Do dating games encourage an unhealthy view of relationships?

I love RE but I'd hate to be surprised by it, you know? And yeah, pointless to LP when I'd have to censor EVERYTHING.

EDIT:

This wouldn't solve everything -- ideally I'd love to have as in-depth a system as you outline -- but it would help if more games used something even as simple as Planescape: Torment's "[Truth]" or "[Lie]" mechanics.

Romantic games, I think, are a lot like romance novels: they're portraying a fantasy version of relationships, but they're pretty upfront about that. A lot of times, they're portraying a fantasy that's exciting to imagine (if it hits your kink), but that you wouldn't actually want in real life (witness the hot, sarcastic, condescending glasses-type who would be breathtakingly obnoxious in RL, but who can provide a fun challenge and a dramatic storyline in a dating sim).

Games, though, do have the added dimension of requiring a challenge. They have to be 'playable', which usually means winning or losing. So they tend to be designed to view each of the romantic interests as a prize or goal to be won, which often means the protagonist is hunting through dialogue choices trying to just say the right thing, damnit, to get my +1 relationship points and unlock that next CG! Which can, I think, make the player more...complicit? in the weirdness of an idealized, dramatized fantasy relationship, as opposed to just reading a story which is clearly about Someone Else. And that can get kinda uncomfortable, especially with some of the default 'tropes' of romance games/dating sims (y hello dere romantic rape and huge age/power differences).

Maybe instead of tracking inconsistency of player responses, it might be worth exploring a romantic game where the MC is pursued, rather than a pursuer, and the 'challenge' is figuring out which of her suitors is misrepresenting themselves, involved in intrigue against her, a good fit for her own personality, etc. That might lose some of the conventional tension, but it'd be interesting to see how it changes the feel of the romantic process, at the same time.

I hate romance novels but I love romance in novels, if that makes any sense. The romance genre is bloated, stale, and pandering. The biggest problem is probably that the characters are more often than not horrible stupid stereotypes and I have no interest in reading about them. I'm finding that a lot of this is true of Otome games as well, but I think I'm willing to give them more of a pass because of the novelty of being able to play a romance game at all. Plus, the gameplay (such as it is) gives me something to do.

One gripe I have with the article in the OP is that it doesn't describe my motivations when playing dating games/romance plots at all. I don't play for the sex and I definitely don't play for the completionist thrill of getting a CG or a trophy. Perhaps that may describe certain people, but the point is that game designers shouldn't be focusing on punishing players because of what may or may not be motivating them.

I find the idea of tracking player responses interesting, but it's actually something I naturally do in RPGs. I try to stay true to the character that I envision myself playing as, and if I give someone an inconsistent response, I try to have a roleplaying justification for it. Maybe my character is just an inconsistent asshole, or maybe an NPC changed their mind on a certain issue. It'd be pretty cool if the game realized this and acknowledged it.

Hmmm, maybe, but you'd have to be careful with the pursuing vs pursued model. Having an NPC come on too strong (and not being able to do anything about it) is unpleasant, at least for me. That's one of the main reasons that Liara and I never really hit it off in ME1. I had to either reciprocate her feelings or take the asshole options. As a player, I want to have agency in any potential relationships I might form.

Your definition for "playable" seems to better work with "winnable" -- there are plenty of games with fixed endings or no traditionally "good" endings that are still rely on player participation. Games don't inherently require romantic interests to be endgoals. A hypothetical dating sim could present CGs for any of the so-called "routes" regardless of the ending. Adapting the protagonist with each choice (i.e. a more assertive choice naturally creates a more assertive personality) would also help to reduce this view of romantic interests as a prize.

I doubt very much whether my philosophy reflects that of the average dating sim player, but I don't live life looking for my One True Love -- and I certainly do not play my games that way. But with dating sims presented as an open theater with the (often female) lead role waiting for the player, I can neither imagine myself ever getting into them nor the designers' heeding my suggestions.

Um, that's a massively broad brush to be using to paint an entire genre of literature with. Romance is way more than circa 1980s Mills and Boon or Harlequin. And, honestly, not that there's anything wrong with a little pandering when you're talking about entertainment. Not to say that you're not well within your rights to dislike whatever you darn well please for whatever reasons you like, and the 'worthiness' of romance novels isn't really the point, but I do feel there's some mischaracterization, there.

