Who here has played 'Doki Doki literature club'

[Takuji Mamiya]

You talk about ratings like a guy whos terrified of sounding biased, so you overcorrect into saying absolutely nothing.
Your entire argument boils down to:
"DDLC failed at engaging me in almost every way, but I respect that the files opened correctly."
And the Horizon example made it even worse because you admitted youd rate a game you HATED as average purely out of fear of giving low scores to something technically polished. That’s score inflation caused by pseudo intellectual guilt.
Youve trained yourself to confuse craftsmanship with value. A sterile, boring experience can absolutely deserve a terrible score even if it’s competently assembled. Otherwise every forgettable Ubisoft game becomes immune to criticism because "well the animations work."

I quite literally criticised DDLC heavily and gave it a pretty bad score . Why the fuck would I give it a 2 or a 1 when there are good things that come with the experience too? A 3 is not in any way a good score. It didn’t interest me and I didn’t enjoy it but there are aspects that I enjoyed from it. I’m saying that boring ≠ bad.

Horizon was objectively a fine game, I’m not going to give it a low score because it’s not objectively bad in the way that Hello Neighbour is, solely because I disliked it. A game like Horizon is a forgettable 5, like that’s exactly what the rating is for. Most modern Ubislop games are 4-5-6 territory, they’re not bad experiences they’re just forgettable slop. You just lack literacy within game analysis. Objective “craftsmanship” is 100% something that you take into account when rating media. Graphics, animations etc. all are taken into account.

THIS is how we end up with modern gaming reviews. People give a game a 6 and it means that it’s garbage. If I rated purely on my beliefs then Horizon would be a 0, and every game that I somewhat liked would be a 10. I reserve 10’s for the absolute peak of gaming, objective masterpieces. Same thing with 1’s. Reserved for games that don’t even function as intended, with complete shit surrounding them. DDLC was not complete shit, it had good points (majority being bad) inside of it. I couldn’t give it any lower than a 3 because it’s not actually overwhelmingly bad, it’s just boring.

 

[trixiespitswap]

I quite literally criticised DDLC heavily and gave it a pretty bad score . Why the fuck would I give it a 2 or a 1 when there are good things that come with the experience too? A 3 is not in any way a good score. It didn’t interest me and I didn’t enjoy it but there are aspects that I enjoyed from it. I’m saying that boring ≠ bad.

Horizon was objectively a fine game, I’m not going to give it a low score because it’s not objectively bad in the way that Hello Neighbour is, solely because I disliked it. A game like Horizon is a forgettable 5, like that’s exactly what the rating is for. Most modern Ubislop games are 4-5-6 territory, they’re not bad experiences they’re just forgettable slop. You just lack literacy within game analysis. Objective “craftsmanship” is 100% something that you take into account when rating media. Graphics, animations etc. all are taken into account.

THIS is how we end up with modern gaming reviews. People give a game a 6 and it means that it’s garbage. If I rated purely on my beliefs then Horizon would be a 0, and every game that I somewhat liked would be a 10. I reserve 10’s for the absolute peak of gaming, objective masterpieces. Same thing with 1’s. Reserved for games that don’t even function as intended, with complete shit surrounding them. DDLC was not complete shit, it had good points (majority being bad) inside of it. I couldn’t give it any lower than a 3 because it’s not actually overwhelmingly bad, it’s just boring.

Ur doing that thing where you pretend objective analysis is whats happening but its really just you refusing to call anything bad unless it breaks or crashes.
If something is forgettable, generic, didnt engage you, not worth recommending that is already a bad experience. Youre trying to redefine it into "only counts if it’s technically broken", which is just arbitrary gatekeeping.
And your scale is still cooked. You say 3 = mediocre but then describe 3 as "boring, unenjoyable, forgettable".
You just dont like saying the word bad unless the game trips over its own engine.
Also the craftsmanship = objective value thing doesnt save you. A game can have good art, animations, or structure and still fail completely as an experience, otherwise you end up with the absurd conclusion that anything technically competent is immune to low scores no matter how shit it is.
Thats how you end up with ratings where "didnt enjoy it at all" somehow equates to "not bad".
You just buffer your opinions so you never have to commit to calling something what you clearly think it is.

