Game inclusion in the DB

Posted in

#151 by eolath
2016-02-11 at 19:56
Can't you be consistent? Clearly you were trying to argue against the removal of LLTQ, which is something I'd be entirely sympathic of, even though I never touched the game in my life.

Trying, that is, because you (practically) generalize the active userbase of an entire website simply because of a minor disagreement between a couple of users, and that judgement is apparently enough justification to act like an asshole.

Compare my first post in this thread with your own first post and tell me who is attempting to be reasonable here.
#152 by abyssaleros
2016-02-11 at 19:57
No panic Eolath, I am not a hardliner.
I just tend to see the term 'visual novel' as the problem as it is just an arbitrary construct based on sound novel which does not even come close to a good definition of what maybe allowed and what not.

If you would follow the hardline everything not just in NVL mode is therefore not qualified and needs to be deleted (<<sarcasm (but with a true sound)).

This hardline is foremost softened up by allowing ADV mode to be qualified.
If this would not be the case there would be just a few hundred or less entries within the database.

But now comes the hybridisation into the matter as the ADV mode allows more elements which have nothing in common with a novel at all.
So elements of gameplay enter the scenery and mess everything up.
How much gameplay is allowed and where is the line?
That is a matter for as I called it nazi-discussions. (<<sarcasm = because these end always in some form of elimination either of the entry or the credibility of the advocate).

The reality is that more and more japanese adventure (アドベンチャー) games (AVG or ADV) implemented gameplay elements over the cause of the recent history, and therefore not seldomly were coming close to being a JRPG or Beat-em Up.

By definition they are no visual novels but some of them have a good quantity of narration and tell a novel-like story for qualifying being a visual novel/game hybrid.
Most JRPG tell a story too, like Witcher III too, but they have no narration to speak off, just dialogues and here and there a narrative line, but they have no narration in the strict sense of the term.Last modified on 2016-02-11 at 20:50
#153 by palas
2016-02-11 at 20:00
Well, let me make a case for LLtQ then.

(1) LLtQ consistently uses narration to describe what is going on - in standalone scenes as well as a direct consequence of your decisions, especially in the map movement sections. It's also worth mentioning that besides the raising sim systems, LLtQ also features a traditional VN choice system that lets you shape the story according to your will, other forms of gameplay not being your only guide through it.

When it refers to Elodie, it uses second person narrative, but it spends quite some time describing feelings and actions that have nothing to do with her, still using novel narrative.

(2) The game is divided between taking classes, map movement and standalone scenes. Both the short (or sometimes not so short) scenes that occur after the map movement and the standalone scenes, making up far more than 50% of the game, use ADV style.

Examples below:

linkLast modified on 2016-02-11 at 20:03
#154 by abyssaleros
2016-02-11 at 20:01
AND EVERYONE WHO DELETES RANCE WILL GET MY ETERNAL WRATH!!!
(But it's true it is not even coming close of beeing a visual novel/game hybrid)
#155 by jazz957
2016-02-11 at 20:02
Rance would be pissed. And you don't want to piss him off. :P
#156 by megazerox
2016-02-11 at 20:08
Bunnyadvocate, you aren't being helpful. You aren't helping the case by lashing out like you are.

Thank you Palas, I was just about to do that. I did a screenshot Let's Play of Long Live the Queen on the Something Awful forum a while back, if that would help the mods decide whether or not it fits. Often, I replaced the ADV style with just the portraits to save room. Keep in mind, the later scenes tend to be longer than the earlier ones.Last modified on 2016-02-11 at 20:15
#157 by jazz957
2016-02-11 at 20:13
I think I read part of your LP.
#158 by megazerox
2016-02-11 at 20:17
Oh, I'm famous!

In all seriousness though, please, just everyone be civil.
#159 by bunnyadvocate
2016-02-11 at 20:18
I'm lashing out because nothing else gets through the thick skin of the mods here. I saw what happened when reasoning was attempted, gabezhul responded with a long list of incorrectly applied fallacies. Beliar has played a demo of LLtQ and deemed it ineligible, there doesn't seem any point in trying to argue him out of that, he's made up his mind. But just to add to those defending LLtQ, her's a segment of LLtQ (link) with narration and lengthy content.Last modified on 2016-02-11 at 20:19
#160 by eolath
2016-02-11 at 20:20
Tssk, leveraging this discussion into views for your Let's Play. Very astute business sense, here.
#161 by megazerox
2016-02-11 at 20:22
That isn't what I'm trying to do at all. I'll remove it if you want. It is archived, so I don't see views at this point anyways (unless you are referring only to Bunnyadvocate).Last modified on 2016-02-11 at 20:23
#162 by palas
2016-02-11 at 20:23
I'm sure that was just eolath being playful now.
#163 by eolath
2016-02-11 at 20:27
And lashing out will only end this argument sooner, because once we start going into the, uh, ad hominem territory (people seem to love pointing out logical fallacies here, so I thought I'd join in) civil discussion becomes nearly impossible. If you want people to agree with you, attacking them is the last thing you should do.

