Dear Esther Review

[Saxnot]

nice review, but could you please not put (what sounds like) a spoiler in the last 10 seconds of your review?

at least mention it before it starts. i'm still going to play this game and now i feel like i already know something i should not

 

[Greg Tito]

nice review, but could you please not put (what sounds like) a spoiler in the last 10 seconds of your review?

at least mention it before it starts. i'm still going to play this game and now i feel like i already know something i should not

It's not a spoiler, Saxnot. That scene happens in the first few minutes of the game.

Greg

 

[Saxnot]

nice review, but could you please not put (what sounds like) a spoiler in the last 10 seconds of your review?

at least mention it before it starts. i'm still going to play this game and now i feel like i already know something i should not

It's not a spoiler, Saxnot. That scene happens in the first few minutes of the game.

Greg

oh, ok. in that case, never mind. it just sounded like something of a reveal

 

[ascorbius]

I've just played through Dear Esther, I'm amazed. With little to do beyond walking around and taking it all in, I found myself looking in every tiny place, looking at the details, the circuits, the chemicals, the breath-taking scenery - just amazed. I had to keep going - my imagination was in overdrive.

There are many more games which I'd sooner give up on. This has no puzzles, no weapons, no enemies but is really engaging.

At times I was looking for a run button, but now I've been through it once, It still haunts me and I'm glad I didn't rush it.

 

[maturin]

Ah, I hear new dialog. May have to buy it.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

--

 

[Therumancer]

My opinions are mixed.

I'm a bit of a horror fan and picked this up figured it would be a decent bit of surrealistic, cereberal horror. I wound up not playing it yet because from what I've been reading the devs more or less came out and said shortly after it's release that the game is a giant troll and there is no sense to any of it.

Anyone can just throw a bunch of stuff out there, point some arrows between it to make it seem like pieces of a puzzle, but never actually have any meaning. I've seen that done on a number of occasions, and really I don't find that a way of someone trying to be faux-artistic when they can't do the real thing. See, part of what makes art, art, is that it has meaning even if it's not immediatly obvious, and the artist can explain to you what it means or is trying to say if you can't figure it out. Something that relies on the viewer to insert their own meaning or interpetation without any intended meaning it more of a psychological exercise than a work of art. A lot has been written on the subject.

See, if there was actually a mystery to be solved here, with clear answers, I'd be interested in piecing it together, but just wandering around waiting for sense to be made that will never really come?

Someone referanced The Mona Lisa, but that's a little differant. The Mona Lisa is by all accounts an inside joke by Davinci and some of his friends, it had a meaning, but one that can't be divined by someone outside of his long-passed peer group. It stands as a solid work by a master that makes people wonder simply because it's context is long gone.

Of course then again, I think the mystery was solved a while back, but wasn't as exciting as the speculation. I was reading a while back that someone was able to prove by the notes of one of Davinci's associates that the "secret" of the Mona Lisa was that it was a self portrait of Davinci when he was in drag. I believe this was mentioned in "The Davinci Code" but hasn't really ever been popularized. I've never cared enough to check it out in more detail. Apparently the joke was Davinci looked differant enough and carried off looking like a girl well enough that even when he was right there nobody that didn't know him could figure out it was a self portrait, so he'd flash it around and have people going "huh, who is she, and why is she smiling".

 

[peruvianskys]

I enjoyed it as an experience but I wouldn't call it a game. Still a nice artistic statement though.

 

[Endocrom]

This looks like a perfect game for the "Two Best Friends" to play.

 

[blackdwarf]

but can we even call this game? there is no gameplay at all.

The "Gameplay" here is very subtle in that it takes place outside the game itself. You're not trying to save the princess or kill all the terrorists. You're basically trying to figure out what this place really is. Who are Esther and Donnally? Who painted these symbols all over the place? What do they mean? Is this place even real?

Of all the games I've played it gave me a feeling most similar to Myst. That feeling of wonder at exploring and finding new bits about what this place actually is and trying to fit those bits together into some kind of coherent whole.