 

[PURE ANUS]

I haven't but the part where it looks like your PC is being hacked would give me flashbacks from ages ago when Porn sites would ransomwhere me.

My family PC didn't have subscription virus protection which is just sooooooooo idiotic.

natsuki>>>

 

[PURE ANUS]

I quite literally criticised DDLC heavily and gave it a pretty bad score . Why the fuck would I give it a 2 or a 1 when there are good things that come with the experience too? A 3 is not in any way a good score. It didn’t interest me and I didn’t enjoy it but there are aspects that I enjoyed from it. I’m saying that boring ≠ bad.

Horizon was objectively a fine game, I’m not going to give it a low score because it’s not objectively bad in the way that Hello Neighbour is, solely because I disliked it. A game like Horizon is a forgettable 5, like that’s exactly what the rating is for. Most modern Ubislop games are 4-5-6 territory, they’re not bad experiences they’re just forgettable slop. You just lack literacy within game analysis. Objective “craftsmanship” is 100% something that you take into account when rating media. Graphics, animations etc. all are taken into account.

THIS is how we end up with modern gaming reviews. People give a game a 6 and it means that it’s garbage. If I rated purely on my beliefs then Horizon would be a 0, and every game that I somewhat liked would be a 10. I reserve 10’s for the absolute peak of gaming, objective masterpieces. Same thing with 1’s. Reserved for games that don’t even function as intended, with complete shit surrounding them. DDLC was not complete shit, it had good points (majority being bad) inside of it. I couldn’t give it any lower than a 3 because it’s not actually overwhelmingly bad, it’s just boring.

im lowk DNR'ing you
But these visual novel games are usually exclusively about mood.
peak ddlc hype made you really excited, and if you were slightly sad seeing waifus would hit harder.
most visual novels are dogshit if ur not in the mood

 

[TrollPILLER]

No one

 

[Takuji Mamiya]

Ur doing that thing where you pretend objective analysis is whats happening but its really just you refusing to call anything bad unless it breaks or crashes.
If something is forgettable, generic, didnt engage you, not worth recommending that is already a bad experience. Youre trying to redefine it into "only counts if it’s technically broken", which is just arbitrary gatekeeping.
And your scale is still cooked. You say 3 = mediocre but then describe 3 as "boring, unenjoyable, forgettable".
You just dont like saying the word bad unless the game trips over its own engine.
Also the craftsmanship = objective value thing doesnt save you. A game can have good art, animations, or structure and still fail completely as an experience, otherwise you end up with the absurd conclusion that anything technically competent is immune to low scores no matter how shit it is.
Thats how you end up with ratings where "didnt enjoy it at all" somehow equates to "not bad".
You just buffer your opinions so you never have to commit to calling something what you clearly think it is.

You don’t understand the severity of bad ratings. A 1 would need to be something that is so egregiously bad that it fundamentally does not work on a root level. Exactly like Hello Neighbour, which has absolutely nothing to compliment about it. A 3 is the bottom tier of mediocrity. Yuri and Natsuki are generic baseplate characters, they have very little compelling aspects towards them and generally just act as tone setters for the first act. But do they fundamentally destroy the experience? No! They just sit there and do nothing. If they actively worsened the experience, if they were actively badly written then that could reduce DDLC’s rating down.

Yes, DDLC was a bad experience. It has little redeeming points. However, like I said, it’s not completely irredeemable. It has good aspects like Sayori, the concept itself, the character design. That is not a 2 or a 1, that would require 0 redemption throughout the game.

And no, not enjoying something does not mean that it’s bad. Your Scaling is based purely upon “did I like it or not?”. That is NOT how media analysis works. A boring, contrived work would not fit at the bottom of the barrel at 1/10 as that requires absolutely 0 redeeming factors. I could imagine you have multiple 9 and 10’s and multiple 1’s and 2’s, in serious media analysis, those are incredibly rare. And DDLC does not fit inside that box solely because I didn’t enjoy any of it.

 

[Takuji Mamiya]

im lowk DNR'ing you
But these visual novel games are usually exclusively about mood.
peak ddlc hype made you really excited, and if you were slightly sad seeing waifus would hit harder.
most visual novels are dogshit if ur not in the mood

DDLC is dogshit from an actual writing perspective too lmao.

