I am not familiar with this company but it is nice to see a new genre take hold here on GOG. Going to try a few of these.

why are you asking me about VN's? all I pointed out was what Higuragi was. But if you must know a Visual Novel is. It is a a kin to a choose your own adventure book where you are given a story where you make choices at set parts in the narrative. They have a heavy emphesis on story and little actual game play or actual puzzle solving(though Analouge a hate story does present you with a minor puzzle or two if I recall) as it's just static images and text with the occasional branching path in the story, though Visual Novels did spin off from Japanese style of Adventure games which were a bit like the old Macventure games here in the states like Univited, Shadowgate and Deja Vu where you were presented with a still screen and a series of commands you clicked to interact with the game as I said VN's are more like choose your own adventure books while a adventure game is more focused on solving puzzles to progress, though there are exceptions like post Walking Dead Telltale games.

This is my first post in literally years, but at the risk of being a prude, given there is no age gate, some of those screenshots are pretty inappropriate. GOG could at least remove some of the more risque and objectifying ones (I'm thinking of Sunrider Academy here) and put some warnings on the game pages as to which ones are 18+ (with or without patching).

It's not my kind of genre, but if they're going to be on the site, customers should at least be informed as to what they are buying.

And don't forget

While I never played Higurashi, if it's like the Anime that was based on it. It's pretty messed up though the actual "anwser" to what was going on was a bit of a let down. It's a bit confusing at first as in one chapter X happens and then in the next chapter Y happens all on the same day with the same charecters until you get to the "anwsers" arc. The whole thing is two halves of the story When they Cry which is the questions arc which is four episodes and When they cry solutions which is the anwser arc which is four.

The anwsers arc basically try to give the anwsers to the first three stories, with the third one finally giving the big reveal about something and the final one wraps the whole story up by putting the pieces together, sheds light on the bigger overall mystery of what had actually happened which is hinted at during the earlier question chapters here and there with the clues that occasionally may show up during intermissions, but there are a few useless ones that they throw at you.

Right now there's only chapters 1-5 so you only get the three question arcs and one anwser one till the chapter 6 and 7 are done.

do you not think you can objectify (or degrade) someone without simplification (or even by addition), and that you can simplify something without objectifying (or degrading)?

I'm so glad to see GOG reverse their previous position on visual novels. I hope there are many more visual novels to come, particularly the narrative-focused ones.

Whot talked about morals? Maybe that is where you wanted to go and make your speech.

In your other post you managed to squeeze two fallacies in two sentences.

1. An ad hominem.
2. A presumption of the consequence.

Now you try your hand again at tautology and presumption of the consequence. A human prop is a prop? Seriously? Since when? Even a figurant appears distinctly as a person instead of an object. Regarding a person as an object is what is called objectification.

Not that this is difficult to understand. Complexity and rights go inextricably linked to humanity. Any attempt of what you disingenously call "simplification" is dehumanization.

You asked what is wrong with it, and you were kindly given an explanation for free (that you never thanked for, but never mind...). To sum it up: objectification dehumanizes and impoverishes the one that objectifies, while it also disrespects and misrepresents the person whose human qualities are denied.

What with fictional characters? The disrespect aspect apparently disappears. Apparently, but let us suppose for a moment that it really disappeared. What are we left with? With an impoverishment for the one doing it.

But who talked about morals? You did. It is clear that was the whole point for you. So your question about something so self-evident as what is wrong with objectification appears as disingenuous. You might as well ask what is wrong with junk TV :-P

Well even without patching there is not a single one that is 18+, you could argue for Higurashi but that would be because of the violence and not because of any lewd content, a bra doesn't make a picture 18+ not even in Australia as far as I know.

Man, I asked you because you seemed knowledgeable about visual novels. Enough at least to know if a certain title qualifies as one or not. I am really curious about how a game comes to be called a VN or not. Call it love for this hobby of us that is playing PC games.

Thanks for the explanation. It seems that the main traits are the use of static images and text with sparse branching. Plus, maybe, manga-like characters and possibly some manga tropes and conventions (like the suspension of disbelief for a harem situation, as in the Sunrider series, to give an example).

But many games that are not called VN bear those aspects, so there is another factor that you mentioned: The lack of significant gameplay (mechanics) accompanying the static images and text (often with the manga style and conventions, as mentioned above).

Thence the quintessential VN is not a proper adventure (few puzzles), nor even a choose-your-own-adventure (few branches, or even none), nor a strategy or action game. Although they might include some of all of these elements.

It seems that it would be a matter of degrees. Sunrider is a (good) strategy game with a strong component of VN then, and it works since the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. As it has been said in this thread, the VN part (despite it being silly enough in portions, and maybe not holding on its own) improves the inmersion for the player. Think Traffic Department 2192, for a rather obscure old shareware example: despite its flaws, somehow it worked (although this is not a fair comparison since the strategy part of Sunrider is good enough on its own), or the even more obscure free game Diver Down. They simply work.

However, none of the above titles, nor Final Fantasy and the likes (with JRPG tropes), were called VNs. Even The Silver Case is considered more of an adventure. So I guess that when a game with significant gameplay besides the VN is considered as one it might be because of commercial reasons. But just guessing here!


BTW, for those who like JRPGs, DIver Down is very worth checking. TD2192 is an action game.

Katawa Shoujo is pretty good, free too.

I'm really shocked to see the sunrider games here. I have all three on Steam already but I bought the ones that aren't free here and picked up the free one again because I hope that swiftly buying games I'm pleasantly surprised to see GOG get will encourage more such surprises in the future.

First of all, you can't objectify a fictional character, because a fictional character is ALWAYS a means toward an end - be it telling a story, arousing erotic feelings or disgust or anything else. A fictional character is created by the artist to serve a purpose. And they have no life of their own, no dreams and worries and aspirations and no, no dignity other than that which the recipient creates in their mind.

