screw dear esther

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

So when got dear esther a while ago on a humble bundle i played about 15 minuets and got bored enough to want go to sleep then I stopped playing it.

recently I decided to give it another chance and slog though at the hope it would become interesting. It did not.
Form what played of it the story I was being told was uninteresting and you moved at an annoyingly slow pace. If was say anything positive about dear esther it would be that it look quite beautiful looking and it has potential to be used as a sleeping aid.

the screw dear esther part is-
I made to the forth area and then got clipped into an object and could not move. I figured since it had level select I could just quit to the main menu, select the 4th area since I got the area, and make a 3 or so minute walk back near the place I got stuck on. I was at point where figured I made this far so I might as well see the ending.
as It turns out it was not the case and it would had start at the beginning and make the 40 minute slow ass trek again to get back to the forth area. My response to that was "screw this, i'm going to sleep."

I don't even care enough about dear esther to come back and edit this post to fix grammar and spelling in post about dear esther. I just felt like getting some minor frustration off my chest with this post.

Spoiler

the gist of the story is something to do with a drink and driving accident, I did not care enough read into it ant further

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Dear Esther is a Source Engine game. You could have just typed the No Clip code.

 

[ZedOmega]

Part of me is actually wondering if anyone playtested it before saying 'looks good to me.'

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Such "art games" with pretense of subversion and "artsiness" need to fuck off and die in a fire. They are not video games, they're barely more than pseudo-interactive narratives with no actual narrative, and serve only to denigrate gaming as a whole.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Such "art games" with pretense of subversion and "artsiness" need to fuck off and die in a fire. They are not video games, they're barely more than pseudo-interactive narratives with no actual narrative, and serve only to denigrate gaming as a whole.

Funny, Jim Sterling's latest Jimquisition goes on to dispute this very train of though. Give it a watch, it's very interesting!

OT: Is it really that bad? I've only heard some things about the game, seen a few clips, etc. I mean, any game with this kind of near constant hate must be a little bit shit. That's what I've come to get from a lot of indie games. AAA games though... Well, GTA 5 showed that nobody knows what a 1 out of 10 means.

 

[Apollo45]

Such "art games" with pretense of subversion and "artsiness" need to fuck off and die in a fire. They are not video games, they're barely more than pseudo-interactive narratives with no actual narrative, and serve only to denigrate gaming as a whole.

There are many different types of writing, varying in length, format, genre, and more. The same can be said of games. Think of these not as novels, but as poems. They're not meant to tell an entire story, to write out and explain every detail, or to really tell a story at all. They're meant to convey a feeling or a mood or a single thought. In that, Dear Esther did a good job. There's enough depth to walk away with multiple interpretations and ideas about it, but it's direct enough and short enough that you don't get bogged down in details or, really, gameplay.

Video gaming is a medium which is still growing and finding its spot in the world or entertainment and art. Saying specific things need to die in a fire is both unnecessary and short sighted.

 

[Irick]

Such "art games" with pretense of subversion and "artsiness" need to fuck off and die in a fire. They are not video games, they're barely more than pseudo-interactive narratives with no actual narrative, and serve only to denigrate gaming as a whole.

Erm?
How do you mean?
Dear Esther clearly provides an interactive experience, with unique elements to individual runs. It provides a centerpiece for discussion if needed, and a level of enjoyment. It's using the medium to new effect, and that should be praised IMO. You just need to approach it with a lusory attitude.

 

[The Madman]

...

I quite liked Dear Esther.

It was an interesting and unique little experience that held my interest for a few hours and wasn't very expensive to pick up. But then stopping to look at the scenery and enjoy the ambiance has always been one of my favourite things to do in games, so maybe Dear Esther's pacing and style just suit me.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

It was ten bucks. You could buy a hamburger for that. Yeah, that's not really a good rebuttal, but staying angry at something that cheap for representing something you don't like seems like you are looking for a reason to be angry. You might not like the game or genre, but that doesn't mean they need to fuck off and die.

 

[Windcaler]

Such "art games" with pretense of subversion and "artsiness" need to fuck off and die in a fire. They are not video games, they're barely more than pseudo-interactive narratives with no actual narrative, and serve only to denigrate gaming as a whole.

I agree that Dear esther, gone home, glitchikers arent games. However I think its more reasonable to just label them something else like interactive experiences. That would allow these kinds of experiments to continue and allow for artistic expression through them while also seperating them from games.

Saying they need to "fuck off and die in a fire" is akin to censorship of the arts. Perhaps it wasnt meant that way but thats the way it came off to me. These things may not be games but as artistic experiences they can still be worthwhile

 

[SmallHatLogan]

...

I quite liked Dear Esther.

