Dear Esther (Is it a game? I dunno!)

[STM]

MOD EDIT: This thread was split off from here.

Dear Esther, not because it's like Oddworld, but because it's gorgeous, atmospheric and full of exploration.

Also Machinarium, beeeeautiful.

[MeechMunchie]

Moving along a linear path is not exploration.

[Phylum]

It got tagged as "Not a Game" and "Walking Simulator", now that Steam lets you do that.

[V_O_T]

It got tagged as "Not a Game" and "Walking Simulator", now that Steam lets you do that.

Games like that are only good for experiencing it once. It's exactly like watching a small film on YouTube except you have I pay for it on steam and you get to press the W key too.

While I appreciate the art of those kinda of games, they simply do not feel like a complete video game. 2 mechanics and movement in a 3D space seems a bit dull to me to justify a price of $5 or $10 etc.


Machination is great however.


But each to their own.

[STM]

Moving along a linear path is not exploration.

Err...

[Jordan]

How?

I mean it comes up literally every time we have one of these conversations.

Without fail!

I think a combination of it's dark feel, similar types of environments, it's pre-rendered art style and 2D platforming remind me a lot of the Oddworld games.

Moving along a linear path is not exploration.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you here. I'm all for imaginative, ground-breaking video games but my god Dear Esther was the most boring game I've ever played. If you can even call it that. Don't get me wrong, it has beautiful graphics and scenery, but it doesn't have enough gameplay for me to want to carry on.

[Varrok]

I was kind of hyped for Dear Esther, but as I finally got it, I just couldn't get into it, and never got past the first 30 minutes. Although, I loved The Stanley Parable, which gameplay-wise is a similar game. It just surprises you every minute with something entertaining

[MeechMunchie]

I think Stanley Parable is an excellent demonstration of the design ideals Dear Esther lacked. We naturally want to forge our own paths and explore, and in TSP that's literally all you do. Dear Esther, on the other hand, waves its intriguing scenery and pretensions of depth in your face, but never actually gives you any freedom. Not every game needs total freedom of movement to be enjoyable, but Dear Esther absolutely did - the devs were just too insecure to give it to you.

I don't hate Dear Esther. It's not awful. It needed to be made, if only to toe the line between game and movie, and prove that games where the only objective is "Press Play" miss the point of their medium entirely.

[STM]

I enjoyed it, thought it was beautiful, I'll play it again in another week to see if the outcome and the journey is the same. I'll agree I was surprised at its linearity but there are certain linear paths to choose from whilst you pick up on the 'story' as it unravels before you. Everyone's Gone to the Rapture I think could be The Chinese Room's piece de resistance though, open world Dear Esther? Oh my yes please.

[Nate]

People who complain about Dear Esther's linearity is like complaining that you can't see Gordon Freeman's face while playing Half Life. That's just not what the game is. It's a visual novel in 3d, not an exploration or FPS game.

[Manco]

Right, but I think MM’s point is something along the lines of “visual novels don’t give you free movement for a reason”.

I enjoyed Dear Esther but I do think it didn’t really take advantage of the interactivity of its medium in the right way.

[MeechMunchie]

People complain about Dear Esther's linearity [but] that's just not what the game is.

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.

It's not the linearity I take issue with, it's the lack of interactivity. As many have remarked, making a game with no interaction is like making a film with no images - it might sound great, but there's no reason to be using that medium.

Dear Esther gives you a free camera when there's never any reason to turn around. It gives you freedom of movement, when there's never anywhere to go but forwards. Do you see? It's relying on the conventions of games that allowed you to actually do stuff in order to give the player a role, but never gives the player any of the responsibilities that make that role fulfilling. It's an on-rails shooter without the rails.

A visual novel is designed from the word "Go" around a limited number of perfectly-realised views and passages. It doesn't have the mechanics of an open-world game, but unlike Dear Esther, it doesn't try and ape the aesthetics of one either.

And just for the record, Dear Esther as a VN would just be a PowerPoint slideshow. The only thing that makes the average VN a "game" is the numerous choices and interaction with characters; of which DE had neither.

[Manco]

As many have remarked, making a game with no interaction is like making a film with no images - it might sound great, but there's no reason to be using that medium.

On the other hand, just because you’re using a particular medium, doesn’t mean you’re obligated to utilize every aspect of it.

There are plenty of games which include a storyline completely incidental to the gameplay itself – one cannot alter the course of events through their interaction. Those stories could probably be told just as effectively in a movie, but the games are still just fine to play.

Dear Esther doesn’t make any meaningful use of interactivity. Does that make it a bad experience? No.

[MeechMunchie]

I never said it was a bad experience. I've stated repeatedly (and implied in the bit that you just quoted) that it's a perfectly adequate experience. But that doesn't make it a good game, any more than Two Souls, or any other movie-with-button-prompts you care to mention.

