Bah how boring it is to argue whether or not it's a game. It's an interactive narrative in the same way a short story is interactive; You flip the pages and you see more things, and you listen and look and spend time with it. Beyond that, if you are dumb enough to think 10 bucks is too much "because of the gameplay" you are missing the point of everything.

It's probably the best looking thing I've seen running on a PC, ever, with The Witcher 2 coming close. It's a stunning achievement and if nothing else you should play it to just to see what palette, atmosphere and thoughtful naturalism can do. It's like walking through an oil painting. The soundtrack is gorgeous, and the story itself, for what it is, is evocative enough that you might come away from the thing genuinely saddened.

I played it back when it was a mod and thought it was brilliant. I played it again now, all glorious 62 minutes of it, and it makes most other games I'd like to play today look a bit silly.

Also, "game" does NOT imply codified rules or a win condition, just as it's axiomatic that "play" doesn't infer that you are out to achieve anything.

just finished the "game" I really enjoyed it. I liked the story and the end was cool. this is not for everyone's taste

@Sunjammer: I would agree with you about play. And you do play games. But playing doesn't automatically stipulate a game. You can play with a toy without there being a game involved, you're simply playing. As soon as rules become involved though, it becomes a game. So the pure build mode of minecraft is a toy that you play with. The survival mode is a game because it has rules.

@GloomyTangent: By that reasoning Dear Esther is clearly a game, because it rules that you must piece together the fragments of the story to reach your own conclusion. I don't think anyone can argue there isn't an element of mental gymnastics involved in seeing the big picture the game is trying to paint.

If you are desperate for a fail condition, consider not being able to understand what the game is trying to tell you, bam, argument over.

@Sunjammer: By that logic, reading Faulkner is a game. Which it is not.

@mortal_sb said:

@GloomyTangent said:

It's not a game, and anyone who says that it'll change the way games are made is completely deluding themselves.

i'm not naming directors like werner herzog, terrence malick (tree of life) or Apichatpong Weerasethakul's uncle boonmee just for fun. these people make some of the highest regarded art and arthouse movies and the world. and i see in dear esther the equivalent to these directors and movies. it's bold in its ambition to even go that far and dial down the speed of a video game which nowadays only exist on the concepts of fast movement, flashy visuals and overhauled gameplay mechanisms. i agree with the fact that you don't have anything to do in dear esther other then to explore... but what's bad about that? if you've seen the trailer, you know a lot what to expect. people have to understand that things like movies, music, books or games always have to be about something "entertaining". they're art forms that exist in various degrees. how they are executed (hello jack and jill) and what kind of audience they target is up to the director or the maker of the game. i get what they wanted to do and i praise them for their ambition.

if you liked it, you should check out RUINS by cardboard computer. http://cardboardcomputer.com/games/ruins/

It is interactive entertainment...it is not a "game"...at all.

This was probably one of, if not the best thing I "played" this year. I waited to night, turned off the lights and put on some headphones. Outstanding.
 
I did have one issue though,  
 

@Sin4profit: that's like calling last year at marienbad not a movie. we need to get over these predetermined thinking structures. the term videogame comes from the 60s, 70s and we still use it today because games are still done and looked at the same way. maybe we need to get rid of the term "video game".

@mortal_sb said:

@Sin4profit: that's like calling last year at marienbad not a movie. we need to get over these predetermined thinking structures. the term videogame comes from the 60s, 70s and we still use it today because games are still done and looked at the same way. maybe we need to get rid of the term "video game".

By the amount of pretentious douchebaggery you are displaying, I'm going to guess you get punched in the face a lot.

My first though about Dear Esther is that I heard its really good, but only around 1-2 hours max, for 9.99

And the only real "gameplay" about it is holding down the walk forward button and looking for alternate story bits in a second playthrough, but that doesn't interest me. So for me, the game is a pass. If I know someone who has it, I'll definitely play it though.

@Anomareh: And I'm going to suggest therapy. More specifically: Anger Management.

