Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter254
Not to further the argument, but to clarify on my own belief: the mechanics in Dear Esther are still gameplay, and thus it qualifies as interactive.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter254
...but it is my belief that design choices like these still qualify as gameplay.
|
But, that's the thing: there are no mechanics in Dear Esther.
There is literally nothing to do, you just walk from point A to point B to hear narration. That is forced interactivity,... it's like saying that clicking the mouse button during a cutscene conversation (to advance to the next line of dialog) is a gameplay mechanic :/
So it's not that it's not as dynamic as Canablt. It's that there is no gameplay mechanic. Canabalt had a timed-jumps mechanic. Dear Esther is just a story that requires you to press the arrow key to hear the next chapter in the story...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter254
If you disagree, then this is simply where our paths diverge into different modes of thought.
|
I guess we agree to disagree, because to me Dear Esther is a non-game while to you it is a game that has gameplay mechanics.
@Guyra: read my Canabalt argumentation above, because it's the same with snake. Here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuyin
pressing a button in Canabalt is actually a gameplay mechanic: you have to time your jumps - that's the gameplay element. User input (interactivity) in Canabalt is intrinsicly tied to gameplay.
|
Snake has a set of rules that make a gameplay mechanic: to actively change direction in order to avoid dying and in order to pickup dots that help you grow. That's a gameplay mechanic.
Dear Esther's set of rules (or gameplay mechanic) is to walk from point a to point b to hear the next part of narration. If you say that's a gameplay mechanic, i could argue that page-turning while reading a book is actually a gameplay mechanic (it involves the same level of interaction as Dear Esther) and you'd be unable to contradict me without contradicting yourself.
