Dear Esther Creator: It's a Bit Like Minecraft

[Nightmare99]

Oh man, if Dear Esther lets me create my own story, I can use it to play out Mass Effect 3! Or Dragon Age II! Or Skyrim! Or GTA! Or...

Oh, you can't do that? For meaningful stories to exist in games, the designers have to actually write them, and this guy's a total idiot? Oh...

I feel sad for you. Imagination in gaming is absolutely paramount for me. While driving across the endless planets in Mass Effect 1, I would make up stories and dialogues in my head. GTA IV is RIPE for the imaginative taking! You spend so much of the game making things up as you go along, and Skyrim? Are you kidding me? SKYRIM, dude! If you don't create your own story in Skyrim, why are you even playing it!? There's, like, nothing in Skyrim narratively without your imagination.

Anywho, it's totally fine if you don't feel the same and your imagination just didn't fire up playing Dear Esther, but saying that it's only possible for a meaningful story to exist if they are baked in? Maybe FOR YOU. But on the grand cosmic scale of things?

Oh, Dear Esther sure let me imagine things. Like playing ACTUAL GAMES and not audio books trying to pretend to be games.
Seriously, Dear Esther is an absolute horrible GAME in every way imaginable - mostly because it simply has no fucking gameplay. A game without gameplay is a movie. You just watch it. And in case of Dear Esther, there isn't even much going on you could watch. (No, "nice scenery" doesn't count - I want to see THINGS HAPPEN)
So, Dear Esther is just an audio book - and how an audio book can be "like Minecraft" and "allow to make my own story" is beyond me. You don't "choose" your story, you listen to a randomly picked line. You have no choice other than "move" and "don't move" - and that isn't really a choice as doing nothing won't make anything different happen. Instead, nothing at all is happening.


So, no matter how much you want to sugarcoat it - Dear Esther sucks as game but is a decent audio book.

It's cool that you didn't like it, but trying to argue whether it's a game is like trying to iceskate uphill. At what point is something a game? Who is the arbiter for that? It controls like a game, saves/loads like a game, you make choices in where to go... is it because you don't kill anyone? No, plenty of games have no violence. Is it because there's no score? No, plenty of games don't track scores.

Would a silent black and white movie not be considered a movie because it has no audio?

We can argue all day, but I would posit that Dear Esther loses EVERYTHING as an audiobook. It HAS to be a game, because any other medium would not have the same impact. The key to it is you walking around and exploring this island for yourself.

I found it to be quite thought provoking and moving, but I fully understand the crowd who fully appreciates it is probably tiny.

I agree that it would lose a lot of it's luster if presented as a book. The self paced discovery of the story and all the different bits that you can find really drive the narrative. As a book I think it would be pretty dull as the visual setting of the different areas linked with snippets of the story give it a bit of life and immersion. It may work as a short film, though it would not have the same feel.

As for the debate over whether or not this qualifies as a game with the limited game play, I'm not going to go there. As with any type of art, people have to decide for themselves how they feel about it's artistic merits.

 

[Azuaron]

Spoiler

Oh man, if Dear Esther lets me create my own story, I can use it to play out Mass Effect 3! Or Dragon Age II! Or Skyrim! Or GTA! Or...

Oh, you can't do that? For meaningful stories to exist in games, the designers have to actually write them, and this guy's a total idiot? Oh...

I feel sad for you. Imagination in gaming is absolutely paramount for me. While driving across the endless planets in Mass Effect 1, I would make up stories and dialogues in my head. GTA IV is RIPE for the imaginative taking! You spend so much of the game making things up as you go along, and Skyrim? Are you kidding me? SKYRIM, dude! If you don't create your own story in Skyrim, why are you even playing it!? There's, like, nothing in Skyrim narratively without your imagination.

Anywho, it's totally fine if you don't feel the same and your imagination just didn't fire up playing Dear Esther, but saying that it's only possible for a meaningful story to exist if they are baked in? Maybe FOR YOU. But on the grand cosmic scale of things?

BZZZZT! WRONG ANSWER.

You are wrong, by definition.

If a story does not exist in a game, and you are using your imagination to make up your own story, then there is not a meaningful story in that game. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I thoroughly enjoyed Minecraft, and my lone survivor of a crashed spaceship trying to survive this new planet's apocalypse [http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/09/20]. I will frequently add internal monologs and motivations to RPG characters that the games do not provide.

But what I create in my imagination is my meaningful story, not the meaningful story of the game. For the game to have a meaningful story, it must be created by the designers.