@Megazerox
I was commending you, not criticizing you. See
>Very astute business sense, here.
#164 by bunnyadvocate
2016-02-11 at 20:31
I don't actually expect people like gabezhul to agree with me though, he's spent too long here, he sees the database as his fiefdom now. It's only by dragging in the Rance fanboys (no offense) that enough noise might be made to make the mods realise they've made a terrible mistake.
#165 by PabloC
2016-02-11 at 20:40
Christ, no, I actually like VNs w/ SRPG elements and use VNDB to maintain and find them.
No worries. Actually, changes in the guideline I suggested were made precisely to allow such VN/game hybrids to be included here without multiplying the exceptions. Most of them never met the past criteria, namely the requirement for VN segments to be uninterrupted for a significant amount of time. Current criteria are less strict in that regard.
I don't need to defend LLtQ, I'm not saying we need to keep it. I'm just picking up this crusade where beliar left it. Now onto the Rance series, please justify the inclusion of Rance 1?
Does Rance - Hikari o Motomete - use narration consistently? Yup.
Does it use VN presentation? Yup.
Is it <50% gameplay? More or less. It's a short title, so events and H-scenes should make up about half of the playtime. How much time you spend on grinding and stuff will always vary form person to person, so it's a very general rule (but a necessary one, to avoid "X has 1% VN elements so it should be included!" argumentation).
So yeah, I don't see a huge problem with Rance. Like I said, the current guidelines are supposed to be more forgiving and allow MORE titles to be included. As long as they do include parts that are written like novels.

Well, let me make a case for LLtQ then.
Finally someone who makes sensible arguments. This, LP and video in #159 do feature some narration. I guess this title might start out as a pure raising sim, but get a bit more VN-like later on (I remember that it was clearly dominated by sim gameplay, but just like Beliar, I didn't finish the whole thing). I don't feel like replaying it though, so I won't comment on that any further.

Also, the last posts are a good example of a proper discussion about including/deleting titles. Is providing solid examples of narration and VN-like fragments really THAT hard? You can't expect mods to play every single questionable title from start to finish (especially a non-freeware one), so unless somebody provides actually valid arguments, stuff will get deleted.Last modified on 2016-02-11 at 20:42
#166 by bunnyadvocate
2016-02-11 at 20:57
>Does Rance - Hikari o Motomete - use narration consistently? Yup.
>Does it use VN presentation? Yup.
>Is it <50% gameplay? More or less.

The only way that's true is if you count "you were hit by the monster for 4 damage" as narration, but I'm the inclusive sort, if there are fans who err on the side of including it then I'm fine with that. I'm just annoyed the same courtesy hasn't been given to LLtQ.

>Also, the last posts are a good example of a proper discussion about including/deleting titles. Is providing solid examples of narration and VN-like fragments really THAT hard? You can't expect mods to play every single questionable title from start to finish (especially a non-freeware one), so unless somebody provides actually valid arguments, stuff will get deleted.

The problem was that there was no notice given on the LLtQ board that it was under consideration for deletion, which means that only those who prowl the other discussion channels here on vndb would even have been aware this was an issue. Hence this new hyper aggressive policy beliar is proposing will result in all those VNs that aren't super popular with the core commenter group here being removed, hence decimating certain subgenres of VN.
#167 by palas
2016-02-11 at 20:57
Also, the last posts are a good example of a proper discussion about including/deleting titles. Is providing solid examples of narration and VN-like fragments really THAT hard? You can't expect mods to play every single questionable title from start to finish (especially a non-freeware one), so unless somebody provides actually valid arguments, stuff will get deleted.

We both know the problem is bigger than this. I myself could call bullshit on everything I said, despite it being all true. For instance, I could argue that even though there is narration and it takes up a large portion of the game, it's mostly for flavour and is but a subordinate to the raising sim mechanics, these being what really delivers LLtQ's sense of progression. The text works in favour of the numbers and all systems are self-sustaining - you kinda don't need the text to know what's going on. The relevant information are the pop-ups that indicate whether you have enough of a certain stat or not. This may be what gives off the feeling that it's a text-heavy raising sim and just that.

But this messes up the "gameplay/story ratio" talk, because although it IS true much more than 50% of it is text displayed in ADV format, it's integrated to the gameplay. It's not like you can separate them - they work together at the end of the day. This might get even trickier in games like Digital, in which the interface is both part of the storytelling and the mechanics. Hence why although it's proper talk under the current guidelines, turns out, in the end, it's the guidelines that are really being questioned and, in my case and ultimately, the very approach towards visual novels being games, a medium or whatever else. And I don't think this will end so soon, because if this discussion showed one thing, it's that visual novels are a new thing, loosely defined and its boundaries depend on what you want them to be.
#168 by PabloC
2016-02-11 at 21:26
The only way that's true is if you count "you were hit by the monster for 4 damage" as narration
No, I count stuff that can be seen on 4th and 7th screenshot for example.
The problem was that there was no notice given on the LLtQ board that it was under consideration for deletion
It was brought up in t2108, and everyone did get a notification that it was deleted, so even people who don't frequent other discussions did notice the deletion. There's always room for a discussion, as long as you bring up actual arguments.