I agree that's it's not a video game in a traditional sense. It's more of an interactive story-kind-of-thing. The kind of gamy parts about it is the exploration. If you just follow the straight path you're going to miss things. It's all in the small details.

I fucking loved it. It's the kind of thing where everybody is going to have their interpretation of it.

There was a thread on /v/ about this game and someone found a death warrant and bail documentation. Which is very interesting.

@Anomareh: "pretentious douchebaggery"? what the f***? i'm trying to explain how and why the medium video games could evolve and you're apparently one of the gamers who's holding it back from doing so. (also: why i'm "pretentious" for knowing shit about movies and culture? it's called showing an interest.)

Isn't this that stupid thing from Facepunch.

@mortal_sb said:

@Anomareh: "pretentious douchebaggery"? what the f***? i'm trying to explain how and why the medium video games could evolve and you're apparently one of the gamers who's holding it back from doing so. (also: why i'm "pretentious" for knowing shit about movies and culture? it's called showing an interest.)

You're being a pretentious douchebag because you keep name dropping a bunch of art house directors like people don't know who they are and are acting like the types of movies they make are the only types of real movies.

If you want an example of how to not act like a pretentious douchebag, read @GloomyTangent 's posts, which have also pointed out, several times, much more politely than I have, why you pretty much have no idea what you're talking about and are just name dropping obscure shit to sound intelligent (a.k.a. being a pretentious douchebag).

Also, please look up the definition of pretentious because you clearly have no idea what it means.

i'm totally reasonable and you're being childish. gloomyTangent has his opinions and i respect them. we had a discussion. he didn't call me names, nor did he insult me. you're not even explaining yourself on how you see the game. your only goal so far was shit talking on an internet message board without delivering any kind of contribution. and hey: even if only one of the people reading this thread is now interested in one of the movies i've named, i'm super happy. because i love this stuff and i want to share them with as many people as possible.

Hey here's an idea: How about you two stop arguing about stupid stuff over the internet. Because when you do that, nobody wins.

So lets get back on topic.

I don't really know how to make the spoiler thing, but here's my take on it:

You, the narrator, is in a coma for the entire game. The island and everything in it is your subconscious. All of the symbols and objects are experiences from what happened before the car crash. In the end, you die - that's why you hear the flatline. I think it might be more complicated than that since someone found those bail and death warrant papers. But that's the gist of it.

@mortal_sb said:

@Sin4profit: that's like calling last year at marienbad not a movie. we need to get over these predetermined thinking structures. the term videogame comes from the 60s, 70s and we still use it today because games are still done and looked at the same way. maybe we need to get rid of the term "video game".

I don't know what a marienbad is...

"Video Game" is a poor term for what the industry has evolved into and it's the "Game" half of it that's poisoning the well. The term, "game" has existed long before the 60s and it's worked fairly well in defining a "thing", but that's no longer the draw of what "video games" are in the mainstream these days, much to the chagrin of David Jaffe.

I liked Dear Esther as an ambient experience but not so much an intellectual one. It was like if i built a puzzle with no key-matching sides, impossible to put together but, hey, at least i made you think, right? Dear Esther comes across that way to me, the description on Steam, which, i assume, is written by the developer, even segregates the components of the "story" as if they are intermittent and unconnected. But the part that annoys me the most about the description is this:

so begins a journey through one of the most original first-person GAMES of recent years. Abandoning traditional GAMEPLAY for a pure story-driven experience

...There's that damn word again! "Game". and that line reads to me as, "We made a game original by making it not a game".

So, yes, The industry needs better terminology.

this guy sums up religion for me

@GloomyTangent: Meh not really the engagement I need. I prefer interaction than passive story telling. But in saying that I'll probs pick it up when they eventually do a steam 75% off the game sale.

I finished it last night. Right now I'm still talking to a friend who played through it. We've been talking about it for about an hour, off and on, over IM.

First thing's first. If you fall on the side of the fence where Dear Esther is a game, it's a really terrible game. If you fall on the other side of the fence where Dear Esther is not a game, it's a really beautiful not-a-game.