Like, if I handed you a book and told you it was the greatest story ever written, but it was empty and I told you that you had to write the story, or maybe it had chapter prompts, bare skeletons--not even full skeletons, just a ribcage or so--of scene, not even a plot, that book would not have a story. That book may be interesting in its own right, and people may create great stories out of it, but it has no story of its own.

Basically, they are different goals [http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/eccj9t/hey-ash--whatcha-playin---dinner-metaphors]. While it's good to have games that are about creating your own story, it is at least as important (I would argue more important, but that's because I like RPGs with strong narrative) to have story-driven games, and Pinchbeck is saying that developers should do away with story-driven games. Videogames are a medium unique in their ability to place people personally in different situations, and to experience stories in ways that we never have before.

And he's saying, "Screw that, players will imagine their own story." You know what, as a writer, I already have my own stories. I have lots of them. I know how I think. I'm very familiar with the stories I create. Sometimes (quite often, really), I want to experience stories that other people create. People who are not me, who do not think like me. People who create stories that show me a different way of looking at the world.

Then, armed with this new way of looking at the world, I can create even more stories, stories I never would have dreamed of if I was left alone on a deserted island with only sandbox games.

From one human to another, don't tell someone they're "wrong by definition" and then jump into why by arguing the semantics of what YOU SAID, not what they said. It makes you look like a stupid meany jerkface. By definition, everything I said - as I said it - is true, and I stand by it. 8P

Is there another article somewhere that I missed? You are attributing things to him that I'm not seeing anywhere in this article or the Gamasutra link it goes to. His entire point was that players can create their own personal gaming stories WITHOUT having it handed to them. I didn't see anything about what makes a meaningful narrative or where the future of narratives in gaming needs to go. He just said "Players have imagination, and Dear Esther was a game about fueling narrative with it."

You seem to be arguing that he said Dear Esther has - without question - meaningful narrative. He never said that. Not even once. Unless there's another article I missed somewhere, in which case I will redact my statement...

To roll with your analogy, he's not giving you a blank notebook and saying "Hey, this is a great story!" He's saying "Hey, I thought, instead of writing a story for you, maybe you would enjoy writing one for yourself? I put a few images in here to fuel your fires, now let's see what you come up with!"

Personally, I find that to be a refreshing change in a game. Would I want EVERY game to do this? No, but when it's done well, it's a powerful thing.

I said a thing, you disputed the thing I said, I explained how my thing was right by definition, and your contention of it, therefore, wrong by definition (and also insulting, as you consistently implied I don't use my imagination).

As for the rest, from the article: "He argues that developers don't need to constrain players to a set storyline" and "Story is inevitable - so why write the obvious?" Those two statements, pretty clearly, say, "Developers shouldn't write clear, preset stories."

 

[The.Bard]

Spoiler

Oh man, if Dear Esther lets me create my own story, I can use it to play out Mass Effect 3! Or Dragon Age II! Or Skyrim! Or GTA! Or...

Oh, you can't do that? For meaningful stories to exist in games, the designers have to actually write them, and this guy's a total idiot? Oh...

I feel sad for you. Imagination in gaming is absolutely paramount for me. While driving across the endless planets in Mass Effect 1, I would make up stories and dialogues in my head. GTA IV is RIPE for the imaginative taking! You spend so much of the game making things up as you go along, and Skyrim? Are you kidding me? SKYRIM, dude! If you don't create your own story in Skyrim, why are you even playing it!? There's, like, nothing in Skyrim narratively without your imagination.

Anywho, it's totally fine if you don't feel the same and your imagination just didn't fire up playing Dear Esther, but saying that it's only possible for a meaningful story to exist if they are baked in? Maybe FOR YOU. But on the grand cosmic scale of things?

BZZZZT! WRONG ANSWER.

You are wrong, by definition.

If a story does not exist in a game, and you are using your imagination to make up your own story, then there is not a meaningful story in that game. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I thoroughly enjoyed Minecraft, and my lone survivor of a crashed spaceship trying to survive this new planet's apocalypse [http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/09/20]. I will frequently add internal monologs and motivations to RPG characters that the games do not provide.

But what I create in my imagination is my meaningful story, not the meaningful story of the game. For the game to have a meaningful story, it must be created by the designers.

Like, if I handed you a book and told you it was the greatest story ever written, but it was empty and I told you that you had to write the story, or maybe it had chapter prompts, bare skeletons--not even full skeletons, just a ribcage or so--of scene, not even a plot, that book would not have a story. That book may be interesting in its own right, and people may create great stories out of it, but it has no story of its own.

