Dear Esther
 

Hard to classify this really, but I guess it's more of an adventure game than anything (from what I've read about it).

Whatever, it looks and sounds wonderful:

http://dear-esther.com/

Released on 14th Feb.

Looks intriguing. I can't wait to give it a go.

Yeah I definitely have my eyes on this and knowing it will be on Steam it's a definite purchase for me at some point.

I played the original Half-Life 2 mod which this is (as I understand) a direct recreation with better visuals and audio.

Judging by the mod it's nothing like an adventure game and hardly a game at all. Instead think of The Path, but with a lesser amount of meaningful interaction possibilities (in fact nothing that isn't provided by the Source engine by default).

You could describe Dear Esther as the hearing of an eerie poem within a beautiful 3D location (a misty, rocky island full of caves).

Disappointing if that's the case. I suppose it's possible that they have evolved from the original into some expanded version of the game with a more interactive roll for the player..?

Good job insulting the brilliance of the original mod.

"For everyone who played the original mod, we can promise a totally new experience that will keep the soul of the original whilst pushing the game to a completely different level. For people who have never experienced Dear Esther, get ready for a game unlike anything you've ever played. In 2011, we're going to answer once and for all the question of whether games can be art."

And people on kotaku said the graphics of the game looked nothing special. I guess not enough bump map or blooms. :P

Though I have to say this game can be considered an adventure. Its no interactive movie. You can freely explore the area, triggering narrative dialogue and so on. Its an amazing experience.

Good to hear that it's expanded then. Originally it was supposed to be a direct remake.

In the mod the "dialogue/monologue" didn't establish much of a narrative or even correlate with the exploration - in fact on each playing session the readings were delivered in random order except for the opening and ending ones (or perhaps even only the opening one).

I will say the mod didn't do much for me personally, but I understand lots of people loved it and thought the atmosphere is special. I'm really curious how the expanded version will fare against an even larger audience.

Originally it was just going to be a free remake, then its production values were more than most mods and commercial products, valve thought it'd be a great idea to pick it up.

No doubt a few people are familiar with Spielberg's "Artificial Intelligence". Actor Ben Kingsley provides the voice of the "Specialist" mecha, a very soothing and gentle voice.

I mention this as the narrator on the trailer for Dear Esther sounds remarkably similar - according to the game's Info page, the actor is one Nigel Carrington (which surprised me as I was convinced it was Ben Kingsley).

Very much looking forward to this - I'm assuming that movement will be via a keyboard or joystick?

This looks pretty interesting, I'm going to check it out when it's released. :)

yeah, doesn't look like much of a game, but more of an experience. which im very open to.

although am i the only one who found the narration in the trailer to be totally pretentious, overwrought, and nonsensical to the point of trying to be mysterious?

i love these types of games that try to go out there and be original, i really do, but there's usually a fine line between artistic and pretentious. just hoping the full release of this hits the right mark.

Never played the mod, only read about it, but I will definitely keep an eye out for this one.

What exactly is so brilliant about a non-interactive 'game'?
A poem recited while you walk through a landscape is more an experience but less a game. You do know that the medium's main trait (and what separates it from cinema, literature etc) is interactivity?

The graphics actually look very nice, especially the artstyle. From a technical pov however, i would tend to agree to Kotaku...low-poly, kind of low-res textures. Where i disagree with Kotaku is that not all games need to look like Battlefield 3 or Crysis. As long as the graphics fit the game (from an artistic pov) all is well.


You seem confused. It's not an interactive movie but an adventure game because you can explore the area? Really, now... We must have very different views over interactivity and what adventure games are then, because i comepletely disagree with you. Dear Esther is definitely not a game. Just because it is sold to you as a game, doesn't mean it is one.

So its all technical? Last time I checked, its all about making everything look natural and Dear Esther does that better than even Battlefield 3. Its the best looking environment ever.

BTW, i'm talking about the game not the mod, and you are acting like the game's out. Its not. "Just because it is sold to you as a game, doesn't mean it is one." That does not even make sense since you obviously are talking about the mod not the game.

