Quote:
Again, you didn't even answer what is Dear Esther without character input? Nothing. Interaction is what makes it what it is and you are denying that. Like plugging your ears and saying 'I can't hear you, blah blah blah, mommy don't hurt me'. Seriously stubborn baby more than opinion. I'm done. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then why on earth did I make this one? :frown: The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, I guess. Yikes, did I just quote the Bible? |
Well if thats your last post then...blah blah blah blah blah blah....oh hell with it. :P Just kidding.
Back on topic. My hope to make people judge the game properly turned out to create a bad argument. I'm still going to buy this game. :P |
Quote:
The interaction in Dear Esther is no diffrerent than the interaction i have with a movie via my DVD player or with a book. Extrapolating on the above, the conclusion is that every movie/book i'm playing/reading is a videogame!?! It certainly fits your description: the story in a book progresses linearily when i turn the page(user input). Be right back, i'm going to play Stanislaw Lem's The Cyberiad :P I get what you're saying. The simple press of a button by the user, qualifies as an interaction. But interactivity in the context of games should be active (via gameplay as i said), not passive (press a button to continue story is in no way different than turn page to continue story). Quote:
|
I think there is a line of abstraction one would have to cross in order to lump linear point-and-click gameplay into the same category as the page-turning of a book. Our difference of opinion forks right here: I do not believe they are one and the same. User input, a guided interface, and a sense of perspective is also what goes into the execution, among many other factors that contribute to the feel and immersion of game design. For example, just because the user input in a game like Canabalt is limited to a single button on a linear map, I do not believe it is identical to reading my Kindle.
I'm not here to discuss the quality of Dear Esther. It probably is made up of very passive gameplay, and I'd likely not enjoy the original mod. I don't know if the remake is fun or not, but that hasn't been the focal point of my argument. My interest towards the remake extends beyond the vocabulary of "fun." It looks like a fascinating experiment that I believe should be applauded more often than not, especially within the traditionalist, stifled realms of the adventure genre. And, anyway, all this theory aside, I am of the opinion that it does indeed look like simple, moody fun to be able to explore that gloomy, gorgeous island. |
Oh cool, a Dear Esther thread. I've been thinking about downloading the mod or maybe waiting for the paid release. It looks interesting. Maybe I'll find some good insight about it here.
*reads thread and has soul crushed* |
@Peter254: To argument on your example, 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. Without it, you could not play and experience the game.
However, since user input in Dear Esther isn't tied to any gameplay system, someone playing to game will have the exact same experience as someone watching a video of the playthrough on youtube. Canabalt can unfold in different ways depending on player input; Dear Esther will always be the same thing: move with the arrow to an area that triggers an audio file. @louiedog: I would encourage you to download the mod since it is free. If you like it, you can then buy the game and if you don't like it at least you don't lose money. As you see we have a debate on its interactivity, but don't let that discourage you of trying it. It can be a great experience depending on your expectations/tastes. I personally wouldn't pay money for it, but there are people who would :) |
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. It may not be as dynamic as Canabalt, or maybe even as fun, but enough basic variables are present to differentiate it from the page-turning of a book.
What the devs are trying to do is provide an "open-ended" mood piece on how to interpret the story and the surrounding gameworld. The order in which the player visits locations or tiggers events, as well as what they interpret from the story, is up to the player. "Art" in recent game design usually employs player interpretation as an untapped variable on the gameworld, for better or worse. I can't say if this is funner than Canabalt, or if it's a step back in game design...but it is my belief that design choices like these still qualify as gameplay. True, the variables which determine the game are obtuse and maybe too abstract to be "fun" to some people (because of a perceived lack of reward), but the variables are indeed there. Rules, goals, and rewards are still present in this environment. There is a clear difference between Dear Esther in this game form, and Dear Esther in, say, short story form. This is just to clarify on my own understanding of what a game is. If you disagree, then this is simply where our paths diverge into different modes of thought. Edit: I'd also like to mention the upcoming indie game Home, by Benjamin Rivers. Not just for promotion (I think it looks interesting :)), but also because it is nearly identical in execution to Dear Esther. Or at least similar enough to merit a philosophical double take. |
Quote:
@louiedog: As quoted by the developer in reply to a 'should i play original or remake'. chineseroom Feb 14 2011, 11:32pm replied: I'd wait if you can - although the game has evolved, the central spine of the story is the same (of course), and the overall asset quality will be much higher.... Dan Since this is a story centric game, wait for the remake as graphics matter the most when it comes to immersion and experience of a story. The original was beautiful but the graphics held the experience back. @Peter: Over on moddb someone asked why the hell is the game not a movie then. Someone said, well wouldn't that defeat the purpose of immersion? Having the control over a character is more immersive than staring at a screen. The experiences are two completely different things and people just don't realize that the INTERACTION is what makes it a game and different from a non-interactive movie. EDIT: Aw damn, I thought Home was released and that I can play it. :( |
I loved Snow by Benjamin Rivers, so I'll definitely be looking forward to Home.