I agree that it would be cool! Or at least set it up like Alpha Protocol, and have a fundamental acknowledgement be that your character is a manipulator who says whatever seems like the best idea at the time. (Actually, AP gets a lot of things right when it comes to letting you roleplay a character through dialogue and actions, despite having a plot that doesn't really change much from one playthrough to the next.)

I think that could be helped by just being able to turn someone down and have them act like a rational adult about it. "Sorry, just not interested." "...man, that sucks. Oh, well. Wanna go hang?" Or something. Not everything NEEDS to be dramatic and emotional, especially when the player is trying to opt out of a bit of content.

On Harvest Moon: Interesting how you all bring up "you can give her stuff constantly and she'll love you", but not that you find out how much she likes you by digging out and reading her private diary. Also, it's possible to give her stuff she doesn't really like, or plain hates. It's a pretty innocent system to me, and if I remember correctly, you are ALLOWED to give her bad things, you're allowed to disagree with her in an event, and you can still get her to marry you. So you don't need to adopt values you hate just to make her like you.

I think dating games do encourage an unhealthy view of relationships. Not because people think "this is how I get a girl", or anything, but... Reading the dating game threads here, I've learned:
1. Guys being giant jerks is a-okay!
2. Girls should be submissive, blushy, and if they're fierce or tomboyish they need to be set straight.
3. If you make a single mistake and your crush gets angry at you, you will never be able to get over it.
4. Molestation is romantic.

This is what the games keep telling us, over and over, and it does influence people's perception. If you're in a bad relationship, there's a great deal of helplessness and guilt involved. What these games tell those people is that they're in the wrong for feeling hurt. He's being mean because he loves you! You can change him! If you just stay in this relationship, everything will work out by the end! There's enough crap involved without having media agreeing with your abuser.

The Lettestadt Troll is the most extreme show of molesting being romantic, but it's appeared in other games too. That one chef guy who was all "man you sure are lucky I don't molest you right now" while you were drunk, the acting dating game where the romance was started by him forcibly kissing you, and so on. It's seen as cute and romantic rather than disgusting, and if you're young then you don't really have anything to compare it to, you can't know that this ISN'T romantic, so it colors your perception.

The influenced won't really go out and kiss people on the street then berate them for not being submissive enough.
But they may think less of sexual harrassment, pursue a guy who clearly hates them, remain in abusive situations, or curb their own personality because they think something's wrong with it.

The only way to fix this is by making more good dating games. Ones where the protagonist gets to be proactive, ones that put clear limits on what is and isn't okay, ones that allow you to disagree with certain things your love interest do without getting a big GAME OVER in response. In fact, let's add a nice emotional boy in too, because I've had multiple friends talk to me, being seriously distressed that they were feeling bad and crying because that's not a thing boys are supposed to do and it clearly meant something was wrong with them.

We need to break free from stereotypes and show everyone what the world is truly like.
I don't think we can break down all the negative stereotypes on our own, but...
Maybe we can make a crack in them.

It's also helpful to draw distinctions, consider the authorship, and not lump all the games into one homogenous whole. (Not saying you personally are doing this, just talking in general.) Just making good dating sims doesn't help if people continue to talk only about the bad ones when discussing the genre.

Much like with romance novels, there was a time in which almost all the books consisted of the heroine being 'ravished' by an Alpha Male until she loved him. While these still exist they are now considered a distinct fetish and nowhere near the entirety of the genre. This still doesn't stop people from making assumptions based on what was written 40 years ago!

The Nettestadt Troll is a pretty horrifying view of relationships, but it was written by one man who had no experience with otome and was trying to guess what women wanted in an r18 game.

Do all the Voltage games have the same author? I really don't know. They're all produced by the same company, at least, and there are similarities between them.

But if you look at that giant list of otome games, there are a LOT of games made by a lot of people and they are definitely not all the same, and definitely do not all involve helpless blushy submissive female leads being molested by jerks...

Ah, definitely!
I didn't mean to lump things together or accuse all games or anything, there are definitely games with strong protagonists and such.
I don't know if there's a game that has all the categories, actually. Honestly, I don't really play a lot of VNs, so my impressions come solely from what I've read here and what people are saying about them elsewhere.

It just seems common, is all. If otome games went the way of romance novels, I'd be happy. But as it is, the passive protagonist and the jerky love interest still feel like the norm...