No spoilers in here, for anybody who's worried about that sort of stuff.

I thought it was a journey well worth taking. The fact that I'm having a conversation about it with a friend while we're trying to sort out what actually happened is something that doesn't happen too often with me and games.

I've read a lot of comments about Dear Esther already, on various forums and reviews and such. The main complaint I see is that you only ever walk toward some destination. It's not very interactive, if at all. But that's what I appreciated most about the experience. I had to make that walk to the end, step by step, assuming from the tone of the game that it wasn't likely to end well. As boring as it was, mechanically speaking, I had to make that journey, and I'm glad I did.

I just finished it, took me around an hour. I don't care how you want to describe it (video game, experience, art, whatever), it does what it does masterfully.

It's like going for a walk, but in a video game (even though it's not a game). Why do we go for long walks? Just because the landscape there. I think Dear Esther is kind of like that. I don't know what Dear Esther is, but it is utterly beautiful and captivating. I suppose calling it a piece of interactive fiction is probably the best way to describe it. I suppose a good comparison is that this is kind of what PSN's Journey is about.

And goodness, the Caves level has got to be one of the most astonishingly beautiful things I have seen in a game. It coupled with the music was just perfect. Also yes, there are several "ghosts" in the game: You can see one standing outside the Bothy when you're walking up towards it, but it will go inside the house and vanish before you get too close.

this guy sums up religion for me

Nothing about this game really intrigued me or forced me to think deeply about what was going on. It is certainly atmospheric and looks beautiful, but I'm disappointed that I spent 10 dollars on it. It's my own fault I guess, but with games like this, I don't like reading up on them or researching them because it kind of spoils the experience and I like jumping into these story focused games blind. But it just didn't have much of an impact on me. The story isn't that intriguing to me, but it's the piecing together of the story bits that is the real draw I suppose. But even that didn't do much for me. Good writing, good music, and pretty graphics. But I feel like it's too short of an experience to really immerse me.

I just bought the soundtrack off iTunes. Man, the music in this game is amazing.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@doobie said:

this guy sums up religion for me

Wow, talk about totally massacring an argument. That guy is a bomb, haha.

His British accent is amazing.

So it's not even really interactive? I wanted to wait for a sale but I guess I'll wait for the Humble Bundle now. Should be in one in the future.

@Sogeman: All you can do in this game is walk along with the narrative. There is some element of exploration - you can find interesting stuff if you look for them but it's very linear.

It's not for everyone. But I really liked it. It's a beautiful piece of art. I suggest playing this in the dark, late at night. Alone. Without any interruptions.

"Played" this over the weekend and frankly it's massively overpriced and overrated.
 
$10 for approximately 70 minutes of game time is ridiculous. There is little reason to explore the nooks and crannies of the island (where you can that is - there is little room to maneuver) because nothing of significance happens. There are no visual treats outside of the overall landscape. No cutscenes or events to notice. The only thing you get is more voiceover.
 
The plot is simplistic and purposefully buried in obfuscation and poetic convolution. I could see the ending coming half way through the game and the fate of Esther is signposted very early. Why anyone needs to repeat a playthrough is beyond me. Especially when the only thing that changes is a couple of pieces of narration.
 
Nice music, voiceover work, pretty caves but this is an empty world being masked by intellectual snobbery because people want to follow the herd. The ironic thing is Dear Esther is not very clever at all. It's visual tone poem you can walk through. If it was given away or sold for a dollar it might have some merit, but Dear Esther is con art.
 
Save your money. Buy a Kafka novel instead. It will last longer, offer you more literary credibility and you'll be reading something with genuine intellectual and creative purpose.
 
if you can't be bothered with reading rent Jacob's Ladder instead. It's basically the same thing but it's visually more creative, far more spooky and has longer run time.

I don't really enjoy the title that much. Not that the game is bad or anything, I just don't give a damn about story in games and if you just ignore the story there isn't much game left to play. Guess I should have done some research before hitting the purchase button on steam, but at least I helped support an indie developer.