The reviewer is right though. This game just won't click for a lot of people. It's much more cerebral then your common game. Anyone going into it expecting action and cheap thrills will be sorely disappointed. With the proper mindset however, this is a beautiful and fascinating experience.

this is maybe a matter of opinion but figuring out a story in your mind i do not call gameplay. for me gameplay is the mechanic you interact with to go trough the story. shooting people of solving puzzles are example of those. in dear esther however you are only walking. that is the only interaction you do. but you aren't interacting with the world itself. you are just following a path and you are getting a story told.

visually a very good looking game, this is what skyrim should have looked like

Fun fact. That's the Source Engine. Compare the mod release to the commercial release.

Spoiler

Same engine, different years. And Source can still manage to produce fantastic results.

It's no secret that Valve was well ahead of its time with the Source engine. Portal 2 is a testimony to that.

it is really interesting, only downside, it is to expensive for such short walk.

but can we even call this game? there is no gameplay at all. you are experiencing a story in a virtual world, but you aren't interacting with anything. it is what you can call a virtual experience, but for some reason we are still calling it a game...

Interesting that you should raise a monetary issue. This is actually cheaper than going to a movie in my local theatre. Also, if you buy a cup of coffee and a snack at Starbucks, you'll also pretty quickly come to this price. With that in mind, I think such an emotional journey is a steal at this price.

hmm, i guess you have a point, but maybe this happened because i was comparing to other games, and maybe that is the same as comparing apples and bananas.

it is really interesting, only downside, it is to expensive for such short walk.

A short walk through Disneyland will cost you a lot more than £7.

but can we even call this game? there is no gameplay at all. you are experiencing a story in a virtual world, but you aren't interacting with anything. it is what you can call a virtual experience, but for some reason we are still calling it a game...

Similar controls, no interaction...if that's a game...

Less controls, no interaction, still a game.

Your interaction in this is also your movement - that's why it fools a lot of people.

i cant say anything about the first picture because i don't know it. the second one i guess is a dodge game or something? in that case, dodging is gameplay. you are trying to dodge so you can survive longer to get higher points or to get to a ending.

and i want to make clear that i really liked dear Esther for what it trying to do. my reason to bought it was to support such risky thing. ok, i found it a bit expensive, but some people already made comparisons with stuff besides games, in which they have a point. it is really something interesting, but the moment i finished it, i was asking myself if i could call it a game.

 

[Metalrocks]

really a beautiful game. finished it in 2 hours after i downloaded it. i have to admit, that i expected to solve some puzzles by interacting with objects and the environment but well, i still had a good time.
the cave is really the most breath taking chapter of the whole game. at times i was just standing there admiring the surroundings.

its for sure this game is not for everyone. but its something different instead of shooting things down all the time.
havent played it second time though, so i would not know if the environment has changed.

 

[Sonicron]

Breathtaking little game, especially the bit in the caves. Definitely something in favour of the position of 'games can be art', too. Hard to believe a game that restricts its gameplay to the most basic of movement controls can be a more satisfying experience than the majority of AAA titles with multi-million dollar budgets behind them.
Also, I'm in love with the soundtrack... I can't stop listening to it.

For people saying 8 Euros is too expensive for a game that'll last you 90-120 minutes on a single playthrough... consider what you have to pay nowadays when you go to the movies.

 

[Metalrocks]

For people saying 8 Euros is too expensive for a game that'll last you 90-120 minutes on a single playthrough... consider what you have to pay nowadays when you go to the movies.

point taken about the movie part, but you actually know that a movie mostly is between 90 min to over 120 min long. do you like to sit there for over 3 hours watching a movie? i sure dont like that, and i love watching movies.
hell, i nearly wanted to walk out of the cinema (and others too) when i saw the last lord of the rings movie. now this was really too long.

with games you expect more then 6 hours at least. even when you pay 10$ for it. im not saying im regretting spending this money, but i did expect a longer playing time.

 

[Imbechile]

For people saying 8 Euros is too expensive for a game that'll last you 90-120 minutes on a single playthrough... consider what you have to pay nowadays when you go to the movies.

So you're saying if you need to pay 8 euros for apples, oranges should also be 8 euros?

 

[teh_gunslinger]

nice review, but could you please not put (what sounds like) a spoiler in the last 10 seconds of your review?

at least mention it before it starts. i'm still going to play this game and now i feel like i already know something i should not

It's not a spoiler, Saxnot. That scene happens in the first few minutes of the game.