 

[sirlancelot]

I like it. I even played some of the mods like exit music, blue skies and amor fati

 

[trixiespitswap]

You don’t understand the severity of bad ratings. A 1 would need to be something that is so egregiously bad that it fundamentally does not work on a root level. Exactly like Hello Neighbour, which has absolutely nothing to compliment about it. A 3 is the bottom tier of mediocrity. Yuri and Natsuki are generic baseplate characters, they have very little compelling aspects towards them and generally just act as tone setters for the first act. But do they fundamentally destroy the experience? No! They just sit there and do nothing. If they actively worsened the experience, if they were actively badly written then that could reduce DDLC’s rating down.

Yes, DDLC was a bad experience. It has little redeeming points. However, like I said, it’s not completely irredeemable. It has good aspects like Sayori, the concept itself, the character design. That is not a 2 or a 1, that would require 0 redemption throughout the game.

And no, not enjoying something does not mean that it’s bad. Your Scaling is based purely upon “did I like it or not?”. That is NOT how media analysis works. A boring, contrived work would not fit at the bottom of the barrel at 1/10 as that requires absolutely 0 redeeming factors. I could imagine you have multiple 9 and 10’s and multiple 1’s and 2’s, in serious media analysis, those are incredibly rare. And DDLC does not fit inside that box solely because I didn’t enjoy any of it.

You keep smuggling in this idea that not actively broken equals not bad, and thats where your whole system falls apart.
A game doesn’t have to be structurally defective to be bad. It just has to fail as an experience. If the result is boring, forgettable, and unenjoyable, then it’s already doing its job poorly, regardless of whether the dialogue technically functions or the characters dont collapse the script.
Youre drawing an artificial line between bad and nothing happens like boredom is some neutral state. It isnt. A game that does nothing interesting is not sitting at a safe neutral 3/10 plateau. It’s already on the negative side of design, because it failed to create engagement.
And your 1/10 requires total irredeemability rule is just personal restriction, not analysis. Youve decided low scores are reserved for catastrophic failure, so everything else gets artificially lifted into mediocre, even when your own description is literally negative across the board.
Also the not enjoying it doesnt mean its bad argument doesnt save you here, because youre not just saying I didnt enjoy it. Youre listing design level failures: boring pacing, weak characterization, lack of engagement. That’s already criticism of the work, not just your mood.
What youre doing is splitting hair between bad experience and not catastrophically broken experience and pretending that gap is meaningful in actual criticism. It isnt.

 

[NEB.feelsdevil]

natsuki

 

[Takuji Mamiya]

You keep smuggling in this idea that not actively broken equals not bad, and thats where your whole system falls apart.
A game doesn’t have to be structurally defective to be bad. It just has to fail as an experience. If the result is boring, forgettable, and unenjoyable, then it’s already doing its job poorly, regardless of whether the dialogue technically functions or the characters dont collapse the script.
Youre drawing an artificial line between bad and nothing happens like boredom is some neutral state. It isnt. A game that does nothing interesting is not sitting at a safe neutral 3/10 plateau. It’s already on the negative side of design, because it failed to create engagement.
And your 1/10 requires total irredeemability rule is just personal restriction, not analysis. Youve decided low scores are reserved for catastrophic failure, so everything else gets artificially lifted into mediocre, even when your own description is literally negative across the board.
Also the not enjoying it doesnt mean its bad argument doesnt save you here, because youre not just saying I didnt enjoy it. Youre listing design level failures: boring pacing, weak characterization, lack of engagement. That’s already criticism of the work, not just your mood.
What youre doing is splitting hair between bad experience and not catastrophically broken experience and pretending that gap is meaningful in actual criticism. It isnt.

Do you think that “bad” = 1/10? A 3 is bad lmao. Like I said, I have criticisms about DDLC but I enjoy some aspects, therefore it cannot be a totalitarian 1/10. Never said that I wouldn’t criticise it, quite literally all I’ve been doing. A 3/10 is not safe nor neutral. It’s like you think that a 3/10 is some formidable score and a 1 = a baseline bad. Please prompt ChatGPT better next time .