Basically, they are different goals [http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/eccj9t/hey-ash--whatcha-playin---dinner-metaphors]. While it's good to have games that are about creating your own story, it is at least as important (I would argue more important, but that's because I like RPGs with strong narrative) to have story-driven games, and Pinchbeck is saying that developers should do away with story-driven games. Videogames are a medium unique in their ability to place people personally in different situations, and to experience stories in ways that we never have before.

And he's saying, "Screw that, players will imagine their own story." You know what, as a writer, I already have my own stories. I have lots of them. I know how I think. I'm very familiar with the stories I create. Sometimes (quite often, really), I want to experience stories that other people create. People who are not me, who do not think like me. People who create stories that show me a different way of looking at the world.

Then, armed with this new way of looking at the world, I can create even more stories, stories I never would have dreamed of if I was left alone on a deserted island with only sandbox games.

From one human to another, don't tell someone they're "wrong by definition" and then jump into why by arguing the semantics of what YOU SAID, not what they said. It makes you look like a stupid meany jerkface. By definition, everything I said - as I said it - is true, and I stand by it. 8P

Is there another article somewhere that I missed? You are attributing things to him that I'm not seeing anywhere in this article or the Gamasutra link it goes to. His entire point was that players can create their own personal gaming stories WITHOUT having it handed to them. I didn't see anything about what makes a meaningful narrative or where the future of narratives in gaming needs to go. He just said "Players have imagination, and Dear Esther was a game about fueling narrative with it."

You seem to be arguing that he said Dear Esther has - without question - meaningful narrative. He never said that. Not even once. Unless there's another article I missed somewhere, in which case I will redact my statement...

To roll with your analogy, he's not giving you a blank notebook and saying "Hey, this is a great story!" He's saying "Hey, I thought, instead of writing a story for you, maybe you would enjoy writing one for yourself? I put a few images in here to fuel your fires, now let's see what you come up with!"

Personally, I find that to be a refreshing change in a game. Would I want EVERY game to do this? No, but when it's done well, it's a powerful thing.

I said a thing, you disputed the thing I said, I explained how my thing was right by definition, and your contention of it, therefore, wrong by definition (and also insulting, as you consistently implied I don't use my imagination).

As for the rest, from the article: "He argues that developers don't need to constrain players to a set storyline" and "Story is inevitable - so why write the obvious?" Those two statements, pretty clearly, say, "Developers shouldn't write clear, preset stories."

Spoiler

My intent wasn't to insult you, but you're really not helping your cause any when you call this guy an idiot for having an opinion, make a statement that can only be proven accurate by arguing semantics, and then telling me I'm wrong by arguing said semantics, instead of simply explaining where the dissonance in my interpretation of your original statement was.

I think you're overreacting to the quote, as well, but we each interpret things differently, so based on what you think he's saying, your logic makes sense. But on the flip side, if some game dev questions the need for all games to be shooters, they're not necessarily saying games need to stop being shooters, only that it shouldn't be thought of as a REQUIREMENT for every single game.

This is the quote that I think best represents what he's saying about his company:

"We're not in the business of writing a plot -- we're in the business of giving you the tools to create your own. There is nothing more powerful than your own imagination."

 

[Imbechile]

Dear Esther is not a game.

It's a experiment(a very shitty one) that shouldn't have ever been released commerically.

 

[Nightmare99]

Dear Esther is not a game.

It's a experiment(a very shitty one) that shouldn't have ever been released commerically.

From a purely commercial standpoint the game has been success. You could argue many of it's merits, but the purpose of a commercial release is to make money. This particular title turned a profit inside of 6 hours, so I would say they made the right call releasing it commercially. Their accountants would most likely agree as well.

(and for the record I didn't like the game)

 

[Evil Smurf]

Trying to make your self cool by saying you have got a game like minecraft? Lame

 

[Shinsei-J]

I think "Minecraft" is becoming a new buzword.
Minecraft is a creative sand box, you are a good game with a vague story that causes entrigue.
Market your self as such.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I must be the only one that had no idea wtf DE was and, despite already being on the way to wikipedia on an unrelated matter, still doesn't care to.

EDIT: It would have served the News Story much better had they stated a little something about DE at all. I mean its just basically a story about some random guy attached to a game I've never heard of who is comparing his game to MINECRAFT which you basically have to live under a rock if you use the internet and haven't heard of it before. I assumed it was just a publicity piece so that people would check out his game, that could be in any genre, for any system at all, or it could not even be a game at all it could be like that PSN title Linger in Shadows which is a POS and not worth anyone's money.

So I offer the opinion that this news story, for anyone not aware of Dear Esther AT ALL, has absolutely zero to offer the reader. It may as well be about a guy that makes printing presses saying that his product is just the same as MS Word because you can use your imagination to produce limitless narrative possibilities on both products.