I don't think that's very accurate -- at least when it comes to the games with stat-building element, these seem to be based on the protagonist making decisions and calling the shots (and regardless of the PC's gender) You decide who to pursue/date out of available selection, and you keep asking them out, generally working on improving the relationship with them. Also while yes, the character selection will usually include "jerky love interest" or a few, it's not limited to them. They are more of just one of archetypes, provided for people who specifically like that kind of character.

The "jerky love interest" more often than not is considered the "main" love interest in these games though. I guess because a lot of people like them or something.

People seem to be masochistic like the hard-to-get type that warms up later, thus why there was also that big tsundere boom in anime for a while and the childhood friend in a bishoujo game or harem anime is extremely likely to be a violent tsundere. Of course, chances are that when someone acts like that in reality it is because they do in fact hate you or otherwise think ill of you. So it's a big wish-fulfillment thing, too ("My crush is acting cold to me now, but maybe someday they'll come to appreciate and love me!")

To be honest, the only dating game I can think of with a jerk for the main catch, so to speak, is TMGS2 with Saeki. And even he's not that bad (seriously, what with all the games that feature yanderes). Yeah, he chops the main character from time to time. Maybe that's not so weird to me because my friends used to often hit me (and I them) when I was in high school. We weren't even play-fighting. It was just a form of communication.

Voltage games seem to always have the aloof jerkish tsundere as the "main", though he's almost never the most popular guy in the game. Love Revo's pretty egregious in that most of the love interests initially come off as big jerks, and Ren is the biggest jerk of all (but hey he's rich, 'perfect' and apparently supposed to be the most handsome so all's forgiven, right?)

Totally forgot about Ren. Probably because he's such a jerk at the beginning of the game that I didn't play his route till last (then again, they all are; it's a plot point). And I haven't played the Voltage games or kept up entirely with the LPs featured here, so I'll just take your word for it.

I'm generally okay with yanderes as they are rarely presented as the ideal. Fatbird, for instance, is quite clearly a twisted character. Interesting route? Sure. Perfect birdfriend? No. On the other hand, I tend to dislike tsunderes because they are so often represented as the ideal. Jerk with a Heart of Gold and all that. Except I don't care how hot you are, if you are a rude asshole when we meet, and continue to do so, I will have no interest in finding your inner goodness. I just rarely have any interest in rude people, unless they apologize and grow as person. Maybe not even then, depending on how it's handled.

Bringing up another point about romance games/dating sims that Mizu mentioned in the Japan/Stereotypes thread.

I'll admit I'm more fond of otoge than I am of galge, and that's usually because of the way the love interests are handled. A big exception to this, however, has been TokiMemo. Because Konami is boss.

However, I was expecting a Girl's Side of Love PLus, and when one never came, well, I started wondering.

And then Mizu wrote this. And suddenly, it made sense. And it was depressing to realize. When games like these involve such blatant double standards, is it a wonder that some may or do encourage unhealthy views of relationships? TokiMemo I felt was good about this in that both sides had the Protagonist work on stats to gain interest from their love interest, though the whole "change yourself for them" is a whole different can of worms we mentioned earlier. But the thing is, it was pretty gender equal in that regard.

Love Plus? WHOLE DIFFERENT BALLPARK.

There was a point I wanted to make and I clean forgot it, damn. Um. ... Discuss? And give me some time to remember what it was I wanted to say.

I think the way that the Tokimemo games themselves are handled when it comes to the different sexes is interesting. And this can go for all dating sims that are girl > guy as opposed to guy >girl.

When you play a guy >girl game, you are basically building your stats on your own time and the girls are marveling at how you're changing, right? It's basically a "oh, you're changing that stat? that's so sexy oh my goshhhh i wanna date you" thing. But when it's a girl > guy game, it's more "I don't have any sort of interest or time for you until you raise this stat". I can't really explain the difference better than that, but I'll try.

As opposed to being liked for raising your stats, it's more like you won't be liked UNLESS you raise your stats. Think about it: When you play Tokimemo GS, if you don't raise your stats, none of the guys will like you or want to spend any sort of time with you, right? But when you play a game where you're trying to get a girl to like you, she'll LIKE you, but she'll pay even MORE attention to you if you raise certain stats. There's a different attitude in each, i think.

...

