[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;41899987]Not having played this, it looks like it falls in the same space as Dear Esther and its ilk; and I have a real beef with games like that. I hate the narrative. They have stories which are just spoon-fed to you in bits as you walk in a pretty map, and they're not supported by any mechanics. And I'm not saying I hate a lack of gameplay, because adventure games have a horrible lack of gameplay but still manage to involve their mechanics in the narrative (the puzzle solving mechanics allow you to get a feel for how your characters [I]thinks[/I], and it can be used to great effect).
And the other problem I have- the one that most people describe as pretension- is that you can never shake the feeling that the game is [I]trying[/I] to be art. Now, I'm not here to argue what is and isn't art, but I think the best art is incidental. When you try to create art, it ends up feeling (at least in my opinion) false and manufactured, which completely halts any attempts at immersion.
Now, I've yet to play this (and for twenty dollars I doubt I ever will), but what I've been seeing about it definitely make it look like it's that kind of game.[/QUOTE]
Nah it's not though
It doesn't "spoon feed" you anything you find it all yourself
It's basically a puzzle game/mystery only there's not a big flashing box saying "YOU WON!!!!" at the end and a page or two explaining what the clues you found mean because you're supposed to piece it together yourself because the game actually has the information to let you do that without guessing
[QUOTE=JustGman;41899400]When I think of stupid pretentious art "games" I think of stuff like this, or that Trauma thing.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73l1VfzeRYY[/media]
There's nothing to do, there's no point, it's just empty.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJFN2f93mLU[/media]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;41897870]Dear Esther is literally one huge island with nothing to do and only narration. It's great if you like scenery and walking but it doesn't have much beyond that.
Gone Home is limited to one house and has a lot more interactive stuff in it. It's an interesting concept and it's executed rather well but it's way too expensive for what it is.
The thing with these sort of games is that they are really, REALLY hanging on the line between interesting story driven stuff and pretentious shit, the difference being whether they are interesting or not, and if exploring is boring or actually appealing. Trauma is boring as all hell and the game spoils its own twist with its very title and Dear Esther only has so much to show before it gets boring. Gone Home is a lot more condensed and it's actually sort of interesting to look around trying to find out what happened.[/QUOTE]
I liked Dear Esther, it was REALLY GOOD for a calming experience but if you play it as a game rather than for relaxation/story you'll obviously get a seriously shitty game, because that's not the point of it. Sadly its kind of boring unless you want to become calm.
playing Dear Esther for gameplay is like watching porn for the story, or even better yet, Call of Duty. CoD is about the action, not the plot.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;41899987]Not having played this, it looks like it falls in the same space as Dear Esther and its ilk; and I have a real beef with games like that. I hate the narrative. They have stories which are just spoon-fed to you in bits as you walk in a pretty map, and they're not supported by any mechanics. And I'm not saying I hate a lack of gameplay, because adventure games have a horrible lack of gameplay but still manage to involve their mechanics in the narrative (the puzzle solving mechanics allow you to get a feel for how your characters [I]thinks[/I], and it can be used to great effect).
And the other problem I have- the one that most people describe as pretension- is that you can never shake the feeling that the game is [I]trying[/I] to be art. Now, I'm not here to argue what is and isn't art, but I think the best art is incidental. When you try to create art, it ends up feeling (at least in my opinion) false and manufactured, which completely halts any attempts at immersion.
Now, I've yet to play this (and for twenty dollars I doubt I ever will), but what I've been seeing about it definitely make it look like it's that kind of game.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but what's the point of writing all that if you haven't played it?, you honestly should of just ended your post with "I haven't played this" because the rest is meaningless since you haven't played the game because if you do you would know that's not the case.