Read again. I'm agreeing with you actually. Just read it again.

Are you serious? The game wil be exactly like the mod. Here's some developer quotes from the game's FAQ page:

"Q. I haven’t played the original, should I wait for the commercial release? Will playing the original mod completely spoil it for me?
A. I think this is something you must decide for yourself. It’s a remake after all, but with a ton of additional visuals, details and information added in. Think of it as a Director’s Cut."
"Q. I want to convince friends to try Dear Esther in a few words, how can I describe it at best?
A. Dear Esther is a poetic ghost story told using game technologies. You explore a deserted island, uncovering a tale of love, loss, grief and redemption, delivered through stunning voice-over and soundtrack and set against one of the most beautiful environments yet created in a game. -How’s that sound?"

It'll still a non-game just like the mod, with a severe lack of interactivity: no puzzles, no interaction with the world...unless your definition of an adventure game is exploring/walking through a landscape while listening to poetry.

It'll be the same experience as the mod, but with updated visuals and maybe some tweaks regarding the script. But you can't really call it a game, by any standards...

But interactive storytelling is exactly where adventure games came from. Interactive doesn't mean you have to have puzzles. It could generally mean experiencing the story through interaction (exploration or the like).

Yes, you did agree with me. You through me off with the 'low textures' thing, but Dear Ether has really high quality textures, especially how well they blend with the environment. Both technical and artistic which sadly kotaku commentors don't see.

To me The Dark Eye (the one from 1996) is the best example of a great game/interactive experience with plenty of intense exploration interactions, but without any puzzles. Sometimes it could still use additional interactivity, but when it works (during the nights and in the dreams), it's truly incredibly immersive stuff.

However, continuously walking down the only possible path in Dear Esther (with the possibility of going back) is barely interactive anything. I do hope they at least make the exploration of the island less linear in the new release.

I absolutely agree. the Dark Eye is a better example of doing it right, but you still can't say Dear Esther isn't an adventure. Just not the traditional way of making a game.

I want to see someone make a Dark Eye prototype in UDK. That would be fun. It may not be completely interactive besides movement and exploration, it still is interactive. The point is, its still and adventure. Just not the traditional method.

"It's a very simple game to play. You move around and look around freely, but everything is delivered automatically to you. So as you travel, you trigger voice-overs, music, sound effects, all of which work with this beautiful, desolate and massively atmospheric environment to create this immersive story. There's also a lot of details in the environment, all of which add new depth and meaning to the narrative. So depending on where you are, and what you do, you'll come away with a completely different take on what is going on. The ambiguity of the story is really about that as well, and the fact that the voice-overs and some of the environmental details are all randomised, so no two players are likely to get exactly the same version of events."

"makes Crysis look like Minecraft."

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/de...ostPageIndex=1

Great article on why your opinion is weak and really doesn't describe why Dear Esther is innovation...haha funny if you don't see innovation in something so simple, then we are heading in the wrong direction in terms of what this guy is trying to accomplish.

I agree. However, Dear Esther is not interactive storytelling. It is just storytelling.

Interactive means you interact with the world in a way (solving puzzles in adventures games) or another (shooting things in most other games). In Dear Esther there is absolutely 0 interactivity with the world. None. Zilch. Nada. You seem to consider walking through the area (or exploring) as interactivity. I respectfully diasgree and i think you are confused about the term.

Actually exploring an area that triggers a narrative is interactivity. Game design 101. Anything that triggers something else based on user control is 'interaction'.

Else, 0 percent interactivity means the gamer is just sitting back not doing anything.

You may respectfully disagree, but you are respectfully making yourself look like an idiot. Any respectful person understands that user control == interaction. Its like saying 'whats so special with giving the player control during a cutscene like half-life 2. Its stupid and pointless'.

The developer is not taking control away from you during the story. It is a personal experience, you living through the environment, noticing various things in the environment which add to the story.

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.