And if we talk about real people, this happens all the time. The employee is just "a human resource" (at least in large companies), a soldier is "the smallest unit" or a "wet target". For the bus driver I'm just a passenger. For the cashier in the supermarket in just another customer - and the other way around - for me she is just another cashier.

We are constantly reducing people to their (current) functions and thus "objectify" them. It's a necessity for us to simplify the world around us to be able to process it. Sometimes less objectification would certainly be good - the world would certainly be more peaceful and fair if we saw each other more as people than "human resources", enemies, "walking wallets"... you name it. The communist idea is basically founded on that premise - but it's an unrealistic idea.
Still we have the choice and responsibility how to deal with the fact that we all constantly reduce other people to their immediate function or role. We can treat them with politeness and respect or like automatons or moving obstacles. See also "Golden Rule".

Now this simplification and in the end objectification is something that happens on mutual grounds between people and it's no binary thing either. It happens in varying degrees and those degrees are ruled by the situation and "appropriateness" - social convention. The reason for that is that we want to be anonymous objects for other people in certain situations and keep our individuality to ourselves.

Some examples:
In the village where I live, at least in my neighbourhood it is expected to greet people on the street - and each and every one. If you don't do that, you will seem cold and distanced and unfriendly. On the other hand - do that in a big city and you will be seen as crazy, even creepy. In the village people let more "person" shine though while in the city people want to be seen as "moving objects" by other passers by.
Another example would be employer/employee relationship. In some companies the employee is "the thing that does the work" and the employer "the thing that gives the money". Both reduce themselves and each other to their respective roles. That may not be very cozy, but it works. In other workplaces the company is "one big family" where boss and colleagues actually take part in each others lives. This works too. Some people prefer the first way, some the second, and many something in between. The problem starts when people don't fit their role. Like when a "distanced" boss suddenly cares about the well-being of my family, or if an employees moves from a more cozy place to a colder company and tries to start making friends there - leading to uneasy feelings of encroaching with their colleagues.
So some people want to be seen as "I'm your tool, pay me and let's be done with it" while others don't want that - and the other way around some people just want "tools that work" human or not, while others prefer a more personal approach.

So we ourselves create "objects of us" - dissociations of ourselves for different purposes and often for "use by other people". We do this all the time and in varying degrees of voluntariness. Some people are less talented for this - and those are often called "authentic". Ironically people like actors or even sex workers who have a huge talent for that and are able to create personas (which are objects for a purpose) that are very far from "their true self" are also often called "authentic".

And this is where the line between "real people" and "fictional characters" blurs. We all create extensions of ourselves, masks we wear in different situations. These masks are objects that serve a purpose. For ourselves and for others.
We all know that Jack Sparrow is a fictional character that was created by writers, directors and Johnny Depp. An artificial object that serves the purpose to tell stories. But Johnny Depp on the Red Carpet is in a way also a mask, a fictional character. An object made for admiration or disdain.
"Lulu the escort" or "Linda Black the porn star" are a fictional characters who, in extension, may create further "means towards an end", dominatrix, girlfriend or victim. Behind all that may be a party girl, a boring wife with husbandhousecarchildrendog or a desparate single mother, we don't know and we're not supposed to - it would be stalking to try to find that out.
"The Queen" who is "not amused" is basically a fictional character - a mask or role that is "a means towards an end".

We are objectified and objectify ourselves which not neccessarily bad, but can lead to problem of course. Be it that roles are forced upon us (work life, stalkers), we lose distance to the masks we create (classic "actor's loss of identity") or other people mistake us for the object we created (the classic "actor beaten up for playing evil character" or "John falls in love with hooker").
This can of course not happen (except in extreme cases...) with entirely fictional characters from books or video games. Here the problem is more that the depiction may fuel stereotypes (all Germans were Nazis, all Muslims are terrorists, all American soldiers are heroes...) but that is an entire new topic altogether.

So sorry for the wall of text...

TL;DR: Objectification is something that happens all the time, it's part of the world and not good nor bad in itself. Also all fictional characters are objects, a means towards an end.

I disagree. Objectification of fictional character depends on how they have been created and portray. A good author creates non-objectified character. You can create a round, well defined and believable character (i.e. humanizing them), but if you objectified them, they become flat and stereotypical.

edit - and it also just as revealing about me as a person they way I talk about Lara Croft, as it is the way I talk about Emma Watson

What you mean is "realism" and "suspension of disbelief". The character is still an object that serves a role - ie. to invoke empathy in the reader. Bringing that character alive is a joint effort between creator and recipient. Both have to do their parts to make the magic happen. This may or may not work as intended. There are a lot of factors playing into that.
"Flat and stereotypical" characters also have their uses - as props of a scene. "The butler", "the grumpy cop", "the sex deprived housewife"... we all know the cliches and this makes it easy to "take in the scenery" while the author moves on with the important stuff.

In some cases flat characters are a tool of art. In [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden_(Lem_novel)]Lem's Eden[/url] the characters are their profession - you learn only very few personal things about them - because the story is simply not about them but about the strange planet and what humans (as an abstract concept) might make of it.

As I wrote before - Objectification is not inherently good or bad, it serves different purposes.

it is stretching the point, but going down this route you can argue that all people are objects that serve a role for you. be it as part of getting on in life, getting help, be a hindrance and so on. it all depends on how you see people (real or fictional) and how you emotionally react to them..

In many cases, you do not even know if a character / person is even real or fictional, do you mean to say that if you believe a person is real you can not objectify them, but if you are told they are fake then you can? If so, how do you deal with actors portraying fictional characters as well?