[QUOTE=JustGman;41899743]That's what I was trying to say. It has a story for the player to follow and stuff to do so I'd consider it a game and not just pretentious artsy bullshit.[/QUOTE]
except you do think it's just "pretentious artsy bullshit"
[QUOTE=JustGman;41897364]Apparently it's an "art" game that costs $20, but you can just skip everything. The story is about lesbians or something.[/QUOTE]
oh, and a poke at lesbians. hah! how clever.
this one is just as good
[video=youtube;OfZPr8_4FWg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfZPr8_4FWg[/video]
[QUOTE=daijitsu;41899549]the irony is that's the point of the game
you're old and going to die like everybody ever and you have nothing to do but to visit a graveyard and think about it[/QUOTE]
Doesn't make much of an interesting game though.
Bientôt l'été is the same case of really fucking boring except it doesn't even have the decency of having a clear artistic point of view on anything.
Did you guys find Journey boring too
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;41899987]Not having played this, it looks like it falls in the same space as Dear Esther and its ilk; and I have a real beef with games like that. I hate the narrative. They have stories which are just spoon-fed to you in bits as you walk in a pretty map, and they're not supported by any mechanics. And I'm not saying I hate a lack of gameplay, because adventure games have a horrible lack of gameplay but still manage to involve their mechanics in the narrative (the puzzle solving mechanics allow you to get a feel for how your characters [I]thinks[/I], and it can be used to great effect).
And the other problem I have- the one that most people describe as pretension- is that you can never shake the feeling that the game is [I]trying[/I] to be art. Now, I'm not here to argue what is and isn't art, but I think the best art is incidental. When you try to create art, it ends up feeling (at least in my opinion) false and manufactured, which completely halts any attempts at immersion.
Now, I've yet to play this (and for twenty dollars I doubt I ever will), but what I've been seeing about it definitely make it look like it's that kind of game.[/QUOTE]
I dunno about Gone Home, but Dear Esther is merely an experiment in using video games, specifically first person shooters, as a function of story telling.
Gone Home seems to have more interactive elements which classes it farther above Dear Esther in terms of a "video game" and that's probably why people like it better than Dear Esther. Not necessarily related to your post.
[editline]20th August 2013[/editline]
Sounds kind of like the house section from Underhell.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41901212]Did you guys find Journey boring too[/QUOTE]
Journey was incredible.
This and Dear Esther are simply attempts at creating artsy games for the sake of creating an artsy game instead of a game that is artistic (like journey).
I thought Dear Esther was really damn good tbh, this doesn't really seem to have an idea behind it though
[QUOTE=EcksDee;41901582]Journey was incredible.
This and Dear Esther are simply attempts at creating artsy games for the sake of creating an artsy game instead of a game that is artistic (like journey).[/QUOTE]
Psst you're wrong about the Dear Esther part.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;41901668]I thought Dear Esther was really damn good tbh, this doesn't really seem to have an idea behind it though[/QUOTE]
Dear Esther prides itself on being an immersive narrative experience.
True, the visuals did look pretty good at times (caves especially), but every line of monologue, while spoken by a great actor, sounded like they came from a high school junior hoping to impress their literature teacher.
The gameplay itself is completely bogus, they make references that have nothing to do with the story and include visual imagery (like fucking circuit boards or some shit, I don't know), which completely take you out of the experience.
[editline]20th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Warriorx4;41901682]Psst you're wrong about the Dear Esther part.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but that's literally all it is.
Nono you don't understand you're objectively wrong. Dear Esther wasn't an attempt at "creating artsy games for the sake of creating an artsy game" it was an experiment in using video games, specifically FPSs, as a function to tell stories.
Fair enough, I didn't get what you were disagreeing about.
Yeah, I'll accept that much. I'll also accept that the experiment failed.
Yeah probably, but it was definitely important I mean just look at how much people talk about it. It'll be a cornerstone in the near future as we see more games like Gone Home and Dear Esther; Gone Home works better for some because it has more interactivity whereas Dear Esther was a "walking simulator". It's all trial and error.
