toxicTom: She is reducing you to your function "viewer". She couldn't care less about your dreams and ambitions. She doesn't know anything about your "dignity". Of course she is aware that behind every viewer the is a "real human person" - on an intellectual level.

toxicTom: 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.

amok: no, the function is "to view". a "viewer" is a person, ergo not objectification.

pbaggers: So glad we'll now be getting several of these a week instead of long-lost classic PC games.

GOG really is turning into Steam.

Sabin_Stargem: Knights of Xentar

toxicTom: I'd love to see that here (with the NR18 patch...), but that's really no VN but JRPG. I still have the box...

Fonzer: Does higurashi hou use unity 5 or 4?
It's an important question, also it says version 1.0 in my library for the VN game.

DCT: no, it was made in 2002 it uses NScripter game engine.

Also the 1.0 is correct. Outside of adding in newer graphics from later ports the core game code is unchanged from it's original release.

Fonzer: I don't know when i checked some info i believe it uses unity 5, at least i found the file that has the same corresponding number as here https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Higurashi_When_They_Cry_Hou_-_Ch.1_Onikakushi#cite_note-2

Crosmando: Tbh I don't really like Western-made VNs, theres just something about the art and writing that doesn't have the same feel or touch as Japanese ones. Call me a weeb if you like.

Carradice: That might be true. Also, the work has ben used in this thread in so many different and twisted ways that it is hard to understand what some people even mean.

I guess (only a guess, please enlighten me if you know better) that behind this is the campaign in Steam against VN or erotica in games, and about erotica in GOG.

Gnostic: It is just a resource problem.

When you can gain happiness for cheap in frictional characters, you will look at the cost in resource real life characters extract in exchange for some happiness and wonder, is it worth it?

Real life characters don't like their resource diminished so they like to make your access to cheap happiness as hard as possible. Eliminate the competition so you can only turn to expensive happiness.

toxicTom: 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.

kohlrak: I'm glad you carried on the torch without me.

toxicTom: I wasn't aware I was carrying some torch. I'm just annoyed by "combat terms" because they serve to end discussions without any productive insights.