Of course there's no manual. Life is what you make of it. Make your own win condition. Don't like the rules? Change it for yourself.
You are NOT obligated to stick with your fake friends. You are NOT obligated to argue stupid shit. Most importantly, you are NOT obligated to be ok with what you're doing and where you're going. Take a break. Go back home, or somewhere familiar. Figure out what you want to do; not because someone said so or you feel like you have to, but because you want to. Nobody will give more of a damn about you than you do.
If you want to get to the root of it all, then think of games as a series of "If... Then..." clauses. Ping and Pong. What I mean is that at some point in a game, user input must be required to proceed. The controller (or keyboard and mouse) is the medium that allows the user input. Hell, with the same reasoning, those activities in interactive DVD's and Blu-Rays can be viewed as games because the remote acts as a makeshift controller: you need to press a button to proceed onto the next activity. So basically, if you take the controller away then it's not a game anymore.
As much as I am reluctant to say it, Dear Esther is a game because you need to move the player to proceed through the story. Regarding Heavy Rain, even if you can theoretically put down the controller in every QTE, you still need to move the character yourself at some point to get from event to event. It was barely enough to be labeled as a game, even though the developers were inclined to call it an "interactive experience." I'm assuming the same goes for Indigo Prophecy.
@laserbolts: These are the type of questions New Media scholars ask to pinpoint the origin and definition of video games so the rest of the world can use it as factual evidence. Don't call the OP pointless because you don't understand the question.
I just listened to what Jeff had to say about the closed beta weekend that just happened, and man, he really bummed me out. To reiterate, he played a human thief and turned it off after the first hour, saying it didn't grab him the same way the first Guild Wars did it. They compared it to Warhammer's public quest system and how the "no subscription" philosophy is not as prevalent today with all of the recent free-to-play MMO's going around, and that's about it.
What do you guys think? I'm aware how Jeff is with first impressions of games, but damn I wished he stuck around longer for more detailed thoughts. I also think playing as a thief and dealing with the initiative mechanic isn't wholly representative of Guild Wars 2, but I don't know if that's an issue for Jeff specifically or an issue of the game itself. Maybe his disgust of Operation Raccoon City bled over into Guild Wars 2, but now I'm just being biased and grabbing at anything I can.
Like @Claude said, Anniversary is a great game. It takes almost every fun and memorable aspect in the first Tomb Raider and sets it in the new engine. I actually think you should start there, see if you like it, then go to Legend and Underworld. The only gripe I had was the quick time events that were scattered throughout the game, I always found it janky.
If you want esports taken seriously, then everyone involved should act professional, it doesn't matter who the audience is. You have someone like Aris' sexism and a wild abundance of bad manners from Starcraft grandmaster players, they will not be taken seriously, nor will they have any respect. They're not helping esports in any way.
Esports is already a joke. They're just making it funnier.