User control can be attributed to literature (turning pages of a book) and cinematography (triggering the next chapter of a dvd movie by pressing a remote control button) too.

Pressing the arrow keys to trigger audio narrative is indeed basic interaction. But so is turning the pages of a book. If you think that's what makes a game, it's your problem and i'm done talking to you.

Thank you for being an asshole. I've talked nicely to you and in exchange you insulted me. Since this forum does not appear to have an ignore person feature, i'm just going to report your post.

Still ignoring the fact that its not as simple as a key to play next line/page? Ignoring the fact that exploration and as I've already posted an article that interviews the dev, claiming that exploration is key to progressing the story and each experience is different?

I never knew you had to search through a book just to find whats the next part of the story. No its not a 'choose your own adventure'....but its still idiotic to compare it to flipping pages when it isn't.

I'm with Shuyin on this.

If the entire game consists of you simply having your character walk from point A to point B without there being any alternative routes for him, then it's not interactive at all, and that page-turning example is spot-on in that case.

This is a prime example of how to trash a game BEFORE YOU'VE EVEN PLAYED IT!

What's wrong with some people?

Wait to play the game first.

Sheesh.

Debating whether or not a game is interactive does not equal trashing said game.

Relax, keep calm and put the kettle on... ;)

I did play the mod. And according to the developers the game will be exactly the same, but with updated visuals and a few tweaks. I doubt they'll introduce some gameplay elements so i think it's fair to say i did play it.

And i'm not trashing it :/
I actually liked it as an experience. It's just not something i would pay money for, no matter how much they upgrade the visuals. If one of my friends would ever gift it to me on Steam, i'll probably try it. If not, i really don't think the experience will be so different from the mod.
Thank you!

Good job ignoring the interview once again. Its not a straight remake.

I get an infraction because of this guy? You are trashing it because you are ignoring everything i'm saying.


A lot of games don't offer alternative routes. They aren't interactive? Seriously, keep them coming guys, try to dig a hole and miss the point of what interactive is. I guess people will say interactive movies aren't interactive?

Looks cool (reminds me a bit of 'Trauma,' promotionally), and I'm in full support of this kind of project - I loved 'the Path,' for instance - as long as it's not made out to be a full-fledged Game (capital 'G' intentional). 'Dear Esther' seems to be aware of its own identity, at least. :)

Looking forward to 'experiencing' it. :D

Do a lot of games offer nothing more than simply walking from point A to point B with nothing else to do BUT walk from point A to point B?
Yes, a lot of games don't offer alternative routes. But they do offer something more than simply having a character walk.

Were the final two hours of Dreamfall interactive? No. You walked from point A to point B and got a cutscene. After that you walked from point B to point C and got another cutscene. Etcetera.
You could only walk down a single narrow path and you couldn't divert. That's not interaction. That's putting a tedious task in between short cutscenes so you'd have more than one long cutscene.

If that's the case, why bother with it at all? Just make it non-interactive. That can work just as well. It did for "Do You Remember My Lullaby?"...

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

Its an interactive story. Let it be. The point was its 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? A lot people at work over here are wondering why you guys are having such a hard time understanding.

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.

Though I understand what you are saying. Dear Esther is like Dragon's Lair, without any deaths and all you are doing is pressing forward. Though that isn't the case. You are a player in a world. You can explore it and progress the narrative. Its like an interactive museum, but moreso story.

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

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

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

1. Player has full control and can move around the environment.
2. Narrative does not progress unless the player explores and stumbles upon the next segment of the narrative.
3. Every time the player plays, the story changes slightly.
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.

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.

I am of the belief that all games, by their very nature, are interactive. Even the imitation of interactivity falls under the category of interactive. This is because games rely on the player to be an avatar. By this definition, all gameworlds, however linear they may be, are interactive, because as an avatar the player must interact with the game in order for the game to progress. Even if this interaction revolves around walking and clicking on mandatory hotspots in a linear order, this is still interaction. It is the essence that separates gaming from film and literature. The player's choices and actions, however forced, is the medium by which the game progresses; this is interaction.

This is also basic game theory. The more appropriate way to word this discussion is open-endedness versus linearity. Is Dear Esther very linear and not open-ended? Probably. Is it interactive? Absolutely.

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.

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

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.

So its disappointing that something is different from the norm?

Not necessarily. It's disappointing when something deviates from the norm in a way that you feel makes it worse. But it could just as well deviate in a positive way.

Anyway, I don't think Dear Esther actually deviates from some established norm in the area of interactivity. There's plenty of software with very limited options given to the user.

I'd say not having as much interactivity as you'd like is similar to not having as much money as you'd hope. Nothing particularly "out of norm" about either case - simply a situation of having little amounts of what you like.

Let me be honest, it didn't start out with the argument that it doesn't have interaction, it started with someone being disappointed with the lack of interactivity. Then an argument began (not of my choice) by Shuyin asking why a non-interactive game is so brilliant.

We weren't arguing semantics when clearly someone argues the game is non-interactive. If it wasn't for Shuyin we wouldn't be arguing.


Why is Dear Esther brilliant? It proves that graphics do mean a lot, and is the very thing that contributes to a story. With it, developers are able to perceive a certain atmosphere and setting in which the story/poem is set in.

Dear Esther's graphic is absolutely gorgeous, with VERY natural looking level design, props and lighting.

Besides the graphics, the way the poem unravels side by side with the environment creates a unique immersive experience for the audience. From details in the environment to the excellent voice acting.

Why is Dear Esther brilliant? What makes a game brilliant? What makes an art piece brilliant?

Questioning someone's opinion on why they think something is brilliant is a sure set way of starting a flame war or trolling. And I get the infraction for stating what this guy is.

People complain about it not having much of what they want, but what are they expecting from a game that is telling you what it offers. No puzzles? It never claimed to have puzzles so you can't be disappointed. Thats another thing I find irritating. A game that is a remake of a mod which everyone knows all about and people are disappointed? Disappointment is for something that doesn't offer what people expect.

We already have a mod....what more were people going to expect? To me, I was expecting nothing more than a well deserved well polished remake of the original.

As I quote from a troll on kotaku 'Dude, the remake should of had more guns!'.

Hm, yeah, I wasn't using semantics as an attempt to cloud the discussion. I sorta wandered into this argument halfway, and the argument happened to be about what qualifies as interactive.

As for Dear Esther, I haven't played the original mod, but I will say that the trailer has piqued my interest. From what I can tell, it seems to have generated quite a lot of coverage--enough to make me think that the majority of those who have handled it have had a positive reaction. I can't know that for sure, but it does look like it'll make a dent in the community. The YouTube trailer already has 100,000+ views. Quite a lot for a non-mainstream, artsy-fartsy mod.

The point is that while Ascovel's reasoning is not unfounded, my opinion is that it isn't as damning a conviction as it sounds. I'll agree that I see limited interaction as a step back in game design, but I'm not as willing to write it off completely. There have been certain games that deliberately limited interaction, and the storytelling was all the richer for it. And as an adventure gamer, I play for the story; I'm not even into puzzles. So I'm a bit more optimistic about Dear Esther.

Trauma was a good example, but that game was hella short. I'm pretty sure this actually has a quite a bit more replayability, more presentable, and immersive.

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?

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

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...

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 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...

NOT being interactive is indeed different for a game. :D
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.

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?

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.

Basic gameplay. Has little to do with what I consider interactivity.
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.
Yet your actions don't influence this in any way? Not interactive.
Similar to reading between the lines in a book. Open to interpretation. Nothing to do with interactivity.

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.

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

Really? You need to relax, dude.

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

Hence this: I'll shut up now.