For this critical play, I played Doki-Doki Literature Club, developed by Team Salvato as a visual novel/dating simulator game that breaks all expectations of what games of that genre are about. I went into the game blind, only knowing the basic trigger warnings as well as the unexpected psychological horror tag that Steam gave it, and it definitely delivered on that promise. Beyond the jumpscares as well as the metafictional aspect of the game, the narrative is very well crafted in the sense that it works really well to prompt the player to “think about life,” as Salvato put it in an AMA.
Going into this game, I had no idea what to expect. I do not think of myself as the target audience for these kinds of games (visual novels or dating sims), which is partly why I’ve had no idea what it was even remotely about despite its relatively large presence on the internet. Thus, I thought that this critical play provided the best reason for why I would ever play a game in this genre. I will say, the first two in-game days really exemplified why I don’t play these games usually: personally, it feels weird and cringey having to develop parasocial relationships with characters in a game, exacerbated by the obsequious and frankly unrealistic and braindead behaviors of said characters achievable through the simple mechanic of picking the right dialogue option. I get that this is probably part of the appeal to the patriarchal playerbase, unfortunately. “A feminist video game story has particular potential for empathy building, allowing the player to think within different perspectives and experiences,” writes Chess. Had the game kept the superficiality of its first two in-game days, it would not be feminist at all, and in fact would only reinforce the toxic masculinity that is already present in a Chernobyl-like fashion. Part of what Chess expresses is rooted in the fact that these games that appeal to heteronormativity and toxic masculinity purposefully reduce their feminine characters and take away their ‘agency.’ Not that videogame characters have agency since they aren’t sentient, but agency through their written dialogue that even in the slightest bit opposes what the player does. In that sense, I was almost looking forward to the psychological horror part of the game, something new for me especially as someone that pretends horror movies don’t exist. I was hoping at least that part would develop the character beyond a one-dimensional sycophant whose only goal is to date you, something that definitely happened in DDLC. Chess writes that “as we play things, we feel things, become things, and rethink things. There is nothing more feminist than this:” DDLC definitely did that for me. I played it (obviously), and it made me reflect about why I never play these games, why I would feel so excited about wanting to experience the horror, and why this game stands out from its peers due to its emotion complexity that it brings. Beyond the writing, I found it really cool that the game makes explicit that it’s a game, and that for me serves as a reminder to the player that dating sims aren’t real life, and players that fail to make that distinction are just plain misogynistic and contribute to the toxicity that modern media love to feast on as a way to continually bash the gaming industry. As an epilogue, I will also say that it’s opened my eyes to the possibilities of what visual novels could be: I’ve been immersed in the patriarchal paradigm of gaming as well, and have come to accept the bias that this genre is simply for the patriarchy that wants to validate their misogyny and massage their ego. However, with DDLC being a trailblazer in this domain, I can see how this medium and format can bring about complex and resonating narratives (“[feminist stories] should speak a kind of truth that resonates with diverse and underrepresented audiences.”) that develop nuanced characters and plots.
However, one question I do pose is the strong language that Chess uses throughout. Multiple times, Chess writes that “I would indeed like to destroy the video game industry, as it is currently known.” While I do think the end goal is noble, I wonder if there’s a less harsh way of going about things. The sentiment is definitely felt, but the execution I think has to be a lot more calculated. The way that Chess puts it, it’s more of an us vs. them situation, where a small group tries to topple the corrupt institution, but it can also be nonviolent, as multiple renowned leaders have successfully used, from Gandhi to MLK to Mandela. This does not mean just simply avoiding the toxic COD lobbies or whatever. Just like the difference between non-racist and anti-racist, avoidance of patriarchal games and their players simply reinforce the existing power structures; instead, feminist ideals must be carried out every time we play a game. I just wonder if there’s a constructive, rather than destructive way, of going about this.
