Tried it last night...Played for 40 minutes...Nothing but boring narration and supposed scenery... I like how out of the few keys used in the game there is a shortcut key for screenshots.. Like, Its so beautiful you'd obviously want to take screenshots... Does anyone mind spoiling it for me and tell me what happens in the end and whats going on in the game?
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 21:12 Location: There is no god - and reality is his prophetess
because it got what al the spring-games dont got .. drama.. it gets the player involved, not using the players powers once..
This is what we need.. drama.. in multiplayer games.. small sidequests.. save the wounded before the frontline.. protect that convoy going along the frontline.. rescue a downed airplane pilot before the enemmy does that.. events that make the player feel unique and outstanding.. not just the administrator of some anonymous warmaschine.
All the Gifs and Movies every made show mostly Com? I wonder why this is? Surely not because of the drama involved, with the com taking huge chunks of base with it?
Joined: 10 May 2009, 11:27 Location: on new sidney
and i thought we had enough drama already
well ive watched it, i found it interesting, but not something you would enjoy that much.
That game, if we can call it a game, was like a book being told in front of your eyes. You would move around this world/book and you get involved in its background.
In fact id aproach this , as a way in the future to tell story's or history's to people, like imagine a virtual reality setup, where you'd explore a world like the one represented in there, and facts and details are told to you.
Like moving in a WWII front-line watching people getting killed, and story's about your fallen brothers being told in a chat like manner like in this game.
I like the art of the game, and I would like to see this game do well, as I think there's some talented developers behind it, but I really don't think this is a "genre" I'd like to see much, if any, more of.
My problem comes down to interactivity. You can strip that down to a very small level and still have very effective games. This game had a more abstract control scheme than angry birds, qwop, whatever, but in Dear Esther the interactivity felt more like an unwanted issue they couldn't get rid of than something well used and effective.
There's a lot of people saying things like "it's not a game" and "we have film already, why do we need this?" I don't really agree with that. I played an indie game not long ago that was similar in that you just wandered around, but you were running from something... in the game it was just a light source, but it gave you urgency, it gave you a reason to be looking for an escape from the environment, it pushed you into different visual experiences under the realization that you'll lose if you get caught. The problem with Dear Esther isn't that you need to be able to interact with the game more, it's that it feels like the interactivity you do have gets in the way of the story more than it helps it. You'll wander down a long path, realize there was nothing there, and feel like you're dragging yourself painfully to get back to the "flow" of the story. The primary role of your interactivity with the game is to make any semblance of a well paced experience fall totally off.
Dear Esther doesn't suffer from "not being a game" or "needing more interactivity" it suffers from fundamentally bad design. It's up to you whether the interesting but mediocre story and the AMAZING art offsets that design flaw enough for you to enjoy playing it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum