I know you’ve already played it and we’ve talked about the game in DMs but can you do a review of DDLC please 🙏
as a wise man once said, "of course, being a visual novel is not a sin. i can't criticise this game for [...] being a visual novel. i can, however, criticise it for being a pretentious visual novel."
it's hard to review something as well-known as Doki Doki Literature Club now is. i mean, it's DDLC. everyone knows about DDLC. it went extremely viral a decade ago and it hasnt really died down much since - almost the opposite has happened in the way it's clearly impacted the entire genre. take a browse in a psychological horror tag on any site from steam to itch.io to ao3, and you'll surely find something whose aesthetics bring DDLC to mind - even if there isn't direct inspiration, which there often is, there are things that are simply mainstream in the genre that previously weren't. it's been 9 years. what could i possibly find to say about DDLC that hasn't already been discussed to death?
a lot, actually.
the issue with reviewing a game as famous and influential as DDLC isn't a lack of things to say - it's the point at which a review inevitably becomes a refutation. it's impossible to disentangle the mess of what DDLC actually was, or what it theoretically would have been if it never went viral, and the legacy it got after the fact and the thing its fandom turned it into - especially when DDLC has always leaned into its legacy, always acknowledged what the fans think it is. to simply state my opinions on the game would require ignoring the elephant of the room; it becomes necessary to not just review the game but to refute a thousand commonly-held misconceptions about the game simply to explain myself
all this to say: if one more person tries to tell me this game has amazing characters and groundbreakingly realistic depictions of mental health issues, i am going to shoot the hostages.
i need to make this incredibly clear before i move onto some choice words that may cause the fandom to crucify me: i do like this game. i've been in the fandom for nearly a decade. i've downloaded it dozens of times, played it repeatedly, i've paid for the paid version despite the game being free. heck, i can probably trace my lifelong fascination with psychological horror, and by extension a lot of my own creative work, back to DDLC. i'm not saying the game isn't good. i think the problem might actually be that the game is good.
there's a recurring problem with viral horror media: people consistently confuse "this game is good, and it depicts these subjects" with "this game is good at depicting these subjects". whenever an indie horror project goes viral, it reaches an audience that doesn't usually engage with horror and thus, isn't familiar with the sort of tropes, themes, and subjects that are frequently present in the genre. this leads to people seeing things that they've rarely or never seen before in fiction, and finding that it resonates with them, and perceiving it as a genuinely groundbreaking depiction - but often, the "groundbreaking" aspect to these people is simply the fact of the subject being depicted at all, and frankly, that ground has definitely already been broken
DDLC's depictions of mental health, often revered as "groundbreaking" by fans, vary from mediocre to actively ableist. sayori's depression is taken seriously throughout act 1, and it was just fine, in my opinion. it seemed like the goal was for it to educate rather than to resonate - that is, everything was written to explain things to the clueless MC more than to actually delve into sayori's experiences. starting in act 2, though, the "serious issues" that the game is often praised for tackling - natsuki's abuse at home, yuri's self-harm, and even the suicide that acted as the culmination to sayori's depression arc - are consistently bought up briefly for shock value and then abandoned without proper explanation, to the point that 10 years later there's still debate in the fandom as to the degree to which these issues were even real or whether they were the result of in-universe game tampering trying to drive the players away from the girls (and let's not bother unpacking the implication that simply Giving The Girls Issues would make them less attractive partners to the player).
this is fairly standard for the horror genre, unfortunately. mental health depictions are a mixed bag and sometimes mentally ill people are exploited for cheap scares. i would be more willing to let this go - brush it off as "it's ableist, but everything is ableist" - if DDLC wasn't so pretentious about it. even ignoring the constant fandom glazing, between the almost educational tone of sayori's explanation of her depression, the act 3 quotes from monika about how to support a mentally ill person, and the marketing of the game itself, it really feels like Dan Salvato felt very smug about being Good At Depicting Serious Topics, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth when i think about how badly the girls' issues are actually depicted.
it really feels like Dan Salvato felt very smug about this game in general. the other non-horror aspect of DDLC that gets the most praise is the characterisation, and this is heavily linked to the trope subversion and "love-hate relationship with anime" that underlies the whole concept of the game. all of the characters are initially presented as one-note anime tropes - Sayori is the energetic Girl Next Door, Yuri is the Shy Girl, Natsuki is the Tsundere, and Monika is The Girl Who Is Reasonable And Also Good At Everything - but eventually, the game reveals there's more to them, showing other facets of their characters and offering explanations for their over-the-top mannerisms and behavior. in this way, DDLC deconstructs its own character tropes... tropes that I doubt actually exist.
i don't actually watch a lot of anime, honestly. the thing is, i question if Dan Salvato does either. does his love-hate relationship come from only watching bad anime? i don't actually believe it's a particularly impressive trope subversion to, for example, explain that the shy girl is shy because she's worried about being judged for her interests. you're not subverting or deconstructing her being shy, just offering a bit of explanation behind it. i'm sure that's a common depiction of shy girls. the existence of character tropes doesn't mean the character is just the trope - it means that several multifaceted, fleshed-out characters across various media can have enough things in common for it to be a recurring theme in the genre, while the characters are still different due to them being different characters
DDLC seems obsessed with this idea of shallow, one-dimensional anime characters with zero personality beyond their tropes. i don't think this is actually a norm in anime, because i don't think it makes sense to assume this is a norm in any media. again, maybe he's just watching bad anime? the game's whole characterisation seems to be based around being more than these one-dimensional tropes, and the way dan does this is generally by adding exactly one extra facet to their character - one detail that is hidden at first but slowly revealed, that allows previous lighthearted moments to develop darker implications, and offers explanation for the tropey and over-the-top way the girl acts.
natsuki is by far the worst example of this, so i'll talk about her. i related to natsuki heavily when i first played the game, in her mannerisms and speech patterns. my interpretation of her character was always that the things she goes through, her implied abuse at home (and the toxic friends revealed in the DLC), has made her defensive, left her with a constant need to cut others down so she can feel like they're the stupid ones and she's not. i'm sure this is a common way for the tsundere trope to be explained and fleshed out. it's a far cry from the canonical explanation, which is that she looks and acts immature because her father starved her to the point of delaying her puberty.
if i sound unreasonably personally insulted by this, it's because i am. first of all, there's a part of me that feels like this whole "i know she looks like a middle schooler, but thats actually because she's being starved" thing is just a weird attempt to justify one scene sexualising her, a scene that still grosses me out no matter how much you slap on disclaimers that she's over 18. second of all, if the point of natsuki's arc was supposed to be that she seems childish but is genuinely 18, it would have had so much more meaning if the moral ended up being "you can like childish things, and also be short, without that making you any less of an adult" rather than "she likes childish things because she's being starved and her growth is stunted". third, why oh why did dan go for the roundabout vague explanation of natsuki's tropey, cartoonish behavior being from malnutrition from abuse, rather than the obvious explanation of the abuse itself making her a constantly scared and defensive person? well, at least there's an explanation for that: monika in act 3, essentially breaking the fourth wall and acting as a mouthpiece for dan's own anime opinions, goes ahead and tells us that natsuki's defensive behavior is unrealistic and nobody acts like that
there's another thing that bothers me. did you notice how i described natsuki's behavior as cartoonish? DDLC seems to have this fixation on specifically anime tropes - the anime art style, the pseudo-japanese school setting, the characters being parodies of the shallow one dimensional anime characters. it's as though he thought only anime could spawn such ridiculous stories. i suppose dan has a point about the girls' behavior being over-the-top and the exact details being unrealistic, but my brother, that isn't an anime thing - that's fiction. sure, the specifics are different in anime conventions vs western cartoon conventions, but the anime tropes that dan seems to have beef with are frequently only marginally different to the western media equivalent trope - and that's because these tropes come from somewhere, usually either a plot device that makes writing easier or a very real experience that writers wish to represent.
the idea that the tsundere trope is like, some highly unrealistic anime specific trope, and not just a stylized depiction of a character being defensive, is very odd to me. even the specific mannerisms associated with tsunderes are shown in western cartoons, they're just not called tsunderes as often. the whole narrative drips with condescension at the idea of anime as this shallow world of one dimensional characters, illogical one-note tropes that only the brave american Dan Salvato is brave enough to think deeply about. i honestly assumed most anime thought deeply about their tsundere characters? at least if its good. i don't know what to make of this, but it bothers me.
the other issue with the characterisation is that, despite all attempts to show each character as being more than their Assigned Shallow Trope, it's obvious that each character has one Assigned Issue. this is a mistake i most often see in fanfiction, not published beloved games: each character has exactly one Problem, their arc revolves around their Problem, no character can have more Problem than the others and there must be no overlap in characters' assigned Problems.
monika's Problem is her fourth wall awareness in the main game, and perfectionism in the DLC side stories with no fourth wall breaks. it's even more simple for the other girls: self-harm for yuri, abuse for natsuki, depression for sayori. of course, in real life, these problems frequently coexist - abuse leads to depression, depression leads to self-harm. this makes it all the more obvious that dan was actively trying to avoid overlap, probably for the sake of keeping all the girls unique and avoiding one having "worse" problems that would necessitate more screentime, and it weakens all of his characterisation.
this is probably part of the problem with how natsuki is depicted. it would have made sense if natsuki's abuse was causing a deterioration in her mental health, causing more defensive behavior - but mental health issues are already sayori's thing, so instead natsuki has to be seemingly just fine emotionally while dan finds a weird & convoluted way to tie her tsundere-ness directly to the trope with no mental health middle man. yuri's self-harm is even more obvious - self-harm is so associated with depression that it's rare for anyone to even see it as a separate issue, but depression is already sayori's thing, so instead it's primarily used for shock value and the only explanation offered is that it might be a fetish thing (by the way: um, what?).
you can argue till the cows freeze over as to whether and to what degree the shallow characters are the point. i think it's possible to simeltaneously acknowledge something as a choice that makes sense in the story you're trying to tell and criticise it as a weak point in the writing. but i suppose in the end - you're not here for the characterisation. or at least you wouldn't be if the game hadn't gone unexpectedly viral among non-horror fans. you're here for the scares.
