Posted in

#2951 by rampaa
2022-09-01 at 16:08
< report >
Having the trait on characters that only appear in all-ages visual novels makes it so you have a big SHOW SEXUAL CONTENT button up top
This can be fixed by not putting Engages in (Sexual) > Not Sexually Involved under Engages in (Sexual). It's like putting No Sexual Content under Sexual Content anyway. It feels wrong and makes searching harder.

only to see that someone went out of their way to tag a single person with Not Sexually Involved for absolutely no reason
It wasn't for "absolutely no reason". The said character was marked with Engages in (Sexual) > Sexual Sadism at that time and marking her with Engages in (Sexual) > Not Sexually Involved made it perfectly clear that she was not sexually involved. Oh, and don't worry, I made sure to mark other characters with Engages in (Sexual) > Not Sexually Involved as well.

This makes so if someone was looking for an all-age novel for their kids they'll certainly be intimidated
That's a good thing. A VN being "all-ages" or its characters lacking any "sexual" traits don't really mean that it's a VN that should be read by your kid. You should be "intimidated" and shouldn't let your kid read a VN just by looking at the character traits.

And on the other side of the spectrum if someone's looking for sexual content they'll always see that "show sexual content" tab even when there is none.
And how is this different for other characters marked with Engages in (Sexual) > Not Sexually Involved?

We should definitely be allowed to use Engages in (Sexual) > Not Sexually Involved for characters of "all-ages" VNs because:

1) Its child trait is used (and should be allowed to used) for such characters: Houjou Satoko
2) Using it allows us to clarify a character is not sexually involved: Tokisaki Kurumi is marked with Engages in (Sexual) > Sexual Sadism but she's not sexually involved. Marking the character with Engages in (Sexual) > Not Sexually Involved makes it less confusing. Saiko is marked with Engages in (Sexual) > Off Screen Sex and marking her with Engages in (Sexual) > Not Sexually Involved makes it less confusing and so on.
3) It's already being used that way: link

I'd like a mass tagging or de-tagging based on the outcome of the decision
This was proposed before but I think Yorhel was worrying it would bloat the edit history too much (t15139.34)

(Also @Yorhel, are the scripts mentioned in t15139.34 still in effect? I see that it has been almost a year since u1 tagged any VNs.)Last modified on 2022-09-01 at 16:34
#2952 by mebiuss
2022-09-03 at 05:09
< report >Why are you ignoring the elephant in the room? If the visual novel is already tagged with "no sexual content" it makes no sense that all the characters should be tagged with "not sexually involved".
That's like if someone had a tv show about interviewing blonde people and the first question they asked every time was "are you blonde?"

That's a good thing. A VN being "all-ages" or its characters lacking any "sexual" traits don't really mean that it's a VN that should be read by your kid. You should be "intimidated" and shouldn't let your kid read a VN just by looking at the character traits.
Do you even hear yourself? It's called All-ages for a reason, yes it is safe for a parent to let their kid play it, given they're old enough. And this is a database so of course these parents are going to look here first to apraise the concent before letting their kid play.
if you go out of your way to stamp a SHOW SEXUAL CONTENT up there, of course it will scare away and misinform these people. And this is exactly what a database should actively avoid doing.
If we want more people to play visual novels we should make an environment more welcoming for them.

I say we vote again on the "all-ages characters receiving the 'not sexually involved' tag" issue.Last modified on 2022-09-03 at 05:10
#2953 by SomeDude
2022-09-03 at 08:07
< report >I think if a game has both 18+ and all-ages versions, and some of the characters listed only appear in the all-ages version, then they should be tagged Not Sexually Involved. This helps people who are browsing the 18+ version to see at a glance which characters are sexually involved and which aren't.

For VNs that only have all-ages versions, though, it's kinda a given that most of them wouldn't have any sexual tags to speak of.
#2954 by rampaa
2022-09-03 at 09:52
< report >
Why are you ignoring the elephant in the room?
Maybe if you actually tried to answer the points I've made instead of brushing them off while accusing me of ignoring the obvious this would be a more fruitful discussion but oh well.

It's called All-ages for a reason, yes it is safe for a parent to let their kid play it
Just no. More than not, releases are marked as all-ages on VNDB not because they are actually appropriate for your kids to play, but because they are missing explicit sexual content. Kazura Uta has gore yet its releases are marked as "all-ages". Angel Beats! -1st beat-'s releases are marked as all-ages despite it having apparently Text-only Sexual Content and so on. And this is pretty much par for the course with VNDB. So anyone who truly gives a damn about their kids should not trust VNDB's age rating field.

I say we vote again on the "all-ages characters receiving the 'not sexually involved' tag" issue.
I'd like a mod to weigh in.
#2955 by Ileca
2022-09-03 at 12:53
< report >Even if every game was properly rated, would you give your kids Club Suicide?
Anyway, even if "Not Sexually Involved" is under "Engages in (Sexual)", it is not a sexual tag, meaning that it doesn't trigger your "Show sexual traits".
Example: link.
Recent change? I see nothing in the history.
I agree it could be put below "Engages in".
However, subtag Engages in (Sexual) > Naked (Not Sexually Involved) is marked as sexual.