THAT IS SO TRUE.

I FEEL SO CHEATED NOW.

And rather depressed too, actually.

What a message to give to young teens.

Recently there's another debate that has gotten a little heated. To quote a RPS comment:

-Quote-

There’s an article by Kim Moss on NightmareMode that complains about the creepy nature of BioWare “romance”, by arguing that not every NPC should be won in the same manner, or at all. There’s a reply by Adam Ruch that points out that any interaction in a game will take the form of if-then, input-output, and is thus ‘gameable’; the only option is to play along, make-believe that it’s not as creepy as it looks, because it’s all we’re going to get.
Of course, nobody’s ever going to admit that video games can’t give a meaningful expression of love, because ‘this wonderful medium of ours,’ yadda, yadda, yadda. The result is that people keep trying to find a way to express it by calculation — which is all a computer can do. I’m reminded of Wilhelm Dilthey’s criticism of positivism’s ability to respectfully represent human beings: “Diese geistigen Tatsachen [...] bilden die Wirklichkeit, welche wir nicht meistern, sondern zunächst begreifen wollen.” (Boldness mine)

-Unquote-

I do have more to say on this topic, but don't have time to write about it now.

(The comments in that article. Ugh.)

I don't agree with the article that it's creepy to be able to lie in games to get sex. I think it's a creepy/annoying to lie obviously and not get caught. This is mainly because games usually lack a meaningful way to lie (a complaint I've mentioned previously in this thread, I think). I've never played Dragon Age: Origins, so I don't know -- if you smile and nod at Morrigan about her life philosophy, but don't follow that philosophy in any interactions outside of her, does she notice, object, and break up with you? I'm assuming no based on the description here, but I'll withhold any further judgment for the moment.

The idea of character customization affecting romance options is great. I tend to like romances that take stock of a variety of factors (race, class, gender, dialogue choices, stats, etc.), assign them a point value based on what the love interest prefers, and have you pass a (somewhat arbitrary) compatibility check rather than just making the romance available if (e.g.) you're female and breathing, and including character customization in that would be a nice bit of subtlety. (I suspect I've taken this a bit too far into "gaining kindness compatibility points" for the original author's comfort, however.)

A couple of specific things the author mentions (getting cheated on, losing a chance at romance because you came on too strong, ending a romance because things weren't working out) are things I've seen done (and done well) in game romances. A romance can come to a satisfying conclusion, story- and character-wise, even if it doesn't end "successfully." I disagree with what seems to be the general substance of the complaint, though, which is "video game romances are unrealistic because they work out well." Or I guess I mostly disagree that realism is always necessary or desirable in fictional media. Wanting a happy romance because you think it's more fun to play a happy romance doesn't make you a bad gamer or anything. Even when I play romances that don't end well, I'd rather know what I'm getting into before I start so I can decide if I'm in the mood.

A belated thought: the problem is not that the kindness token relationship structure exists, but that it lacks the subtlety and detail necessary to allow us to pretend it's not a kindness token structure. The problem to solve is not realism, but immersion.

It's been a while since I played, but for Morrigan, I don't think so. There are situations with the other characters where if you do something that goes way against their core beliefs they will attack you over it, but it's not romance-specific. I don't think Morrigan has anything like that.
You can smile and nod with her in personal convos and then do the opposite of what she advises, but she never calls you out on your flip-flopping. Also the gift-system can be used to avoid her disapproval, so you can disagree with everything she believes but still be able to bed her with gifts. I think doing that goes against the idea of RPing, though that's just me.

I also disagree with the notion that "video game romances are unrealistic because they work out well." I come across that a lot on gaming message boards or from dev diaries, that they would only write romances if they were bitter/bitter-sweet. I mean, write whatever you want to write or what will make the story work best, but the way it's said is like they're looking down on people who enjoy happy romances.

In regards to DA:O:

I've played that game a lot. A lot. And while it's not restricted to romancing people, if you do too many things that certain people in your group aren't happy with, they will leave you. I think that goes for every single party member. (Though I am pretty sure Alistair is exempt for plot reasons.) Which is realistic. If you don't like the leader of your group choosing to kill a bunch of innocents, I highly doubt you're gonna stand by them anyway while mumbling under your breath.

Alistair also has a very specific breaking point over which you can lose him as a party member. The only one who doesn't is Morrigan, and that is for plot reasons.