Also, here's a brand new interview with the makers of Dear Esther that provides answers to a few questions: http://indiegames.com/2012/01/interv...ck_rob_br.html Like I said I wasn't particularly fond of the Dear Esther mod and it disappointed me after all the hype around it (and NOT just because of the lack of meaningful player agency). But I'm far from discouraging people from trying things like that. I'm actually really curious how a larger audience will react to the new version of DE. |
Personally, I don't care how interactive something is. I care how good something is.
If Dear Esther works well with barely any interactivity, then why complain? For some time I loathed cutscenes. I thought that great games might contain cutscenes, but that they would be better off without them. Then I played Shadow of Memories. Then Chrono Trigger. And I had to realize that multiple, to me somewhat mysterious factors, determine when a cutscene works just well or when it doesn't. It's not a simple answer. |
I'm just going to have one small say in the matter of whether this is a game or not...
This is the game "Snake", of which there are endless variations: http://my-symbian.com/s60v3/grafika/snake.png Most people will agree that this is a game. You tell the snake which of the four ways to go, but it's always moving in one direction, and you try to pick up small dots that make the snake longer. Now let's compare that to Dear Esther... You play as a man on an island. You tell the man which way to go, and you can make him stop and take in the scenery on the way if you so wish, while you try to trigger voiceovers that adds to your understanding of the story. Take the Snake game, switch dots(or apples, eggs, whatever) with voiceovers, switch the increasing snake body with increasing understanding of the story and game world, add more control, and better graphics and audio, and you've got yourself Dear Esther. Break it down, and you've essentially got the same game in both. Move, trigger, repeat until end. In other words, Dear Esther is as much of a game as Snake is. It doesn't have a great amount of interaction, it's fairly simple in its gameplay, but even so, it is a game. Cheers! :) |
Quote:
Shuyin already explained the difference between Dear Esther and games like Snake using the example of Canabalt a few posts above: http://adventuregamers.com/forums/sh...2&postcount=47 |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
@Guyra: read my Canabalt argumentation above, because it's the same with snake. Here: Quote:
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. |
I'm with Shuyin and Ascovel.
To elaborate: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, Dear Esther is beautiful with incredible environments. Experience with other games tells us that we should be able to interact with it, be it collecting inventory items, shooting things, platforming, mining and building etc. However you can do none of this. I know that this game is experimental (and I'm looking forward to getting the full version) but I can fully understand why people are disappointed with the lack of interactivity. It is beautiful to look at and listen to but it feels like it should give so much more than this. It's beauty means that (for many people) expectations will be raised to do much more than just move around and therefore (even if unjustly) they will be disappointed. |
Quote:
Sure, it may not be a "game", but its not the same as watching a movie either. |
You see, it is my belief that the simple act of being able to navigate a simulated environment in an implied perspective, with the goal (however random) of triggering hotspots, is what qualifies Dear Esther as being a game; and if you don't navigate/explore, nothing will be triggered and there will be no reward. This is what all games are in embryo. The crux of your argument depends on, I think, the oversimplification of exploring the island: to you it is no different than the page-turning of a book. But you are dismissing the simulated environment, the implied perspective, and the implied goal. The gameplay mechanic is that these three fundamental variables in game design allow the player to interact with the gameworld, in which there are clear rules and goals.
Perhaps our differences lie in this belief: to me, gameplay mechanics can exist in an intellectual context (player interpretation), while to others it must be reducible to skill and reflex. This, my friends, is the very essence of the question 'can games be art?' 'Player interpretation' is, to me, an untapped variable in recent game design, and randomness is still indeed a mechanic because of how it rewards player interpretation. The analogy with Snake is accurate because to me the similarities exist in an emotional context. Naysayers feel it must exist in a more literal goal-reward context to be valid, which is exactly what the devs are trying to challenge. Again, I think it's that level of abstraction that we disagree on. |
Quote:
And i can liken to it watching a movie, because even though i get to choose where i go next in the virtual world of Dear Esther, ultimately it will be the same experience as if watching a movie. Which is different than playing a game (even a simple one like snake or canabalt) that has actual gameplay mechanics and its interactivity is more invloving than walking to the next place that triggers an audio file. If there was anything for me to do in this world (a quest, an interaction with the scenery that would result in a change in the game's world and rules) except walking to hear the next narration, i'd consider it a game. As it is, it's not a game. I wouldn't even call it interactive fiction, because you don't make any decisions and you don't interact with the story in any way. You just hear it. Quote:
Quote:
How can i explain that those 3 variables (walking through a simulated env, in an implied persepctive, with a basic goal) can be found in other software that you wouldn't call 'game'. Those 3 variables alone do not make a gameplay mechanic... But i guess you think otherwise so, we should just leave it at that...we disagree on what makes a game being a game. |
I guess I really should play Dear Esther before taking part in this discussion, but my understanding is that the player controls the pace of his experience?