Also you are mixing up traits and tags. If I search for a sexable character, it's easier to have such a trait than to have to use that trait AND filter out VN with No Sexual Content.
If a parent search a VN for their kids, they won't search by characters...
#2956 by mebiuss
2022-09-04 at 07:37
< report >
yes it is safe for a parent to let their kid play it, given they're old enough

these parents are going to look here first to appraise the content before letting their kid play

It's like you only read what furthers your argument.
You know what, I drop my case, it's clear people here care more about winning a stupid argument with strangers online than solving anything.Last modified on 2022-09-10 at 00:29
#2957 by xierin000
2022-09-05 at 02:14
< report >I'm with not tagging characters with the Not Sexually Involved trait. When I see that trait I get the impression that sexual content exists, regardless of whether the characters were involved or not, and regardless of whether the vn itself was all-ages. I think it should stay within games with sexual content to mark, you know, characters not sexually involved.
#2958 by catboy
2022-09-05 at 04:24
< report >I'd honestly agree. I think the "Not Sexually Involved" trait should apply to, say, side characters of games with adult content or even main characters who just.. don't get involved in it at all. It's unnecessary to tag it in games that are already 100% SFW, right?Last modified on 2022-09-05 at 04:24
#2959 by gvbn
2022-09-05 at 17:24
< report >The whole Not Sexually Involved trait should be removed. Using a trait to show that there are no traits makes no sense. Also searching for "NOT Engages in (Sexual)" leaves them out.
#2960 by Draconyan
2022-09-05 at 17:41
< report >Even if there's no sexual traits, it still makes me wonder whether there really is no sex involving that character, or if the entry is just incomplete. I'm guessing this is the main reason behind the existence of the trait.

It's not that big of a hurdle, but like #2955 said if the trait wasn't applied to characters only appearing in all-ages VNs, I'd have to filter them out every time when searching for characters.
#2961 by SomeDude
2022-09-15 at 02:37
< report >I think the Mayadere trait is under-used because the description is misleading. I was always of the impression that a Mayadere is someone who starts off as a villain, or at least an antagonist, but eventually falls in love with the hero and becomes a good guy.

The description of this trait doesn't cover the "-dere" aspect of a Mayadere, and most of the mayaderes I've seen in anime are no longer "dangerous and unpredictable" once they fall in love with the hero and go into -dere mode. For example, I always figured Yami (Golden Darkness) from To-love-ru was a Mayadere, because once she went -dere mode, while she would continue to say things like "I'm going to kill you," it was clear she didn't mean them and was one of the good guys from then onward.

Would it be better to reword this trait's description in a way that more accurately depicts the "dere" rather than just the "maya?"Last modified on 2022-09-15 at 06:36
#2962 by mebiuss
2022-09-15 at 12:14
< report >It's understandable that Mayadere is underused as it's not really a thing in Japan. You'll only find it being used by western users and always in the context of explaining it because nobody knows what that is.

I suspect mayadere is one of those things born during the early days of the internet, where communication between Japanese and western users was very limited, and misinformation and misunderstandings like that were common place.Last modified on 2022-09-15 at 12:14
#2963 by SomeDude
2022-09-15 at 21:36
< report >Really? That's pretty interesting. Is there a proper, more commonly used term for the villain who falls in love with the hero and joins his side? Because it does happen quite frequently in anime, RPGs, and fantasy/action based VNs.Last modified on 2022-09-15 at 21:44
#2964 by mebiuss
2022-09-15 at 22:08
< report >The villain falling in love with the hero is not that common of a trope so we don't have a word for that. For instance in the case of Golden Darkness, like you mentioned, we say she started as a kuudere but then evolved to a tsundere.

That beind said, a villain becoming an ally is like Japanese bread and butter,
we call it 光堕ち (hikariochi). It's the opposite of 闇堕ち (yamiochi), which is also a pretty common trope.

Now that I think about it, why is it that we don't have those here in the database?Last modified on 2022-09-15 at 22:09
#2965 by Ezezin
2022-09-15 at 22:20
< report >Maybe you are looking for any combination of Treason, Redemption, Betrayal, Girlfriend, Antagonist or Villain.

Tropes aren't good material for traits, as they tend to be more broad and less specific in their application and definitions, among other problems (e.g. Engages in > Turning to the Light Side).Last modified on 2022-09-15 at 22:23
#2966 by mebiuss
2022-09-15 at 22:26
< report >Really? I don't see a problem in "Engages in > Turning to the Light Side". Why was it deleted?
#2967 by SomeDude
2022-09-19 at 08:59
< report >I think there should be a tag for "sex involving futanaris," as well as sexual content traits for "engages in > futanari sex" (for the futanari doing the penetration) and "subject of > futanari sex" (for the character getting penetrated by said futanari).