So essentially, unless they are necessary for plot reasons, you don't have to keep anyone/no one has to stay with you.

I think that's cool because that is what a rational human being would do.
That said, I would like to call utter bullshit on the whole "WELL IT'S A GAME OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE RELATIONSHIP CALCULATED" argument. It is perfectly possible to make a game with natural interactions that doesn't make you feel like you are doing a series of calculated tasks and decisions in order to "get their best ending". Some people are going to see it that way because they stay back at a distance and go "MAN THIS IS A GAME EUGH HOW STIFF AND CALCULATED", but I think that with enough time and work, it's entirely possible to make a game with dating elements that doesn't feel...objective.

you just kinda spend time around everyday people (see: not creepy ass stalkers) and watch how they go about getting into relationships. learn from what's around you. seriously.

IIRC you can get Morrigan to storm out of the party and only return near the end when she's completely necessary to the plot. Alistair can't leave until a certain point, but he can give you a big "What the hell?" speech before that.

Well, interessting topic, well, how to begin. let's summarize MY point of wiew, as a casual gamer who isn't a teenager anymore.

I must say that I discovered VN in general and otome games quite recently ( except one I played many years ago for the sole reason one of my favorite mangaka designed it). But i'e always been a casual gamer, card games, simulations, farming, city building, and some fight games back to the collège.

so for me playing tetris/ street fighter/ sim city or another game is quite the same occupation. Maybe I think like this because I started otome games and VN after 30? dunno... But I've always been someone very realistic about allday life, and ha had my share of bad experiencies in relationships before, I don't think game can make me consider real life or real people worse ( I could say I don't need help to have a low esteem towards certain people :D)

so basically, I play, for the same reason I read, or I watch movies: I like it. It's perfet to relax after a work day, and it's not like I'll spent my entire life playing or anything, I have plenty of outside activities.

So why VN? ( in general, otome are a part for me): because I like the fact that you can follow a story, with a eginning, developpents, end(s). It's the whole construction that matters, and obviously I'll prefer a game with some advetures or challenges because stat buildings only isn't that fun. the last exemple I liked a lot for this plot matter Is Loren. Cause romance is merely one part of the game, not the only goal.
If romance is the only goal, the game should better be funny, or well written to catch my attention. If not, I cancel it. So simple.
But the main point is that you can reach an ending, or several. I dislike MMORPG for this reason: sta building, gathering people, connecting the same time, raid.. and after what. do the same again and again. I find it so pointless, that I don't understand how some people I know can spend HOURS on this ( and this seem more disturbing for me)

Otome? so yeah, the first I played was on line , out of curiosity, But anyway, I found just cool that step by step we started to have access to something else. Beside that, playing a school girl who has success with guys is as exotic to me than playing a fighter, and elf, a monster or anything. Le's say I found it not so challenging, but funny. and Quite cathartic, like some kind of revenge on the successless college days.But you can sense how seriously I take it when I say that I allways give stupid names to my character. I never, never have nor will use my real name, I'll find it very creepy ( instead keeping calling hero/ heroine Baka, and pointig how mush it's accurate .. I have no trouble in playing a dumb character, as long the game is still entertaining.). And when I have to build a character, I usually make him / her as different as possible than I'am. Cause playing my clone would be boring, and I'm here to do something different! So I can play a school girl, a boy, a lesbian, a alien, a mosnter or whatever, it doesn't matter.

Nobody in my " real life" knows about it. Why? loads of reasons. Else the people I know aren't into games in general and I don't want to spend time bothering them with games, or explaining, what are VN, otome things, and maybe in the end get an answer as: " hooooow boooooring", " Japanse stuff again?" " get a life!" " don't you think you should be adult?"or the very mean " hoo i know, I play this because you have no boyfriend these times". Yep, I have no boyfriend, but it has nothing to do with the TYPE of game I play. If I had one ( if I WANTED to have one, but some people don't understand this choice), I'll have less free time in general be it for games, music, movies.. simple as this. So I prefer to keep it to myself, as my own not-so guilty pleasure. Some like to smoke, some like to drink, some like to spend money in stores, I treat myself with some games.

