[TimovieMan]

Originally Posted by Monolith

This argument doesn't make me wrong. It just proves that you can't except anything different.

Read my post again. My argument doesn't make you wrong, no. But it doesn't make me wrong, either. We're not agreeing on a specific point, but that doesn't mean there is a definite right answer to it. It seems to me that I'm never going to be "right" according to you, where I simply think that we're just "not agreeing". Arguing is more about giving different viewpoints, not about being right. I'm not entirely convinced that's a concept you fully grasp.
And stating that my argument proves that I can't accept anything different, what BS is that? I specifically gave examples that are similar. I never said I didn't "accept" them. Heck, I love Dreamfall and Lullaby. Where am I not accepting anything different?

Its an interactive story. Let it be. The point was its interactive.

And here's the crux of our discussion. My point is exactly that it's NOT interactive.

As I pointed before, its a game mechanic that focuses on the players movement to progress the story. There is no other way of seeing it, it is what it is. How hard is it to see that?

And my entire point is, that if the player's movement is ONLY said movement and if it's entirely linear, than it's no different than simply pressing a button to get the next cutscene (in fact it's exactly that: press the button to move your character forward until you get the next cutscene). In that sense, it's no different than flipping the page of a book to continue reading, and thus not interactive...

A lot people at work over here are wondering why you guys are having such a hard time understanding.

It's not about "not understanding", you're taking this far too personal. I get what you mean, I just don't agree with your overly literal interpretation of the word "interactive". Hence the entire discussion.

I'm not trying to prove Dear Esther really is an Action Puzzle game. I'm proving that it is a simple adventure, that falls under interactive storytelling.

I joined the discussion at a moment when it was no longer even about Dear Esther, so I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything about the game either. Heck, I've barely been talking about Dear Esther, in which case we should really pull the plug on this discussion because it's only derailing the thread...

Again the point is, it is dumb to say it isn't interactive. Its a unique game that does things differently.

NOT being interactive is indeed different for a game.
I never stated that's a bad thing. I've only stated that - in my opinion (you don't really want me to include this in every sentence, do you?) but I'm sure I'm not alone in this - it's not interactive.
We're having a difference of opinion on the meaning of the word "interactive". Doesn't make me dumb for saying it isn't interactive. The only thing dumb is you calling me dumb for having a different opinion. Getting personal in an argument is a sure-fire way of losing that argument.

Calling it non-interactive is a complete insult to what it has accomplished, and more so what it will accomplish with the remake.

Where have I ever stated that being non-interactive is a bad thing? It's not. Calling it non-interactive is simply that: calling it non-interactive. Books are non-interactive. Are you suggesting no book will ever accomplish anything?

in·ter·ac·tion/ˌintərˈakSHən/ Noun: Reciprocal action or influence

Let's not make this literal. Otherwise I'll have to point out that you can interpret it in such a manner that books are going to end up as being interactive. The entire discussion here is not about what it LITERALLY means, but how you can interpret that differently, and how we apparently do just that.

1. Player has full control and can move around the environment.

Basic gameplay. Has little to do with what I consider interactivity.

2. Narrative does not progress unless the player explores and stumbles upon the next segment of the narrative.

So you're doing nothing more than walking your character around, and the game decides whether or not you can continue. Not interactive to me.

3. Every time the player plays, the story changes slightly.

Yet your actions don't influence this in any way? Not interactive.

4. Perceived awareness of environment by noticing subtle elements in the environment that add to the story. Without the players use of exploration, these bits go unnoticed.

Similar to reading between the lines in a book. Open to interpretation. Nothing to do with interactivity.

Last but not least, and if anyone replies without answering this then i'll just ignore you.

'What is Dear Esther without player control?'

I'll answer it and you can disagree. Its not a game....its just an audio book. Interaction is what makes Dear Esther...an interactive story.

It's a story. I still don't agree with it being interactive.
"Do You Remember My Lullaby?" would have been equally non-interactive if every time a character was walking you had to press a button to perform the action that you'd otherwise simply be watching.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Actually my old professor pointed out that the argument should be 'is it a game'. Generally there are no requirements or rules applied to the game besides general physics.

Then again, by goal it could be 'to progress the story', but I don't know. Thats a better discussion.

I'm wondering how they will make the game play different every time you start.

It is a game, but one that's so low on gameplay that some people (including me) can considered it non-interactive.

Glad to see someone who understands game theory. Only way I could prevent my blood from boiling is to talk to my coworkers.

Really? You need to relax, dude.

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Peter254, Monolith, what you're doing is arguing semantics. But the inclusiveness of the word "interaction" is not what bothers anyone here and most certainly isn't the crux of the discussion.

The issue is that Dear Esther is incredibly (disappointingly?) low on interactions, especially anything beyond walking. And it's the opposite situation to what most people seek in games. That's all there is to it.

^ This.
My name should've been there too, though. Arguing semantics is 95% of what I'd been doing here.
Apologies.

Hence this:

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

I joined the discussion at a moment when it was no longer even about Dear Esther, so I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything about the game either. Heck, I've barely been talking about Dear Esther, in which case we should really pull the plug on this discussion because it's only derailing the thread...

I'll shut up now.