 

[trixiespitswap]

Do you think that “bad” = 1/10? A 3 is bad lmao. Like I said, I have criticisms about DDLC but I enjoy some aspects, therefore it cannot be a totalitarian 1/10. Never said that I wouldn’t criticise it, quite literally all I’ve been doing. A 3/10 is not safe nor neutral. It’s like you think that a 3/10 is some formidable score and a 1 = a baseline bad. Please prompt ChatGPT better next time .

You keep changing what bad means every time the argument shifts. First it was bad equals technical failure. Then bad is nothing redeeming. Now its 3/10 = bad but also not that bad because it has some positives. Nobody is saying 3/10 is neutral or safe. The point is your descriptions of ddlc are already negative in every meaningful way, but you keep refusing to translate that into a proportionate score.

 

[imlame]

You talk about ratings like a guy whos terrified of sounding biased, so you overcorrect into saying absolutely nothing.
Your entire argument boils down to:
"DDLC failed at engaging me in almost every way, but I respect that the files opened correctly."
And the Horizon example made it even worse because you admitted youd rate a game you HATED as average purely out of fear of giving low scores to something technically polished. That’s score inflation caused by pseudo intellectual guilt.
Youve trained yourself to confuse craftsmanship with value. A sterile, boring experience can absolutely deserve a terrible score even if it’s competently assembled. Otherwise every forgettable Ubisoft game becomes immune to criticism because "well the animations work."

 

[Takuji Mamiya]

You keep changing what bad means every time the argument shifts. First it was bad equals technical failure. Then bad is nothing redeeming. Now it’s 3/10 = bad but also not that bad because it has some positives. Nobody is saying 3/10 is neutral or safe. The point is your descriptions of ddlc are already negative in every meaningful way, but you keep refusing to translate that into a proportionate score.

3/10 = not good rating.
My opinion of DDLC = bad.
DDLC itself = not objectively bad or bad enough to warrant a score of 1.
Like I said a million times, DDLC has positive and negative aspects, therefore it cannot be a 1.
Like I said, a 1 would need to be fundamentally broken or objectively terrible. DDLC is not that.
A 3/10 is mediocre. A 2/10 is terrible. A 1/10 is abysmal.
I didn’t like DDLC, subjectively I think it’s bad, but objectively when ranking it is mediocre because it cannot reach the lows of a 2 or a 1.

a safe neutral 3/10 plateau

 

[BasedGoyslopReviews]

most incel game of all time imo. i just cannot delude myself and read words written by old japcels and somehow LARP its a woman relaying those words to me. u gotta be very good at lying to yourself to enjoy this

 

[trixiespitswap]

3/10 = not good rating.
My opinion of DDLC = bad.
DDLC itself = not objectively bad or bad enough to warrant a score of 1.
Like I said a million times, DDLC has positive and negative aspects, therefore it cannot be a 1.
Like I said, a 1 would need to be fundamentally broken or objectively terrible. DDLC is not that.
A 3/10 is mediocre. A 2/10 is terrible. A 1/10 is abysmal.
I didn’t like DDLC, subjectively I think it’s bad, but objectively when ranking it is mediocre because it cannot reach the lows of a 2 or a 1.

Mediocre describes something that is only average, ordinary, or moderate in quality. You are stupid.

 

[zephyr]

natsuki>>>

Vegetables/Greens + Moon (菜月): "Na" relates to greens or rapeseed blossoms, while "tsuki" means moon.

 

[PURE ANUS]

 

[gluttony]

Foids larp as them, even a mass shooter had them in their manifesto but anyways it's a decent game not much else to say about it.

I found it to be mediocre, despite liking visual novels this is just famous for the horror elements.

 

[zephyr]

Foids larp as them, even a mass shooter had them in their manifesto but anyways it's a decent game not much else to say about it.

I found it to be mediocre, despite liking visual novels this is just famous for the horror elements.

Lol Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?! A manifesto included Doki Doki literature club !? Who whoooooooooooooooo ?????

 

[gluttony]

Lol Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?! A manifesto included Doki Doki literature club !? Who whoooooooooooooooo ?????

yes it was a troon or something

 

[gloom&doom]

I have, other than the fact it traumatized me it was pretty boring and slow