As it can be difficult for people to agree on whether a futanari is male, female, both, or neither... so I think simply having specific futanari sexual traits is better. Many people (myself included) are particularly turned off by futanari sex, while others enjoy it... without a tag to specify, however, it can be difficult to avoid them until it's too late, and they can instantly ruin a VN for some people when there's no such warning tag.

I view traits and tags as both things to search for, and things to watch out for. And futanari sex is definitely one of those things... some people look for it, while others avoid it. I recently dropped a VN because these tags don't exist... had they existed, I never would have bought the game to begin with. And for me at least, the main purpose of VNDB's tags and traits is to help me decide which VNs are worth buying and playing.Last modified on 2022-09-19 at 09:33
#2968 by Draconyan
2022-09-19 at 11:00
< report >There's no specific trait, but if a VN contains a character with the Body > Futanari or Body > Dickgirl traits, then it's likely it contains scenes involving that futanari.

There's already tags about it: Futanari on Male, Male on Futanari, Futanari on Female, Futanari on Futanari. As for the particular example you're upset about, they were set as minor spoilers, so I suggest you add them from your profile to the tags you always want to see.
#2969 by SomeDude
2022-09-19 at 11:47
< report >Ah, somehow I missed that tag...

But I still think it should be a trait (this is a thread for trait discussions, after all). Specifically, the engages in (sexual) > futanari on (female, etc.) traits would be a good idea, in my opinion.

It didn't help in this case that the involved character was lacking the body > futanari trait (though penis growth trait was spoilered, added that to my always visible list when I noticed it, though unfortunately too late in this case)Last modified on 2022-09-19 at 11:48
#2970 by Draconyan
2022-09-19 at 12:15
< report >Someone suggested a trait, but it was denied: Engages in (Sexual) > Sex with Futa.
#2971 by SomeDude
2022-09-19 at 12:26
< report >Ah, I see... to me it looks like it's a problem with how the trait is worded.

The reason for the denial reads as follows: Yeah, no. The traits' function is to describe the acts the character performs, but the traits are not interested in who the acts are performed with. This is the purview of the tags that apply to the VN itself.

So by this logic, "Engages in (sexual) > Futanari sex" would be a trait describing an act that the futa character performs and therefore better worded than the trait that got denied. It fits the requirements of an "engages in (sexual)" trait when worded like this.

"Subject of (sexual) > futanari sex" would be applied to the character being penetrated by said futa. It fits the necessary requirements of a "subject of (sexual)" trait when worded like this.

But there's no trait that would specifically be applied to a man who penetrates the futa, by this logic. Unless a trait is written to describe a specific sexual position involving futanari characters. Which might not be a bad idea, but I'm nowhere near creative enough to come up with such a position on my own. I suppose "futanari tribadism" could be a sexual position in this particular case.Last modified on 2022-09-19 at 12:35
#2972 by SomeDude
2022-09-23 at 00:38
< report >On a different note, I noticed that Brocon and Siscon are traits, but the lolicon trait was deleted.

The deletion message says that it might be a useful trait, the description is just worded badly. So how can we reword this trait so that it had the proper meaning?

I'm thinking of paraphrasing Brocon to apply instead to loli characters, IE: "This character is a lolicon- a person who is passionate about females with youthful, childlike appearances which may not reflect their actual ages. Can serve both as a comedic factor and/or romantic."

It also needs to have its parent trait switched to "Personality" rather than "Pervert."Last modified on 2022-09-23 at 01:28
#2973 by Ninius
2022-09-24 at 01:48
< report >There's a bit to be corrected about Role > Head of Household. The link goes nowhere useful, there's a typo (indivduals), and maybe should have the alias "Family Head" or "Head of Family".
#2974 by mebiuss
2022-09-24 at 03:57
< report >#2972 The problem with that new description is that lolicon does in fact refer to the attraction to young girls (specifically those younger than 15), and despite popular misconception, a character attracted to a 2000 yr old vampire is not in fact a lolicon.

Judging by the message he left behind, it's pretty clear the person who deleted the trait is a lolicon himself and he just didn't like being equated to a pedophile. This has nothing to do with the validity of the trait itself and it's an obvious personal reason.

I think perhaps a less intrusive version of what was already there can make both parties happy. How about "This character is attracted to young girls before the age of puberty" then explaining the origin of the word (from the Vladimir Nabokov novel)?
#2975 by SomeDude
2022-09-24 at 04:06
< report >#2974 Ehhhh whenever a 2000 year old vampire with a childish body has sex in a VN, the VN is most certainly tagged with "straight lolicon." So for the purposes of how this site votes on its tagging, a "loli" is not necessarily a prepubescent.

Heck, even the Straight lolicon tag has a misleading definition. It specifically says "In Japan, lolicon describes an attraction to underage girls (whether prepubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent)."

However, the vast majority of all heroines in H-games are underage, post-pubescent teens with large breasts. No one would call them "loli" under this definition, either. Sure the disclaimer on some of them may say "all characters are over 18" but everyone knows that a first-year high school student in Japan is actually 15-16.Last modified on 2022-09-24 at 04:09