DDLC wasn't the first game to do the "psychological horror game that briefly pretends to be a cute, non-horror game" trick, but it was the one that bought the trope into the mainstream. the trope's becoming discredited now, but looking back, there are actually many factors that allowed DDLC to pull this off better than all its descendants. part of it is, of course, the seinfeld problem - you look back at some old revered work of art and you feel like everything it does is just lame and overdone, but the only reason those things were ever overdone is because this did it first and made it popular.
now that "cute anime girl psychological horror that hides the horror at first" is its own trope or subgenre, nobody blinks when they see the "this game is not suitable for children" warning on their innocent looking dating sim, or when they see cute anime faces in the psychological horror tag on steam. you just say "oh, one of those games", and you move on. but before this was mainstream, it was intriguing. the game didn't hide its status as a psychological horror as such, but it stayed (for lack of a better word) "in character" as an innocent dating sim enough to make you doubt yourself when you see the early signs of horror - is that just a mistagging? what could this cute game possibly need a warning for?
the apprehension and self-doubt continue in the game proper, because unlike its many descendants in the genre, DDLC spends hours in the truly innocent filler before showing the horror aspects, and then hours more in an uncanny-valley zone that shows you horror but doesnt acknowledge it as what it is, no explanations on offer as the situation before you escalates further and further. your world is falling apart and you don't know why, and yes, when you don't see it coming it is scary. heck, some scenes freaked me out even when i knew they were coming, especially the hidden scares. the cute aesthetics only make the game more unnerving and make you doubt yourself more.
maybe you just couldnt do that today, now that the trope is popular, but it would help if someone actually tried. these days it's easy to get the sense that the "innocent" part of the "horror game that pretends to be an innocent, non-horror game" trope is just a token effort, shoved in to copy DDLC or to check off the "includes a plot twist" box or to try and make the scares more shocking. the first scares in DDLC actually are more shocking, because it puts in the time and effort to actually lull you into a false sense of security. it isn't just a coat of cute paint on a scary game, it's a full experience in another genre. even to the modern player who has most certainly gotten the gist that DDLC is a horror game, it's enough to make you almost forget what you know, get immersed in this innocent world before you're shocked with the horrors underneath - and you've got to keep in mind, dan surely didn't know the game would go viral. the presumed intended experience, which i suppose is essentially impossible now, is to spend act 1 genuinely not knowing if this was horror or not, waiting for the other shoe to drop.
one thing to note on this game and its disguised horror is that the "warnings", at least originally, were hidden advertisements. the warning you see at the start of the game is not informative enough to actually, well, warn people; people who can be harmed by the themes in this game will be just as harmed despite the warning. because the point of the warning isn't to keep people safe - it's the deliberate version of like, that guy who put an 18+ warning on a cooking lecture because he wanted to make some raunchy jokes and then had a bunch of people attend purely in an attempt to find out how the fuck a cooking tutorial could be for adults only. the warning is there so that horror fans will know the game is for them, and so that non-horror fans will download the game just to find out what the hell it needs a warning for. and all the while, it's staying "in-character" - you're not breaking the facade of innocence to advertise your game as horror, you're adding a trigger warning to keep people safe, and of course you have to do that, and isn't it clearly a good thing that you care more about keeping people safe than keeping up the facade?
this is another thing that was interesting and innovative until DDLC inspired everyone else to do it. i would have probably been vaguely uncomfortable with the idea of "pretending you're Keeping People Safe by Adding A Trigger Warning but we all know the point of the warning is to advertise what your game is about" even if it hadnt been thoughtlessly copied by dozens of other games. at this point i'm just sick of the "tee-hee, obviously i dont WANT to break the facade so that the intended audience of my game can find it, i just HAVE to be honest because the warnings are a place for honesty, which is why the information in them is vague to the point of unhelpful if not outright misinformation" song and dance. the genre isn't uncharted territory anymore and you don't have to pretend you're only breaking the facade to warn people. if you want trigger warnings in your game then actually put in the trigger warnings, and if you don't want to, just use some other way to make it clear that this is one of the horror games that pretends not to be a horror game. it's usually not a secret anymore - it's basically a whole genre in the post-DDLC era
it's easy to shit on the trope in general, with how the "psychological horror disguised as non-horror" genre currently looks - most examples of it at least somewhat owe their existence to a specific VN from 2017 that is riddled with problems, and most of them are fairly shallow imitations. but i do like the trope. i like it for a lot of reasons - the way it allows you to tell a horror story without being constrained to a specific, spooky aesthetic. the way it blurs the line between horror and other genres. because, of course, real horrors aren't neatly restricted to their designated genre. they come out when you feel safe, or they spread and they infect everything.
and regardless of my personal opinions on the game itself, i do have to give some props to DDLC for bringing those ideas to the mainstream. also, the characters had potential. Spicy 3 Stars

