It was an interesting and unique little experience that held my interest for a few hours and wasn't very expensive to pick up. But then stopping to look at the scenery and enjoy the ambiance has always been one of my favourite things to do in games, so maybe Dear Esther's pacing and style just suit me.

I'm the same way. Playing Shadow of the Colossus I would spend a lot of time just cruising around on the horse taking in the ambience.

On Dear Esther, there were a few things that I loved about it. Firstly the setting. While it is supposed to be the English country side (I think) it really reminded me of where I grew up in New Zealand. And secondly that amazing soundtrack which I put as one of my favourite game soundtracks of all time. The narrative was also pretty cool as well. Overall it was a very enjoyable experience. That being said it's probably something I would only play once. It doesn't really have enough going for it to go through multiple times (unless I do it several years down the road when I've forgotten most of it).

 

[Irick]

I agree that Dear esther, gone home, glitchikers arent games. However I think its more reasonable to just label them something else like interactive experiences. That would allow these kinds of experiments to continue and allow for artistic expression through them while also seperating them from games.

Saying they need to "fuck off and die in a fire" is akin to censorship of the arts. Perhaps it wasnt meant that way but thats the way it came off to me. These things may not be games but as artistic experiences they can still be worthwhile

I have to disagree with the assertion that Dear Esther, etc are not games. Anything can be a game if you approach it with the intent to play it.

My personal definition of game comes from the philosophical primace laid out in The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia. That is, that the act of gaming makes a game, and the act of gaming depends on the lusory attitude of the participant(s). I feel this is a better metric than anything as arbitrary as win/fail states. Especially considering games like Wusu or D&D, where the intent is not to reach a win/fail state but to create an experience.

(I do realise that this is kinda tangential, but honestly it seems like the OP just wanted to vent and this is an interesting topic to me)

 

[RA92]

screw dear esther

I would quite gladly, given she consents.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Yes, of course, these games that people clearly want to make and that you had the choice not to play are denigrating gaming because clearly they divert resources away from the games you want to play.

Oh no, my sacred cow!

screw dear esther

I would quite gladly, given she consents.

Sloppy seconds for me, please.

(eeeeurgh)

 

[ohnoitsabear]

I really don't understand why people seem to hate this game so much. I totally get not liking the game. I personally enjoyed it, but I realize that it isn't going to be everybody's thing. But I don't understand why so many people go out of their way to just piss on it. What's the worst that this game has done to you, have you waste a few bucks and an hour of your time? And if you got it in a bundle I can't even accept the money part of that argument.

The game has been out for over two and a half years at this point, and it has yet to ruin gaming in that time. If you don't like it, that's fine, but it really has long since stopped being a relevant topic of discussion.

 

[TheArcaneThinker]

If you didnt understand what it type of experience it was meant to give and for whom its made then see this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlNEYBirnXQ

 

[Windcaler]

I have to disagree with the assertion that Dear Esther, etc are not games. Anything can be a game if you approach it with the intent to play it.

My personal definition of game comes from the philosophical primace laid out in The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia. That is, that the act of gaming makes a game, and the act of gaming depends on the lusory attitude of the participant(s). I feel this is a better metric than anything as arbitrary as win/fail states. Especially considering games like Wusu or D&D, where the intent is not to reach a win/fail state but to create an experience.

(I do realise that this is kinda tangential, but honestly it seems like the OP just wanted to vent and this is an interesting topic to me)

Well before anyone jumps down my throat about this I need to clarify that when I say I dont think something is a game it is not an insult toward the work in question. There are many things that I dont consider games and yet I do consider them excellent works of artistic, narrative, or philosophical prowess

With that out of the way. You could also say a clarinet is a game if you approached it with the intent to play it. Much like the definition of art the definition of game is something thats been evolving over time. I think were at a point where the old definition of game may no longer apply, thus forcing us to look for new ways to define what is a game. I personally like the idea that a game is an interactive experience that has an implied or expressed failure state. However that definition doesnt quite fit what I view as a game. For example the walking dead (and really all of Tell tales narrative driven experiences) are experiences that I wouldnt call games. I consider them interactive movies even though there are clear failure states in them.

I dont personally consider Dear esther a game because it lacks any interactivity beyond the choice of walking or not walking. I suppose you could add in listening to the narrative (or not listening) as an interactive component of the art piece as well. I see it as an art piece and an experience but a game? No. Not really. I didnt play gone home for more then thirty minutes or so because it just wasnt my thing but in that time I didnt consider it a game because of its lack of interactivity in the world and lack of a failure state. Then theres glitch hikers which is an experience that I think is very interesting and I think when the player is in the right mindset it can make someone realize something about themselves. However I dont think its a game because of the highly limited interactivity and lack of a failure state.