There are plenty of ways to make your game interactive without giving any actual agency over the outcome of events. Gone Home gives you freedom over what you choose to investigate, and the order in which you explore the rooms. It leaves some things hidden, so they require a degree of spatial awareness to find. Even something as linear as Half-Life breaks up the path with open areas, puzzles and combat that the player has to invest a little effort to navigate.

More to the point, games where the interactivity is divorced from the story usually aren't narratively focused in the first place; their quality lies in their other mechanics, and the player is encouraged to explore those rather than the story. Dear Esther, on the other hand, is nothing but a story. If someone criticises the fact that you can't interact with that, it's simply because the game doesn't have any other features to interact with. And without any interaction at all, you're simply left asking, "Why is this a game?"

Interactivity is more than the strength of games; it is games. Spacewar!, generally considered the first video game, was nothing but a few specks on a monitor. But you had a knob, and you moved the speck around. It wasn't a movie, and it wasn't a book. You were the player, and you could do something. You had an objective. "Games are interactive" is not a tradition, it's a definition. Having a specific story you want to tell is not an excuse for turning the player into nothing but a pair of legs and a W button, yet it's that solitary key that makes Dear Esther a game at all.

Unless you're implying that Dear Esther's gameplay would stand on its own without the writing and art... which would be a pretty bizarre statement to make.

[OANST]

I don't really care what you call it. Is it good?

[Varrok]

You wouldn't like Dear Esther.

[Manco]

I don't really care what you call it. Is it good?

It’s super indie.

[Wings of Fire]

I hate how Indie is now an in game descriptor and not an out of game fact.

[Manco]

Quit bein’ so indie, WoF. You’re killin’ the groove.

[MeechMunchie]

It's unusual, packed with artistic aspirations and not very enjoyable to experience, so I guess it's like most of OANST's music library.

But yeah, just watch it on YouTube. It's the same experience, and you can eat a sandwich at the same time. Or maybe the point of Dear Esther is you identify with the protaganist's despair and desperation via the medium of not being able to eat a sandwich.

[STM]

I enjoyed it.

It's weird that you seem to be championing this undertone that 'good' and 'bad' aren't subjective, MM. It surprises me to come from you.

[Jordan]

People who complain about Dear Esther's linearity is like complaining that you can't see Gordon Freeman's face while playing Half Life. That's just not what the game is. It's a visual novel in 3d, not an exploration or FPS game.

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!

[MeechMunchie]

It's weird that you seem to be championing this undertone that 'good' and 'bad' aren't subjective, MM. It surprises me to come from you.

I obviously have opinions on the right and wrong way to use a medium, but DE failed to use its medium at all. I think that's pretty objective.

Most people would struggle to call blank canvas a good painting, even if it was very well-made canvas.

[Nate]

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?

[MeechMunchie]

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.

Actually, I'm fine with visual novels being games as long as they're clearly games. Some give enough choice and interaction to be consumed as a "player", while lots of them are just movies* with a first-person viewpoint.

I'm no stranger to genre-bending, and I'd say a lot of the "new wave" of adventure games like The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us draw clear inspiration from VNs.

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.

Careful there. As with any new trend in video games, the diehard CoD fans have been quick to condemn this new threat to their brainless explosion porn, the current jibe of choice being "not even a game"; something I have been careful to avoid.

Dear Esther absolutely is a game, just the absolute skeleton of one. I wouldn't call a mechanically basic VN a game, because you're just clicking to advance text. Dear Esther scrapes through because you have to turn around... occasionally. It's demanding a modicum of spatial awareness to stay on the right path. The player has a role that couldn't be fulfilled by a rock on the W key.

That's the rule of thumb, really: If a rock can complete it, it's not a game. Embarrasingly, Beyond: Two Souls would probably fail this test, since I'm fairly sure it actually advances scenes itself if no-one pushes a button.

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.

Actually, Flurglebosters are already (if jokingly) known as "Narrative walking simulators", a catergory Dear Esther comfortably shares with Gone Home, Dream, Proteus, The Stanley Parable, Slender (at a stretch**) and a bunch of art games from the late '00s (which probably inspired the original HL2-mod version of Dear Esther - even if you consider it the first of its kind, the genre hasn't been "new" since 2008).

It's up to you how finely you like to divide your catergories; whether Call of Duty: Shoot Men is a different genre to Half-Life 2: Episode Guns because one has dogs and the other has physics puzzles. But I think this genre is tight enough, and I'm comfortable putting Dear Esther next to Proteus and saying "these games both tried to do a similar thing, and Proteus did it better."

Dear Esther wants to be a tightly linear, narratively-based, environmentally aware minimalist artwork-slash-game. That's fine. I just wish it had taken a few more cues from its sisters in the genre, because they were a lot more satisfying to play.