I mean, a movie is pretty much an unstoppable force that rushes by. You can't take it at your own pace, the movie dictates the pace. With books, on the contrary, you can take them in as slow or fast as you want. The same with comics, of course. I guess that might set Dear Esther apart from a movie, that you can decide when to take the next step, when you heard and saw enough from a certain place in the environment, and when you want to progress. It basically uses an audio-visual medium to create the pace of a book, something which movies aren't able to offer. But really, I should play it... Quote:
Quote:
|
In the mod, you walk in the environment and sometimes you trigger audio narration (some kind of poems, with not much of a coherence overall).
You're not really in control of anything except the walking part. I guess deciding what environment you want to stare at and for how long, would indeed distance it from a movie, yeah. Other than that it's pretty much a very linear experience that 'plays' without you doing much. I'd recommend playing the mod before you pay money for it, but hey... it's your money. Quote:
And i'm quite sure that's not what inspired Will Wright to make The Sims; he has quite a background of making simulations and after his Sim series he wanted to make a more complex simulation hence The Sims and Spore. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can home design software be classified as a video game? Probably not. But I remember that the one I played with had a 3D render mode where you could walk around in the building you created. It had something of a game. And if it wasn't intended as such, I really don't care. Yeah, it's not like the best game, or much of a game, but you can play around with it, create environments and walk around in the environments. You could even say it had resource management because there was a limit on how many walls you could build! Okay, I'm being facetious, but I think the boundaries aren't, imo, as strict as you think they are. Just like with the music of John Cage. And btw, Plan 9 from Outer Space is one of the unintentionally funniest movies ever. Doesn't change a thing that it wasn't meant to be. It still works this way, maybe only this way. Quote:
With Dear Esther you can take it at your own pace without pausing the experience, I guess. I should play it. But then, I should also learn. I better shut up now. ;) |
I am aware that using 3D Studio Max is not a valid comparison to playing a game in the same manner that watching security footage of a gas station is not comparable to watching Citizen Kane. That's an unfair comparison that deliberately disregards the intent and purpose of similar products (3DSM vs a game; security footage vs Citizen Kane). I am aware of this. Please don't insult my intelligence. I didn't bother going into specifics because I assume people in this forum are intelligent enough to infer the breadth of my reasoning.
It is possible to skew any argument by slamming it with broad convictions that take the original point out of context. (sigh) I am beginning to suspect that any attempt to explain my beliefs will be met with more blind criticism than consideration. But I am not trying to win over any converts. I just feel like my points are deliberately being taken out of context by overly broad rebuttals. You see, I am willing to disagree with people; that's okay, as it is an expected outcome in any stimulating discussion. I am not out to prove anybody wrong, only to disagree. But it is coming to my attention that others aren't merely satisfied with disagreeing with me, but they also have to prove me wrong in every way, as if we were discussing religion. This is when I leave the room, because it has gone from a stimulating discussion to a heated argument. And a heated argument is something you just don't do on the internet. It is a much tougher feat to try to define what something is, than it is to point the finger and denounce what it isn't. So maybe I'm on a fool's errand. (sigh) Life is too short to argue theory. I'm going to go make a game. Or something like that. |
Okay had a huge discussion with my professor. Like I stated before, we aren't fighting about interactivity. Its whether or not Dear Esther is a game or not.
Dear Esther, unlike what some people people say, is completely interactive. A book is interactive, but a book is not an interactive digital medium. Therefore, this product is interactive, no denying it. Now if its a game or not. To me, Dear Esther is an interactive story, setup like an artistic interactive form. It may not be a game, but hell, no one knows how the remake will play. For this instance the original definitely isn't considered a game. Dear Esther (the original) isn't a game but it is INTERACTIVE. |
If it isn't a game, what is it?
"Interactive story" isn't a term of much help, because that could also refer to choose-your-own-adventure books, and to video games with more gameplay than Dear Esther has. Adventure games, at least most of them, are also interactive stories, no? |
Quote:
Whats a dvd menu? Its an interactive medium but not a game. Interactive stories is the best term as long as 'game' isn't used in conjunction with it. Whats an interactive art piece in a gallery? Is it a game? No. Its an interactive painting. EDIT: Actually it can be considered an Interactive Piece of Art since a lot of it can be interpreted in many ways, without the confines of a game. |
WARNING! WARNING! MUCH INCOHERENT RAMBLING FOLLOWS!
