:
|
No, that's just not what a game is.
You can stick Dear Esther in a gallery and praise it all you want as a virtual installation, but The Chinese Room call themselves game developers and list Dear Esther as their first game, and should be critiqued as such. And as a game, Dear Esther is the absolute bare minimum.
|
You seem (lower down in your post) to be fine with the idea of Visual Novels being games, as long as they're clearly Visual Novels. And you seem to object to Dear Esther being called a game because it's similar in style to other sorts of games, but lacking in certain mechanics. That's fine. My point in my post was that Dear Esther was it's own thing. It's a new genre. Maybe one day that genre will have it's own name and everyone will be fine with it having restricted mechanics because it's a Flurgleboster and not a FPS. But, given that it's unique, comparing it to other games is not useful.
:
|
Not sure that's the best analogy.
I play games to interact with them and complete objectives. I watch films to sit back and enjoy a story.
Something that falls in a certain place inbetween like Dear Esther (tooooo similar to a film) I find pretty jarring to play. I just don't think it's an enjoyable experience.
I'm gonna stop slating it now. It's obviously enjoyed by many, just not to my taste at all. This has become the "Dear Esther" thread!
|
That's like me saying that I like Adventure Games and don't like FPSes, so therefore FPSes don't have any right to exist {hyperbole}.
You don't like Flurglebosters? Fine. Go play something else instead.
:
|
Most people would struggle to call blank canvas a good painting, even if it was very well-made canvas.
|
Ever heard of
Robert Rauschenberg's White Painting?