As for Rauschenberg, you could very much say that Dear Esther is his gaming equivalent. I said before: This game needed to be made. These boundaries and the flexibilities thereof are important to the future of the medium, and a game that gets people talking about them has a right to exist on that alone.

*Oddly, the closest comparison I can make is actually a stage play. You have small sets, regularly changed, with a number of characters exchanging lines in the middle.

**yyyeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhh

[Phylum]

The musical equivalent would be Cage's 4'33", 4 minutes and 33 seconds of nothing. Cage wrote it to challenge people's ideas about what music and sound were. The white painting would have been for the same purpose in art. They both push minimalism to the edge to make people think. Literally, neither of them are very interesting, but they serve as a fantastic point of discussion and an.

I haven't actually played Dear Esther, but it sounds like MM has the right idea.

[Nate]

MeechMunchie: I don't really disagree with anything you said in your last post. I just think it's pointless to criticise Dear Esther for not being something that the developers didn't want it to be. At some point in the development they made a conscience choice to make it a story game on rails (so to speak) because that's what they thought would produce the experience they wanted people to have. You can discuss its effectiveness in acheiving that goal, if you like, but simply saying it's a good/bad game because of what it is, doesn't make much sense.

To put it another way, you can discuss Rauschenberg's painting in the context of the philosophy behind it, the message he was trying to express, or the effect it had on the art community, but you can't compare it to (say) Rothko's No. 14 because they're fundamentally different.

The musical equivalent would be Cage's 4'33", 4 minutes and 33 seconds of nothing.

Cage and Rauschenberg were actually friends and shared their inspirations.




I love how Google enables me to use my sparse knowledge of Art to fill in the blanks and sound like a genuine pretentious tosser. :p

[Job McYossie]

So I just played through the game, because a friend gave it to me. Sorry, let me rephrase, I just walked through the thing. First off, I had been wanting to play this for a long time, thinking: "Finally! The wonder of the interactive medium being used for pure story!" so a major part as to why I hate this thing is because expectations.

I tried to enjoy it, I really did. There is just so much wrong with it, as a narrative, as a game, as movie, as anything. The story is almost not there at all. There is no real plot, and it's not even clear who you play as at first. Maybe I'm missing some underlying point or super in depth meaning, but regardless, it seems like it's too convoluted to be enjoyed. Next off, don't even try to enjoy it as a game. All of the interactivity is limited, almost to the point where you might as well not have any control. You don't even get to choose when you turn on your flash-light, it just automaticly turns on in houses. I was trying to read scrawlings on a cave wall, but it was too dark. You don't have a jump button, which to be fair, could have caused problems, and wasn't really needed for the structure of the game. Having no jump button in The Stanly Parable was fine, though I did constantly try to jump out of impluse. One of the major problems I had, was the walking speed. No, sorry, that's insulting walking. The two broken leg limping speed was just intolerable. I tried to get used to it for a while, but it was just way too slow. I get that they need game time, but making the player move at .7 miles per hour is not the way to do it. It feels wrong, as if you can feel yourself pulling a car everywhere you go. After getting too annoyed with the speed, I actually increased the walking speed, because I couldn't handle taking 10 minutes so I can go look at some beached boats. I still stopped at all the sight seeing places and took my time attempting to enjoy the scenery, but then when I moved on to the next area, back to de_playermovement 150. Which brings me to my next gripe. People constantly seem to say "how could you increase the speed? The speed is just the right amount to enjoy the atmosphere and enviroment!" This is a lie. Every scene outside consists most of 3 colours, 2 shades of green and grey. While at first, yeah I took a while to soak it in, and it looked very nice and I enjoyed it. But everywhere on the island seems to be this way, so I don't see what more environment I'm supposed to take in. Yes, in caves there is a lot more different things to look at, and admittedly they are better designed, but they usually also look the same. Grey walls, blue drawings. After the first cave room, it just seems to repeat.

Overall, I am pretty disappointed, and am glad I didn't actually have to end up buying it. It just seemed to promise so much, and then it didn't deliver.

Normally I re-read my posts before posting them. This is too long for me to even want to bother with that though.

[MeechMunchie]

I just think it's pointless to criticise Dear Esther for not being something that the developers didn't want it to be.

Eh. Developers are people, fallible people, and I think there a lot of things that would have made Dear Esther better than what the devs wanted it to be.

Though if we are going to adress execution, I'll refer back to my point that modelling your on-rails game around the traditionally exploratory conventions of lonely islands, solitude and freedom of movement is an absolutely perfect way to give people the most inaccurate first impression of your game possible.

Also, since I've managed to keep this out of the discussion long enough, did you know The Chinese Room are self-absorbed libellous arseholes? It's true!

[OANST]

Speaking of my music library as it pertains to this, I've always thought that intent was more important than execution. I'm done now.