I've finished it once, I assume that the idea is to play through multiple times, but I really wasn't engaged enough to want to. Though I do live near some of the locations referenced by the narrator which is creepy but there you go.

That said I don't really think it's worth the money, there's not a lot to get from it, no gameplay only story, and even that is fragmented.

It was an interesting hour but i'm not sure i'd recommend it to anyone.

It's difficult to articulate what I liked about this game so much. Films/Paintings/Music with a mysterious 'otherworldly' yet possessing an 'under the veil' - meaningful touch have always conjured worthwhile emotions for me.

The game itself is not original as a concept exactly, it's the execution of that concept that creates a very profound and individual emotion. Parts of silent hill games did the same thing. I played though lot's of janky combat and corridor designs simply so I could pick up the fractured pieces of intrigue the series presented me. In this 'presentation' it was refreshing not even having to be 'brought out' by 'conditioned game elements'

I want to protest against people saying "games should be games, art should be art". If anything this game suggests an alternate timeline where games where developed with a more soulful approach. Then again the same could be said about most mainstream forms of media.

Art exists within the gaming medium, don't get me wrong. Shadow of the colossus has it's own individual mark and traces it left floating around. This 'work' however, felt like it left a ball in my hands by taking away the ball in my hands. To elaborate on that - It allowed me to create my own interpretation of events based on my own emotional and perceptual feedback by taking away what I was conditioned 'control' was.

I would have liked this journey to be longer. I was having one of the most memorable experiences of the year, and I wanted more. I even felt there could be more. Instead of the next project by this talented creator becoming more of a game, I would like it to become more of a tale. With the same indirect approaches, just more of it.

@whitespider said:

It allowed me to create my own interpretation of events based on my own emotional and perceptual feedback

I think you summed up the Dear Esther experience perfectly here.

All the people on this forum debating whether they should or should not buy this game, the answer is - i dont know. No one on this forum can tell you.

Why? Because its an art piece. Art pieces are designed to invoke an emotional response, and emotional responses are invoked and experienced very differently by different people.

For me, Dear Esther reminded me of cold hikes through the Isle of Harris when I was a child, and how much it hurts when a friend or family member dies. I found the vagueness of the ending sequence very moving, as I often feel that the answer to a question is rarely as engaging as the answer.

If Dear Esther makes you bored and wish you were playing Call of Duty, then thats also a perfectly valid response. There is probably something you do in life that surges your emotions and memories, that other people would feel bored by doing.

Peoples wildly varying emotional response to art is what makes art interesting in the first place.

I thought it was great. Kind of like doing English Lit again at school, looking for the meaning in the writing.

And I liked the fact the one sign post in the game had the town I live in, on it. Which added a bit extra for me.

@GeekDown: This game has such a beautiful amount of detail to it. I noticed something pretty brilliant while taking a screenshot of mine:

I looked around the environment: it was only that one candle that had the reflection. I'm sure the majority of players didn't even notice it.

@max3000 said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@doobie said:

this guy sums up religion for me

Wow, talk about totally massacring an argument. That guy is a bomb, haha.

His British accent is amazing.

Holy shit. That was incredible. I wish I could articulate that way. I would pay anything to see this man giving this speech at a Sunday mass.

The only things I didn't like was the prevalence of invisible walls (not just insurmountable waist-high fences) and that it suddenly took the controls away from me at the end, or rather, it did it way too early - I was about to go look at something I had noticed when it took over and played the scripted ending sequence. That was kinda disappointing, as up until then it had let me explore the world in my own pace.
As for the "this is not a game" thing, I don't quite get it. Sure, the gameplay is at it's bare minimum, but there are plenty of games out there with almost as little (and in part less) user interaction, we have for example stuff like FMV games, Azura's Wrath and COD: Black Ops that play themselves up until short "awaiting user input" sequences, and a lot of mobile, browser and MMO games where user interaction is pretty much limited to hitting one button when prompted.

