![]() The puzzle of trying to figure out who on earth you are and what on earth you're doing on this island. It was a puzzle game in its own right - it's just that the puzzle you were tasked with solving was a more abstract one. It was a deeply weird and uncomfortable experience if you allowed yourself to be immersed in it. The weird, desolate emptiness of that original mod added to the experience of playing it. It started life as a much more minimalist Half Life mod by some professor who was quite literally experimenting with stripped down storytelling experience. And if things do well there will always be a wide and diverse selection of game experiences available to everyone.īut as for Dear Esther, the funny thing about this game in particular is that it was never designed to be a game. And we can always choose simply not to buy them and let the free market dictate what kind of gaming experiences are made. Some games are probably going to be more like an interactive movie - but they're going to be rare. I think this obsessive idea about safeguarding the category that is "games" is a waste of time. It gets repetitive, almost as if developers felt they had to force the player to fight through a bunch of arenas with a dozen of baddies before they get to the objective less they be accused of making a game that could have just as well been a movie. Killing things in TLOU is never as much fun as it should be - and you end up doing a lot of it. I think The Last of Us is a perfect example of ultra popular game series that could have used some serious editing, both in its story and its gameplay. ![]() Then you have games that in fact have lots and lots of gameplay but would have been better off cutting at least some of it. Bloated open-world games that could give you a hundreds of hours of gaming - none of which particularly engage or fun - at least not beyond the simple obsessive hook of completing every icon on a map. Games that are much longer than they have to be, padded out with extra content and gameplay mechanics that don't contribute to the overall experience of the game but are just there to give players something to do. Today, it seems we have the opposite problem. But I think the pushback against walking sims was part of a larger response to what, at the time, was perceived as developers and publishers trying to get away with providing less content for a higher price. In retrospect, the outrage around Dear Esther and walking simulators seem almost quaint. Later still, games like Firewatch, while technically more of a walking sim, would offer just enough gameplay to avoid the stigma while still providing a relatively linear but nonetheless engaging narrative-driven experience. I find it extra interesting because Dear Ester would be followed by a slew of similar walking simulator games many of which in fact were lazy and uninspired, many of which were low effort independent titles that seemed to want to capatailzie on a trend of introspective indie experiences. At no point would the experience Dear Esther was trying to offer have been improved if the player had been tasked to solve some sort of mini-puzzle or platforming section between every save. It's Steam page makes it clear what kind of experience you're in for.īut Dear Esther was never trying to be something it wasn't, nor was it 'lazy' or at all limited by its complete lack of gameplay. What the "game" was and wasn't was never in dispute. At no point did Dear Esther ever falsely advertise its value proposition. I always felt as I do now, that it's a strange critique to give a product. Surprising amounts of anger, and lengthy threads with thousands of users describing the many ways this game in particular isn't a game. I remember seeing actual real anger when Dear Esther came out back in 2012.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |