A Vitriol-fueled Dissection of why RPS Sucks. Kinda.

So, I just wrote this blog post over on my totally wicked cool videogame review blog that you should all check out and stuff: http://andyplaysgames.blogspot.com/2012/01/not-even-valid-excuse-is-valid-excuse.html



The gist of it is that Rock Paper Shotgun sucks. Okay that's a lie. The gist of it is that standards have gotten so low that VNs are apparently okay to be reviewed as "videogames". I owe this to Rock Paper Shotgun though.

It's basically a little chat that skirts somewhat perilously between appraising everyone's favourite new buzz-manga-anime-novel-thing, and how its popularity with mainstream gaming press is bad news on account of it, you know... being a visual novel, and not a video game. Worth a read, I guess. And a good way to get a little discussion brewing.

So, you know, absorb all that text I linked you to and come back with opinions and counter-opinions and all that; so we can all discuss how completely right I am. ^_^'

Silly ignorant "video game people" starting to generalize everything into one thing.
They need to study about genres...

Not all VNs can be called a "video game", only specific ones that has included gameplay elements into it's VN. Like Strategy, Action, or even the simple "dating simulation".


All of those who judge this as a "video game" is a retard.

So, I read the original RPS article on this. I haven't played the game myself yet.

I can conclude only one thing - VNs are just not the author's "thing". In fact, it seems he suffers some sort of aversion to the storytelling style of Japanese products otaku industry (dunno how to name it properly :D) in general (as far as my own experience goes anyway).

@Kaimax - I understand where you're coming from with that. But I disagree that it's silly to classify VNs as video games. I mean, you can alternatively call them eroge, literally erotic game.

I've always considered VNs to be games, in a similar fashion as one would think of books and comic books. More emphasis on the visuals and all that (plus iirc there used to be, at least in my country, some books where you were able to make choices like in a VN. Never got too popular though.)

Besides, considering how on-rails most "real games" are these days, I don't think the difference is as profound as some would claim.

What I'm getting at is that they ARE video games, just a different breed, with relatively less interaction in terms of actual game-play, but more interaction in terms of actual storyline direction (varies from game to game, of course).


PS.
I laughed hard at the picture. See ya' in hell.

I have to agree with Kaimax on this. I consider VNs as, what their name implies, a novel. I like to think of them as an electronic version of a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book. Some slight exceptions go to VNs that have gameplay beyond simply clicking on choices that'll effect the outcome of the story.

The thing that I can see separating shit like an on-rails shooter from a typical click-to-read VN is that the former demands that the player engages in an interactive activity: aim there, shoot that, toohardusenukecheatlol, etc. I've "played" a few VNs and the whole clicking to progress the plot thing seem like the digital equivalent of turning a page. It's also possible to lose in a game through shitty interaction with said activity (i.e., dying because of a noob mistake like shooting air instead of ripping new assholes). People don't "lose" in VNs, they just reach undesirable endings.

Edit:

Coincidentally, my kindle requires me to press one button to progress through the reading material.

My understanding is that VNs are a storytelling medium, while games are (well... SHOULD be) a gameplay-rooted medium. Obviously games can and have been used to great affect to tell a story, but it's within a set of tangible, understandable gameplay mechanics. There are some people who equate "videogames" to "interactive" and leave it at that, but even the simplest of point and click games have a set of systems running underneath. VNs? The interaction is, indeed, turning virtual pages. That's all it ever has to do.

Obviously the VN format COULD be used to create an RPG of sorts, and I've seen it done with... varying degrees of success. In this case, I'd say it's up to the creators to class it as a "novel" or "game," and take their word for it. If they call it a game and you play it and it's more of a novel? You can justifiably call 'em a failure for that.

Here's the clincher though: in the comments for the RPS article, the original author posted that "Katawa Shoujo could be a masterpiece [of a videogame] with a little more editing".

That... I... what... you... ehrufgh FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

I love Katawa Shoujo.
Also never saw VNs the same as "video games"

It's like a typical Venn diagram of two circles partially overlapping each other. Some VNs CAN be called games, as they have a lot of interactive elements to them. Cases in point: Phoenix Wright, 999, Sengoku Rance, Utawarerumono, Brave Soul, and so on. However, not all VNs should be classified as video games, like Katawa Shoujo, Saya no Uta, and other somewhat linear and typical VNs. They really do mean it when they call them visual NOVELS. They're more akin to a book than a game, like Rbz said.

Granted, that shouldn't demean their general excellence, but classifying and thus rating them as a "video game" is stupid.

A lot of VN's can be considered games especially ones with non-linear plots. I mean is a choose your own adventure type not a game?

I doubt Video games and Visual Novels are the same thing. So no, Visual novels are not video games.

You need more knowledge regarding what you write about.

Well, if everyone was intelligent and paid attention to things we wouldn't actually need to play semantics like this. But since there are idiots in this world, it becomes necessary to make distinctions so that their ill-formed opinions don't infect other people.

To whom are you referring to? Cos this is exactly the point of my entire article. :3