Just... er, "played" it.

So I'm kinda guessing that it's supposed to be all up to interpretation, and this is what I got out of it based on some of the dialogue:

Totally could have interpreted it in a ton of different ways though, I was coming up with a ton of different theories until right at the end when this one stuck. I'm still not sure it's right.

Just got it on Mac. Cool, they just mentioned "Bristol", eh I live in Bristol, i'm practically famous now!

Just finished it, played it between 01:30 and 03:00am so that was creepy. I was really tired but It got my heart racing a few times and kept me awake (falling into the water near the paper boats, falling off a cliff). Also, this talk of seeing people on the island? Oh I don't like that one bit..

If anybody reads this who has beaten the game, could you tell me exactly what happened in your playthrough? All my narration seemed really disjointed. Was the island real? Did somebody die in a car crash? Did the narrator really have kidney stones? Help!

I just finished it. Really really enjoyed it a lot, however...having played Journey on the PS3, Dear Esther isn't even in the same league. Great game/experience, but Journey on PS3 does it pretty much better in all areas. Dear Esther does look beautiful tho! :)

@project343 said:

@GeekDown: This game has such a beautiful amount of detail to it. I noticed something pretty brilliant while taking a screenshot of mine:

I looked around the environment: it was only that one candle that had the reflection. I'm sure the majority of players didn't even notice it.

There's actually a bunch of instances of 'ghosts' throughout the game, I can think of 4 or 5 off the top of my head. Apparently there's at least 3 different 'ghost' models, so if you play through it again you won't see the same ones, and you will also get different dialogue. I didn't really understand the story or what it was about the first time through, but now that I've played through it a second time I understand it a lot better. If you have this problem with the game you should play through it again. I think this game is really great, it's $2 on steam right now for anyone who hasn't picked it up.

@whitespider said:

Art exists within the gaming medium, don't get me wrong. Shadow of the colossus has it's own individual mark and traces it left floating around. This 'work' however, felt like it left a ball in my hands by taking away the ball in my hands. To elaborate on that - It allowed me to create my own interpretation of events based on my own emotional and perceptual feedback by taking away what I was conditioned 'control' was.

I would have liked this journey to be longer. I was having one of the most memorable experiences of the year, and I wanted more. I even felt there could be more. Instead of the next project by this talented creator becoming more of a game, I would like it to become more of a tale. With the same indirect approaches, just more of it.

I think this puts it rather well.

@Aviont said:

I have not played it, but saw it today on Steam for 10 bucks. It looks amazing and from the descriptions sounds like something I'd be into except... I have heard nothing about gameplay. All I hear is that the game is beautiful and the story is amazing.

Thats because there is no gameplay. You simply walk, and as you enter new areas a story is narrated to you. I hate to be that guy, but that "game" is awful....I really dont get the appeal to it at all. The only thing redeeming about the game are the graphics.

@John1912 said:

Thats because there is no gameplay. You simply walk, and as you enter new areas a story is narrated to you. I hate to be that guy, but that "game" is awful....I really dont get the appeal to it at all. The only thing redeeming about the game are the graphics.

"No gameplay" is one of the poorest arguments I've ever heard. If there's no gameplay then there's no way for you to interact with the experience. And yet there's plenty. While fairly linear, you still have the full ability to soak up and navigate the level design to your heart's content and I think that really adds the narrative and atmosphere.

Playing through Dear Esther was one of the most emotionally affecting experiences of this generation for me. I don't need to be jumping around, solving puzzles or shooting dudes with a gun to walk away with something meaningful--you, apparently, do need those contrived gameplay hooks.

I played it way back when the mod came out. It's creepy and awesome. I'm still surprised how those guys where able to take the basic Source Engine and make it so atmospheric.

That being said, I think putting a $10 price tag on an updated version is stupid. Sure it looks better, but it's the same damn thing that you can get for free on ModDB.

Almost got this for 2 bucks but decided to pass. May give it a go if it hits on sale again

If you didn't buy this game for two bucks you fucked up big time.