I played it yesterday. I thought it was pretty, but really, really boring. It didn't do anything for me at all.

It's a niche game. I loved it. It's an interactive experience well worth taking a look at for some.

@project343 said:

@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.

Hey if the story and dry narration were not god awful, MAYBE I would have enjoyed the "game". Having the ability to walk around a stage piece is hardly a game. If I go to some historical site that has little speaker boxes to tell me a story as I walk around, would you call that a game? No, you say you went an visited a historical site, or you went site seeing. This "game" doesnt even quality as a interactive story. Its an art piece not a game. Would you call google maps a game? I interact with that, can tour and area in street view, doesnt make it a game.

@John1912 said:

Hey if the story and dry narration were not god awful, MAYBE I would have enjoyed the "game". Having the ability to walk around a stage piece is hardly a game. If I go to some historical site that has little speaker boxes to tell me a story as I walk around, would you call that a game? No, you say you went an visited a historical site, or you went site seeing. This "game" doesnt even quality as a interactive story. Its an art piece not a game. Would you call google maps a game? I interact with that, can tour and area in street view, doesnt make it a game.

Is the narration dry? Sure, but it it's the furthest thing from awful. And you and I have vastly different definitions of "game." So long as it's an interactive piece of art/entertainment powered by a console or PC, I'd call it a game. Regardless of what irrelevant labels we attach to it, I think the "experience" is worth the price of admission if you can handle an explosion-free experience that is calm and morose with some obtuse, layered narrative.

@Unrest said:

I just finished this. It's not a game -- all you can do is walk very slowly around a path. It might as well be on rails for all the good it does to have any control at all. You don't make any decisions -- there are no choices. Perhaps I'm a simpleton, but I found it to be incredibly pretentious. I kept waiting for something to happen, and all I got was a slow, broad walk along a trail with disjointed story fragments read to me, trying so hard to instill mystery and evoke some intrigue. It felt like a lot of bullshit, and I really wish I had my $10 back. I wish someone could help me understand the purpose of what I just "participated" in, but I know this much: I didn't just play a video game, nor did I feel satisfaction of any kind.

I like arty stuff. I'm open to different game experiences and like when people try something new. But I feel the same way. I got 20 minutes in and I think I've had my fill.