As a matter of fact, I only discuss VN/otome/ games here, online on this very forum. I've visited some other but I prefer this one. Because in the end, no one here said" whooooa 35 years! you're older than my mother". And browsing the thread, I've seen that people here are quite realistic about games. Even about the more insane games. People tend to discuss games with the sane dosis of irony and good sense and not take it personally if you say that you don't like this game or this character. Reactions are in general matures. Funny, but with good sense, and that the most important. So, having fun playing games is a point, discussing here with you in a witty way is better. And discover new stuff , too.

Well, I know, that is some huge text block ^^;

The thing in DAO is that it seems only some of the time your companions actually pay attention to what's going on. I'll tag the examples.

So depending on who you romance and what you do, yes, you can totally get away with barefaced lying and never get called out on it. I mentioned a few times how my Warden tends to do a lot of yes-saying to every companion because of how the game works - you're not rewarded stat bonusses for pissing them off as much as some might tempt me. And can I just reiterate the Friendship/Rivalry system in DA2, again, better be a thing they're using in Inquisition. I like being able to disagree.

Well, that's hardly game-related. Forget about Twilight, I know a lot of people who find the Draco/Hermione pairing really romantic because "He calls her a Mudblood! Nazi Racist Sexual tension!".
I think that's a problem which involves fictional rappresentations of romances, not only dating games. (And it kinda involves real life as well, since "he's so jealous, he doesn't let me wear make up, he loves me so much!" is often considered romantic - or something you just have to deal with - in real life as well. It's exaggerated in fiction, but it's also there.

DA games relies on the fact that you want to have a relationship with characters, so you will care, talk to then and bring them along, so it kinda assume you will be consistent - which is also the point of playing an RPG. ME games are worse than that, because the only thing you have to do is pick the right option - and even if you ignore them and be a jerk to everyone, it doesn't matter, they will always love you no matter what.
They have to improve the "your companions do actually talk to each other" part, but the friend/rival system is an improvement, even if they have to improve that as well.

...excuse me?
I'd like to see how many people would find a white guy calling a black woman "nigger" sexual tension. I am really angry now.

I am really angry now.

Usually they don't make the connection because it's a fantasy book, it's not like they actually put thinking into what they are saying.
Which doesn't make things better, but at least it's not like they're completely dumb.
I think.
They probably are.

The whole Foe Yay phenomenon is a questionable one. I admit I do ship a few foe yay pairings, but damn it, those ones usually involve some twisted form of respect, at the very least.

The above, though? NOT A DAMN CHANCE IN HELL. THAT'S JUST FUCKING TERRIBLE.

"Oh, he doesn't really mean it! It's just to hide how he's really feeling!" WELL FUCK YOU TOO FOR BEING OKAY WITH THIS BEHAVIOUR.

Oh lord, the Draco In Leather Pants tropes irks me like no tomorrow, I feel like strangling something. Generally my lamp.

I think that Foe Yay works when it's...you know, Foe Yay.
Not "I'm a Magic Nazi".

Don't remind me of that. I hate it and Ron the Death Eater with a passion.

SAME. JUST. WHY? I'm usually a stickler for keeping characters, you know, in fucking character, hence why I rarely write or publish fanfiction, because I personally feel like I'm doing the characters an injustice since I can't get them right. Stories where the character becomes evil are interesting if they're done believably. Most of the time, they're not. They're an excuse to get a character the writer doesn't like out of the way and it's FUCKING ANNOYING.

"I love him! But there are 12334 things I don't like about him/don't match with my expectations. I will get rid of it, so he will be perfect!"
And then everyone forgot how the real character was.

I blame the fucking Draco Trilogy. Blame it. Apparently he went from calling Hermione "Granger" to "Hermione". WHICH IS FUCKING DUMB SINCE APPARENTLY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FROM HIS POINT OF VIEW. I mean, Christ.

Thank you both for pointing out why I can't read fanfiction anymore. Which is a shame, really, since there are some damn good ones floating out there. They're just so few and far between that most of the time it's not worth the effort.

Being an M who reads fanfiction to pass the time, I can testify that that is gospel truth, keifufairies.

Damn that Sturgeon's Law.

Of course I'm a glutton for punishment so I keep looking, on and off. It helps a little to fish through recommendation sites rather than fanfiction archives themselves - there's still more dross than gold because people have no taste, but especially if the site uses a system like the TVTropes fanfic reccs where a summary and an explanation of why it was recommended are required, it's usually a lot easier to tell the difference up-front.