@Palas
You provided screenshots and those (along with the fragment in the video) are objective examples of narration used for telling the story. Somebody familiar with the game can argue with that and say that narration only really appears in the epilogues, and otherwise it just supplements sim gameplay or something, but that's the point of discussing stuff. Sensible arguments backed up by examples are always welcome.

And yeah, the criteria are far from flawless. But, that's all we have after years of suggesting that we should probably tweak the old ones, and moths of actually tweaking them when I finally posted my suggestions.Last modified on 2016-02-11 at 21:27
#169 by palas
2016-02-11 at 21:32
Well then, I hope we continue discussing healthily like this. For the time being I think I can say LLtQ fits the criteria.
#170 by dk382
2016-02-11 at 23:11
I don't actually expect people like gabezhul to agree with me though, he's spent too long here, he sees the database as his fiefdom now. It's only by dragging in the Rance fanboys (no offense) that enough noise might be made to make the mods realise they've made a terrible mistake.
The problem was that there was no notice given on the LLtQ board that it was under consideration for deletion, which means that only those who prowl the other discussion channels here on vndb would even have been aware this was an issue. Hence this new hyper aggressive policy beliar is proposing will result in all those VNs that aren't super popular with the core commenter group here being removed, hence decimating certain subgenres of VN.
Dude, you are WAY overthinking this and being alarmist as hell. We aren't autonomous machines who will follow some sort of shadowy directive, we are human beings making individual decisions based on the set of criteria. Regardless of whether LLTQ stays or goes, we are not going to decimate entire sub-genres of VNs. Either LLtQ will come back because it turns out it does meet the criteria, or LLtQ will stay gone because it actually doesn't, and this won't affect Rance or any other games at all.

Because in my mind, and presumably in Belier's mind, LLtQ is different from Rance and these other titles you're saying will be deleted. You're trying to build some sort of equivalency between them to support the argument that if LLtQ is deleted, Rance must be deleted, but I just don't see it, and I don't think I ever will. The slippery slope you're proposing simply doesn't exist, and your argument completely fails to convince me to take any action. Instead, we should be discussing LLtQ itself, whether according to its content, it should be permitted. Palas and Megazerox have brought up some valid arguments and we may need to re-evaluate the title if its second half contains a different balance of VN to gameplay than the first half. I'll give LLtQ a spin myself.Last modified on 2016-02-11 at 23:17
#171 by bunnyadvocate
2016-02-11 at 23:27
>I just don't see it, and I don't think I ever will. The slippery slope you're proposing simply doesn't exist, and your argument completely fails to convince me to take any action

Perhaps because as you admit, you haven't actually read LLtQ and so have no idea what you're talking about? LLtQ has considerately higher percentage of VN style content than the Rance series, so if beliar says LLtQ isn't a VN...
#172 by palas
2016-02-11 at 23:33
Perhaps because as you admit, you haven't actually read LLtQ and so have no idea what you're talking about? LLtQ has considerately higher percentage of VN style content than the Rance series, so if beliar says LLtQ isn't a VN...

Man, I know how it is and quite frankly I've got my share of free hostility from some people here before for thinking like you do. But just... drop it. For now, I mean. Decay DID say he'll give it a shot. It doesn't do any good to press the issue further - like he and pabloc said, they're human beings and can't possibly have played each of the 18000 visual novels on the database. It's also fine to have preferences and to see VNs in a particular way or another. Not even one thousand moderators would cover all the stuff there is here.

So, I mean, I think we're good for today. There's no need to keep being abrasive.Last modified on 2016-02-11 at 23:34
#173 by dk382
2016-02-11 at 23:42
I played a few hours of LLtQ before, actually. I kept getting assassinated and stopped. :p
#174 by bunnyadvocate
2016-02-11 at 23:59
>So, I mean, I think we're good for today. There's no need to keep being abrasive.

I started today planning to write a polite response having read through this thread last night, but then I saw how dismissively other comments had been dealt with. Unfortunately politeness doesn't overcome bureaucratic inertia.

>I played a few hours of LLtQ before, actually. I kept getting assassinated and stopped. :p

Yep, me too. It felt a little too random and it's such a hassle to replay and redo the training stuff so I wasn't really a fan of it overall.
#175 by eolath
2016-02-12 at 00:09
Eh, not in my experience. Persistent but polite is much more effective than persistent, aggressive and in this case even condescending.

Not surprising, but somewhat disappointing, that you choose to stand by your earlier comments.

Reply

You must be logged in to reply to this thread.