That this asshole is considered newsworthy in the first place is amazing. Someone comparing his rotten apple to a money printing Orange like Minecraft because "hey they both come from trees" is not a news story.

Bottom line this news story offers a decent quote from a guy that no one would have ever listened to if he hadn't had the word Minecraft in it. That was the gist of my original statement of more or less "meh."

The reason for this edit is that apparently a mod on these forums has taken it upon themselves to harass me and it would be a shame if I got flagged for not offing anything to this discussion.

Guess I'm living under a rock. I've heard of both games and played DE, but have less of an idea what Minecraft is despite having read a lot of articles on it. So it's a game where you build things from blocks and...um... what? How is that a game? So it's LEGO on the PC? Whereas the point of DE is fairly clear and can easily be explained in a line.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

I must be the only one that had no idea wtf DE was and, despite already being on the way to wikipedia on an unrelated matter, still doesn't care to.

EDIT: It would have served the News Story much better had they stated a little something about DE at all. I mean its just basically a story about some random guy attached to a game I've never heard of who is comparing his game to MINECRAFT which you basically have to live under a rock if you use the internet and haven't heard of it before. I assumed it was just a publicity piece so that people would check out his game, that could be in any genre, for any system at all, or it could not even be a game at all it could be like that PSN title Linger in Shadows which is a POS and not worth anyone's money.

So I offer the opinion that this news story, for anyone not aware of Dear Esther AT ALL, has absolutely zero to offer the reader. It may as well be about a guy that makes printing presses saying that his product is just the same as MS Word because you can use your imagination to produce limitless narrative possibilities on both products.

That this asshole is considered newsworthy in the first place is amazing. Someone comparing his rotten apple to a money printing Orange like Minecraft because "hey they both come from trees" is not a news story.

Bottom line this news story offers a decent quote from a guy that no one would have ever listened to if he hadn't had the word Minecraft in it. That was the gist of my original statement of more or less "meh."

The reason for this edit is that apparently a mod on these forums has taken it upon themselves to harass me and it would be a shame if I got flagged for not offing anything to this discussion.

Guess I'm living under a rock. I've heard of both games and played DE, but have less of an idea what Minecraft is despite having read a lot of articles on it. So it's a game where you build things from blocks and...um... what? How is that a game? So it's LEGO on the PC? Whereas the point of DE is fairly clear and can easily be explained in a line.

I didn't mean you have to be living under a rock to not have played it, by your own admission you have read articles (plural) on minecraft, and more than likely know people that have played it. I have never heard of DE, none of my friends have heard of it, and I would be surprised if this wasn't the ONLY article related to it on any of the sites I visit. By contrast Mojang has been sued by Bethesda, among others, and had made probably more in one month on Xbox than any other XBLA game ever.

Its not even that intersting a game, it just seems to make money like the Goose with the Auric Ovums.

I'm in a similar situation to you with Angry Birds. I have never played it, nor want to, but I am on a daily basis subjected to at least one ad on FB about it. Considering like 90% of their success comes from the sale of merchandise and not the game itself, they are doing quite well.

Honestly the more people talk about DE, which I still have no clue about, the more I'm thinking that I'm the one under a rock. Well people in this thread, no one else has a clue wtf it is either.

 

[Darknacht]

For the game to have a meaningful story, it must be created by the designers.

You are wrong, by definition. Maybe not by your definition but by a definition. Authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work. If I see a meaningful story in a game it exists in that game whether the creator meant it to or not.

 

[pearcinator]

Wow...I can't see any similarities between the two games.

Minecraft emphases freedom and creation while Dear Esther encourages you to 'stop and smell the roses'

Minecraft is pixelated and it hurts my eyes to play for too long

Dear Esther immerses me with its sheer beauty

Minecraft is endlessly replayable

Dear Esther lasted me 2 hours (but I will go back to play it when I feel angry or want to escape from life for a while)

They are completely different games and both have strengths and weaknesses. They are both good games though.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Too bad Dear Esther isn't actually a good game. An interesting experiment, sure. But I'd say it could be vastly improved with better pacing et al by choosing a different medium.

But then, I'm the sort of guy who likes to have more gameplay in his games than simply walking.

I think that's the particular problem with their experiment - they're using a medium in a way that just doesn't feel quite right to the audience. Amnesia had a very minimalist interface, and that feeling of discovery as you uncovered the story, but was still very much a game. Dear Esther used the trappings of a game without any of the conflict (puzzles, monsters, etc.) we expect within those trappings.

I'm still glad to have given it a go, but - for me - it wasn't an experiment I'd want to see others copy.

Well put. I must say, I'm getting far more of a positive response than I expected for this post.