Quote:
I know that some years back a few visual novels were released that could be played with the DVD player. Sometimes DVDs come with mini-games, like a variation on memory. Games usually have an equivalent to a dvd menu, a game menu. I'd compare it to paratext in literature. It's not part of the experience, the text, but it's part of the work. But no, pure paratext is no literature, just as much as a game menu is not enough to make a game. We have words to distinct between text and literature. We don't have the same thing for video games. Would you call a virtual long corridor that has walls decorated with family pictures a game? It'd be the equivalent to a family photo album or to a letter from a relative. We wouldn't call the latter literature. Or as Peter254 pointed out, security camera footage doesn't make a movie (though movies can consist of it). But Dear Esther, as a book, I'd call literature. So why wouldn't I call Dear Esther, a game, a game? Maybe artistic intention comes into play... I don't know if you agree with Shuyin, but he said that home design software could never be thought to be something like a game because it was never intended to be a game. But if that's true, wouldn't the opposite be equally true as well? That if something was thought to be a game, then it is a game? Man, I'm rambling on today. I haven't much of a point, just some loosely connected thoughts. Maybe you can get something out of it... Quote:
Quote:
BTW, what's an interactive painting? |
Quote:
I wish I hadn't created this thread now, given the amount of judgemental comments from people who haven't even played the game yet. |
I did the amazing thing now and actually played Dear Esther! Yeah! I know!
And I thought it was - good. Yes yes, it was quite rough around the edges. When a game tells me to go in a certain direciton, then I'll try all other ones before I'll take it. So, I swam out into the ocean - the game killed me. I wandered around - and got stuck in the environment. I climbed up a mountain - and managed to see the level border. For such a game light on gameplay, and without any danger, it's astounding how easy you can screw up. It's especially annoying since it ruins the moment. This game is all about exploring and soaking in the atmosphere, and the replay value is kinda low, so being put back at the start of a level is rather discouraging. Why should your protagonist be mortal, anyway? Why weren't artificial borders an option? But anyway, when it works, it works well. The sound collages and the environments produce a chilling atmosphere. The narration is interesting at times. I barely listened to it, but it was nice to hear how it related to the environment you were exploring. I wished the letter were more, I guess, more direct, more emotional, I wish I could tell what kind of character it was who wrote it. It all felt too distant, artificial, too artsy I guess. There's a lot of potential that's not quite fulfilled here. Like I said, it feels clunky at times. I carried a shovel around with me for long stretches of the way, so I guess that's a hint that I didn't take it seriously all the time. I wish the game encouraged more exploration and that it allowed to explore the island more freely. Or at least that all the glitches that happened to me don't happen, if it has to be linear. The walking is too slow. It's especially annoying if you're trudging around in an uninteresting place without any of the narration or sound collages on the soundtrack. To be honest, there are some interesting sights to behold, but at times there's nothing of interest. But like I said, when it works, it works. The caves were wonderful, truly creepy and moody. There are mysterious occurrences and some intriguing questions left open. It's all pretty vague, but that adds to the appeal. It's a place that you explore, nothing more, but I think that's enough. Well, let's see how the commercial release will hold up. I thought this was pretty good so far, but it could be much better. Oh, and this is definitely a game and could be nothing else. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
What you're saying is that 'reading a restaurant menu' is just like reading a 'scifi steampunk novel'. They are two completely different things. A game is formed up with win/lose and goals/rules. Dear Ether has no win/lose conditions, nor does it have any goals/rules that break out of the realm of Interactive Art. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
If it's not "the reviewers' kind of game", then we're not going to see a very objective opinion about it, now, won't we? ;) Especially if it's experimental even within the visual novel subgenre... Yes, I'm using "visual novel" to describe it by lack of another "better" name... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
BTW, it's possible to lose Dear Esther. Jump from a cliff. Swim out into the ocean. Yeah, these are rather leftovers from conventional games, but it's not like they aren't there. And your goal is to get to the end. There is a end. You know you reached it when a cutscene plays. And you know how to reach it by following the path. Quote:
Quote:
Lots of edits on this one! From feeling grumpy :shifty: to not so grumpy anymore! :) |
Quote:
That argument also states like it has been said many times before, just a book and turning the pages. Quote:
Quote:
|
Only four days to go, then the critics of this game can actually PLAY it and make some accurate judgements .......
|
The trailer has me completely intrigued. If I get a good dose of beautiful scenery, prose, and music, that's worth my money. Supporting indie devs is a necessity anymore if we want to continue to see unique projects.
|
well the new upgraded version will be available shortly for everyone critic :D
|
|
Kotaku's ('not a game') review
http://kotaku.com/5884520/dear-esther-the-kotaku-review |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Design & Logo Copyright ©1998 - 2017, Adventure Gamers®.
All posts by users and Adventure Gamers staff members are property of their original author and don't necessarily represent the opinion or editorial stance of Adventure Gamers.