Greg

But one could argue that saying the the voice over is random is. And the bit about the car crash, though not as much. It's just that it's a game that's best experienced with a blank slate.

 

[Doom972]

When I think about games as art, the games that come to mind are games like Deus Ex, Bioware's RPGs or the Legacy of Kain series - Games which are not just games. but experiences - not games that try to be out of the box by not letting you do much.

With that said, this game looks like it might be interesting to experience but I have to ask the following question: Is there much of a difference between watching a playthrough on youtube and playing it yourself?
The review leads me to believe that this is a linear game with few chances of extra exploration where all you get to do is walk around.
While I am a fan of story driven gameplay, this looks like it might be better to experience as a film, rather than a game.

 

[Sonicron]

For people saying 8 Euros is too expensive for a game that'll last you 90-120 minutes on a single playthrough... consider what you have to pay nowadays when you go to the movies.

point taken about the movie part, but you actually know that a movie mostly is between 90 min to over 120 min long. do you like to sit there for over 3 hours watching a movie? i sure dont like that, and i love watching movies.
hell, i nearly wanted to walk out of the cinema (and others too) when i saw the last lord of the rings movie. now this was really too long.

with games you expect more then 6 hours at least. even when you pay 10$ for it. im not saying im regretting spending this money, but i did expect a longer playing time.

Under normal circumstances I'd completely agree with you, but seeing how this game feels (at least to me) like walking through a slightly randomised film I thought the analogy held up. Who knows, maybe the fact that I went to the movies to nights ago and felt gipped for paying 13 Euros for a bad flick factors into my point of view here.

For people saying 8 Euros is too expensive for a game that'll last you 90-120 minutes on a single playthrough... consider what you have to pay nowadays when you go to the movies.

So you're saying if you need to pay 8 euros for apples, oranges should also be 8 euros?

How would I know, I'm not a fruit farmer.
As for the reasoning behind my original statement, I refer you to the answer I provided directly above. Sitting through Dear Esther, which felt like a sort of interactive movie to me, cost me 8 Euros and was immensely satisfying, while just recently I felt ripped off for paying 13 Euros for seeing Ghost Rider 2 (which kinda sucked).

 

[Metalrocks]

Under normal circumstances I'd completely agree with you, but seeing how this game feels (at least to me) like walking through a slightly randomised film I thought the analogy held up. Who knows, maybe the fact that I went to the movies to nights ago and felt gipped for paying 13 Euros for a bad flick factors into my point of view here.

lol,from this point, you are right. it is cheaper plus you are in control of the movie. but still, a game is a game, you do expect a longer playing time.
havent seen ghost rider 2 yet. i rather wait till its out on dvd. still thinking of watching underworld 4. not that i expect much of it but well, lets just see.

 

[Mike Richards]

With that said, this game looks like it might be interesting to experience but I have to ask the following question: Is there much of a difference between watching a playthrough on youtube and playing it yourself?
The review leads me to believe that this is a linear game with few chances of extra exploration where all you get to do is walk around.
While I am a fan of story driven gameplay, this looks like it might be better to experience as a film, rather than a game.

A great deal of the game is an exercise in atmosphere, the kind best experienced by sitting behind the controls yourself. You could watch a walkthrough at get almost the same end result, but it wouldn't have the same fun of feeling like you're really exploring the island. Even though you don't actually physically interact with anything, just being there walking and listening somehow gives you a much better sense of contribution and ownership to the story that films can't really provide.

Plus the randomized dialogue is pretty cool if you want to replay it, since it can actually change quite a lot.

 

[WMDogma]

nice review, but could you please not put (what sounds like) a spoiler in the last 10 seconds of your review?

at least mention it before it starts. i'm still going to play this game and now i feel like i already know something i should not

It's not a spoiler, Saxnot. That scene happens in the first few minutes of the game.

Greg

oh, ok. in that case, never mind. it just sounded like something of a reveal

That line was actually from a little later on in the game, but I wouldn't say it's particularly spoilery. One of the trickier parts of putting together this review has been figuring out what constitutes as a spoiler considering the random nature of the narration.