"Videogames are art"
"EXCEPT THE ONES WE DON'T LIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE"
[QUOTE=koeniginator;41899663]the problem is people are criticizing it for the lack of gameplay when it's not trying to provide gameplay instead of criticizing it for legitimate problems like poor writing (not saying gone home has bad writing, I haven't even played it)[/QUOTE]
God forbid a [I]game[/I] be criticised for lack of [I]game[/I]play.
[QUOTE=Warriorx4;41901736]Yeah probably, but it was definitely important I mean just look at how much people talk about it. It'll be a cornerstone in the near future as we see more games like Gone Home and Dear Esther; Gone Home works better for some because it has more interactivity whereas Dear Esther was a "walking simulator". It's all trial and error.[/QUOTE]
IIRC Dear Esther was also completely mapped by one Dice/Ex-Dice employee as a pet project. That's why it took about 3 years. During that time facepunch was fucking shitting itself at every announcement and it almost reached BMS levels of "it's never coming out"
[QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;41900366]except you do think it's just "pretentious artsy bullshit"
oh, and a poke at lesbians. hah! how clever.[/QUOTE]
I never said it was pretentious bullshit, and from what I've read the main focus of the story is[sp]finding out one of the characters is a lesbian and that she ran away with her girlfriend.[/sp]
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;41901668]I thought Dear Esther was really damn good tbh, this doesn't really seem to have an idea behind it though[/QUOTE]
This, for a while I saw pretty much everyone on this site going on about the level design and sights, and in this thread it's just getting hammered which is a massive surprise to me.
[QUOTE=Corey_Faure;41901908]This, for a while I saw pretty much everyone on this site going on about the level design and sights, and in this thread it's just getting hammered which is a massive surprise to me.[/QUOTE]
People like gameplay in their video games. That's a gross simplification of a gigantic topic but that's what it boils down to for most.
Then people like that shouldn't have been playing Dear Esther. It was never coined as an action thriller or anything like that, it was a small story with really nice environments the compliment it.
there's no 'failure' for the game because it did exactly what it set out to do. it was not a game for everyone nor was it ever meant to be.
You guys should try and play Linger in Shadows. That shit makes completely no sense.
[QUOTE=Frozen_Fish;41901761]God forbid a [I]game[/I] be criticised for lack of [I]game[/I]play.[/QUOTE]
So essentially the problem is that Dear Esther is called a game? And your criticism would vanish if it was called otherwise?
Dear Esther is basically a landscape and a story portrayed in a non-traditional art form. The things you can criticise about it are: the aesthetics, the writing and the choice of the medium (e.g. it would be better if it was a film).
If you complain about the lack of gameplay it's like if you look at a photograph and say it's shit because it doesn't move.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;41901989]Then people like that shouldn't have been playing Dear Esther. It was never coined as an action thriller or anything like that, it was a small story with really nice environments the compliment it.
there's no 'failure' for the game because it did exactly what it set out to do. it was not a game for everyone nor was it ever meant to be.[/QUOTE]
Even as a standalone artistic experience it sucks.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;41901989]Then people like that shouldn't have been playing Dear Esther. It was never coined as an action thriller or anything like that, it was a small story with really nice environments the compliment it.
there's no 'failure' for the game because it did exactly what it set out to do. it was not a game for everyone nor was it ever meant to be.[/QUOTE]
Like I said a gross simplification. I mean fuck I've been trying to write out all the factors that affect the success/backlash of Dear Esther for the last 12 minutes but I can't really do it coherently.
[QUOTE=Warriorx4;41901970]People like gameplay in their [B]video games[/B]. That's a gross simplification of a gigantic topic but that's what it boils down to for most.[/QUOTE]
But it wasn't meant to be a game. It was a sightseeing tour. I knew that when I bought the new version, as did many others.
^"Dear Esther is a first-person game about love, loss, guilt and redemption...Dear Esther is recognised as a major title in pushing forward the boundaries of game design and storytelling and was one of the standout independent releases of 2012."
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST25ur3JSMU]Here have a video that properly outlines my thoughts on Dear Esther and Journey in a more articulate way than I ever could. It's really good go subscribe to him.[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