These experiences may not be games to me but I still recognize artistic merit in all of them. Thats why I think they have a place but I dont think they should be called games either. Just labeling them as interactive experiences or something like that would be fine with me

I do agree with you though. Its an interesting discussion

 

[Irick]

Well before anyone jumps down my throat about this I need to clarify that when I say I dont think something is a game it is not an insult toward the work in question. There are many things that I dont consider games and yet I do consider them excellent works of artistic, narrative, or philosophical prowess

In literary theory, you can consider any work to be text. This means that any act can have literary significance. In the same vein, anything can have gaming significance. Calling something 'not a game' is inherently excluding it from the discussion of games as a whole, which I see as a disservice to the gaming culture.

With that out of the way. You could also say a clarinet is a game if you approached it with the intent to play it. Much like the definition of art the definition of game is something thats been evolving over time. I think were at a point where the old definition of game may no longer apply, thus forcing us to look for new ways to define what is a game. I personally like the idea that a game is an interactive experience that has an implied or expressed failure state. However that definition doesnt quite fit what I view as a game. For example the walking dead (and really all of Tell tales narrative driven experiences) are experiences that I wouldnt call games. I consider them interactive movies even though there are clear failure states in them.

The definition of game as something with an expressed or implied failure state still excludes a large category of games, from simple games like Cowboys and Indians to video games like Animal Crossing. The failure state is not a necessary component of gameness. Again, I will point back to D&D. There is no such thing as a fail state what I would consider a good game of D&D. Even death doesn't cause a fail state, it's just another bit of drama to the created narrative. It enhances the story. A good DM knows how to pace the plot and will outright fudge dice rolls or deus ex machina to prevent a 'fail state' from occurring. Yet, D&D is definitively a game.

And as for your point of a clarinete, there is such a thing as a game with a clarinet. From Jazz performance to dueling players, the lusory mindset can be taken in any such endeavor.

I dont personally consider Dear esther a game because it lacks any interactivity beyond the choice of walking or not walking. I suppose you could add in listening to the narrative (or not listening) as an interactive component of the art piece as well. I see it as an art piece and an experience but a game? No. Not really. I didnt play gone home for more then thirty minutes or so because it just wasnt my thing but in that time I didnt consider it a game because of its lack of interactivity in the world and lack of a failure state. Then theres glitch hikers which is an experience that I think is very interesting and I think when the player is in the right mindset it can make someone realize something about themselves. However I dont think its a game because of the highly limited interactivity and lack of a failure state.

I disagree with your assertion. Walking through Dear Esther created a unique narrative and opportunities to enjoy Dear Esther. The lusory goal is to experience Dear Esther. Playing for the sake of playing is still play. Your criticisms of lack of interactivity and lack of a failure state are legitimate criticism of the game, but it's still a game. We can't just say "it's not a game because I don't like or enjoy the experience". The definition needs to be universally applicable.

Calling it anything else is a disservice to the medium and unnecessarily restricts the scope of possible expression.

These experiences may not be games to me but I still recognize artistic merit in all of them. Thats why I think they have a place but I dont think they should be called games either. Just labeling them as interactive experiences or something like that would be fine with me

I do agree with you though. Its an interesting discussion

And it would be unacceptable to me. It's an arbitrary distinction that clearly isn't reflective of the act of gaming or play, again because of the examples I have mentioned. This argument is expounded in the previously referenced The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

It was ten bucks. You could buy a hamburger for that. Yeah, that's not really a good rebuttal, but staying angry at something that cheap for representing something you don't like seems like you are looking for a reason to be angry. You might not like the game or genre, but that doesn't mean they need to fuck off and die.

saying I hate Dear Esther would not be accurate. I was just kinda annoyed, It wasted my time by being both uninteresting and screwing any progresses made by only giving me the option to start over. If I made it to end and a boring story became and the end of the story was became at least mildly interesting in hind sight then I would at least feel it did not completely waste my time. I got gone home as part of a humble bundle which has simualar-ish way of telling story and I did not even dislike like it nor did like it. to feel strong feeling about something one way or the other requires being able to inspire the slightest bit passion. the only passion I have towards Dear Esther is disliking how slowly you are forced to walking. but still must give dear Esther credit where it is due, very few I games Played have ever came so close to being so boring and unengaging that it has the potential to put me to sleep.

I would but dear esther in the category games that disregard gameplay for the most part and focus on the story. I have also played To The Moon with is mostly reading and what a little bit of entirely dull gameplay. but I really like it because the story interested me to the point where got to the end in one sitting. not once did I think "is this game over yet?". with dear Esther I Was thinking this with in 20 minutes. As long there there is an interesting and well told story, I can tolerate a lack of notable gameplay.