deciding when your character will use the bathroom) Visual novels have you reading large swabs of text with interactivity being very infrequent.
Not all simulation games are dating simulations. Actually, while I'm at it, Dwarf Fortress actually could be classified as a simulation game with remarkable detail, and your interactivity is actually quite limited in it (limited mostly to specifying where to dig, what to build where, and what to trade - absolutely 0 direct control over the dwarves themselves). There are actually other simulation games where you only get to do stuff at predetermined points and then you have to watch the results unfold.
Think of some of the best stories you have read in novels. Would the author have been able to tell that story effectively if the player had been allowed to interrupt at every turn? If the player could insist, "I don't want to say or do the things you're making these character(s) say or do. I want to decide for myself", would the story have been so interesting?
No, it wouldn't, and that's actually part of the challenge of making a good branching VN: finding the best spots for a decision to go into a different route. (reconciling these routes is also tricky at times)
Now think of some of the best simulations you've played, simulations that were rich in interactivity. Would they have been rich in interactivity if the author had been allowed to interrupt at every turn? "I'm not gonna let you make a decision, Mr. Player. I'm the one who decides what you'll do." What happens to the gameplay then?
...why do I think of the relationship between a Game Master and a group of players in a Tabletop RPG when I read this?
With narrative and interactivity, more of one generally results in less of the other. That's a dilemma game designers have been struggling with. It's an unfair caricature of that dilemma to assume they are simply making excuses for having concentrated in one area more than, and at the expense of, the other. (And I see the opposite complaints from the other camp. "This game sucks! All you do is read! All games need to have good gameplay" Their unfair standard is yours in reverse)
See above where I said I wasn't going to get into the "Are Visual Novels games?" debate.
It IS possible to do both story and gameplay well, but the scope of a project grows rather exponentially the more you try to deliver both. Some big-name Western RPGs are pretty much doing this, but the man hours that must be going into those projects has got to be crazy.
Some mainstream games make it work by sacrificing non-linearity. Uncharted, Final Fantasy, most modern shooters, etc. You get story and gameplay, but that story isn't gonna change much between replays.
Congratulations, you just related Visual Novels to First Person Shooters in a way that actually seems sane. That does give me an idea for something to do once I get the hang of ACS for ZDOOM, though...
However, sacrificing too much non-linearity/multi-linearity is not an option available to the simulation. It's the very hallmark of a simulation, I'd say. If a simulation becomes linear it stops being a simulation.
So Princess Maker isn't a simulation? I can show that it's decidedly linear in overall progression, it's not that difficult.
Dating simulations are in a particularly difficult position, because standards of story-telling have gone up in ren'ai games. Everyone wants more and better story (with good reason, because plot facilitates characterization, which facilitates ren'ai) but they're in a framework where it's hard to deliver that without losing some of the interactivity that traditionally makes them fun. And you see them get criticized for it from both sides when they try. The narrative-lovers find any story that they do have to be mundane. The game-lovers want less talk and more stat-building.
Ah, I believe we've found the main point of this discussion again. I'm pretty sure there is a trick to balancing the two, but I also firmly believe that if you're not playing a romance game for the story and if you're not playing it to study it's inner workings, you probably shouldn't be playing it.
It's fine to not like datesims for failing to deliver on story...
I don't NOT like dating simulations for failing to deliver on story, I dislike dating simulations that have "stories" that actively undermine the entire experience.
...but you have to concede that visual novels are only able to succeed so much better in that area because they've done away with most of the interactivity that datesims still have. Datesim story-telling can't possibly live up to that. If we can judge a datesim for its story we can certainly judge a VN for its gameplay.
again, A implying B does not mean B implies A. The degree to which a Visual Novel is judged, at least by me, on its story is much more than a dating simulation is.
and these posts are really getting long.