Reviews VideoGame / Dear Esther

I can't say I had the same experience at all.

First off, the designers of this thing violated the rule don't make assumptions about the player -> we as the player have no idea on what we need to do. The game must tell us how we must use the mechanics, even if they are just walking and looking around.

For this same reason, Minecraft should be the worst game ever. The lack of clear instructions may be a negative point in some games, but in a game as linear and uncomplicated as Dear Esther, I never found it to be a problem. Likewise, its relative simplicity meant I never really got lost. Scenery and landmarks are different enough to enable simple navigation, and the lay of the land/natural instincts suggested I should follow the path and head for the blinking light at the top of the hill.

Also, I argue that the game mechanics do serve to solve the narrative. The narrative is that of a miserable man exploring an island, trying to come to terms with a crisis he can no longer comprehend, wandering towards his doom - as a player, your instincts are to walk onwards, try to figure out what the hell is going on, and reach some kind of resolution that makes sense. In those respects, yours and the character's support one another. He dishes out the clues as you walk along, walking along gets him closer to his final target.

In the beginning of Minecraft that was indeed a real issue. People quickly stopped playing it because they had no idea on how to do things. Only after tutorials popped up everywhere it became popular.

Also, how do the mechanics solve the narrative? We only walk. that's it. There is no interaction. Even if the interaction would've been like finding letters and parts of a broken journal and then read the pages so we can connect the dots together would give us something. Instead we got nothing. And even then there is complete gameplay and story segregation since his injuries are not felt in the camera or player movement.

And the narrative... For the player-character to overcome his crisis there must be 1) a properly defined crisis and what the player-character defines as a normal state, 2) ideas on how to deal with the crisis and 3) dealing with that crisis itself. If the story was about that, we would in the intro be explained on what the crisis is, what caused it, how it affects the player-character and other things like that, like how he got separated from Esther from, lets say, a divorce and how his daughter grew up believing he was an asshole. Now we have a defined crisis. Now we can learn about all those letters to Esther (which she doesn't probably even read anyway) on the desperate attempts of the player-character and how that developed him throughout the years. Then in the narrative of the game we can follow the story of how he connects dots together and finds a way to deal with the issue. Now it has meaning, context, etc.

But the game Dear Esther doesn't even come close. There is no defined crisis, and the only exposition we got were some ramblings that didn't mean anything. We know he is not in the best mood but it is never properly explained why. This may be no surprise to anyone, but this is not how you write a story with characters, a premise and a progressive plot that leads to a conclusion.

I also disagree. It seems that while playing you fell into the trap of taking the ramblings too literally. The narrative is original for a videogame, but less so if you expand to other media. For instance, things like describing one character as 2 different characters by using their first and last names separately is an old narrative design that I feel still works. The story is the journey through the mind of a man consumed by grief/guilt and being consumed by madness. He doesn't turn into a bird, he frees himself either by suicide or by slipping fully into madness, and the flying is symbolic of his newfound freedom.

"I also disagree. It seems that while playing you fell into the trap of taking the ramblings too literally. " and yet, you treat it in the rest of the message like proper exposition. And what other media are you talking about? I've never read a book that went like this, and I'm quite the bookworm.

And, o boy, here we go.

Define freedom. What freedom? Where did he need freedom from? From the constraints of the island?

And what guilt? What grief? Based on what? What makes him feel guilty? The narrative stated that he had such feelings, but didn't tell us anything about that. Now, if the narrative told us a story about him having grief over past events regarding Esther or Paul, and not him being clear on some subjects because it is a hard story to write down for him, I can actually believe that.

"For instance, things like describing one character as 2 different characters by using their first and last names separately is an old narrative design that I feel still works." - well, Linda Seeger didn't talk about it in Creating Unforgettable Characters, neither have I seen anything like it in The ultimate guide to video game writing and design and character development and storytelling for games. I have no idea where you came up with that idea.

And wait, where in the narrative is stated that Paul and Jacobson are the same person safe for first/last name in the end? They had totally different backstories. Jacobson was just some guy who was a sheep shepard 300 years ago and Paul was some guy who made a travel that somehow was linked to Paul from Tarsis for untold reasons. Now it could be that there were two sides of Paul or something like paul the good house man and paul the hard boss but that was never stated. They had literally nothing to do with each other. It would be the same like saying that Commander Shepard and Donald Duck are the same because both can be agressive or something.

And what guilt? What grief? Based on what? What makes him feel guilty? The narrative stated that he had such feelings, but didn't tell us anything about that. Now, if the narrative told us a story about him having grief over past events regarding Esther or Paul, and not him being clear on some subjects because it is a hard story to write down for him, I can actually believe that.

I'm not sure what you are saying. The emphasis of the game is on inferring meaning to the snippets of dialogue and the environmental clues. It would defeat the point if the protagonist openly stated to the player that his partner died in a car accident due to some brake malfunction, and that he took to roaming the Hebrides to think things over.

' "For instance, things like describing one character as 2 different characters by using their first and last names separately is an old narrative design that I feel still works." - well, Linda Seeger didn't talk about it in Creating Unforgettable Characters, neither have I seen anything like it in The ultimate guide to video game writing and design and character development and storytelling for games. I have no idea where you came up with that idea.'

Well I guess if those two books didn't mention it, no one could possibly conceive of using such a plot device.

"I'm not sure what you are saying. The emphasis of the game is on inferring meaning to the snippets of dialogue and the environmental clues. It would defeat the point if the protagonist openly stated to the player that his partner died in a car accident due to some brake malfunction, and that he took to roaming the Hebrides to think things over."

That only ties the partner of the protagonist into a subplot that had impact on the protagonist, but does nothing to fix anything in the mess that is Dear Esther. There is no reveal on well, anything else that the protagonist for some reason brought into the narrative Even Mass Effect 3's ending isn't as confusing and insulting as this.

"Well I guess if those two books didn't mention it, no one could possibly conceive of using such a plot device."

It isn't a plot device, it is a way to define and develop a character. (a poor one at that) A plot device is something characters use in an attempt to solve the plot. Do your homework.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're full of shit.

No-one knew how to use Minecraft when it came out? It is literally the easiest shit to get down. The very first build released to the public just had you placing and destroying blocks - no wait times, no tools, just destruction and construction. There is no way anyone could have opened up an indev or infdev copy of the game and not done anything. Players do NOT need to be told what to do in every video game, and Minecraft was one of those games.

The character can have a backstory as to why they are doing something, which can be left unknown to the player. Lots of games do it. The concept of adding it to the player character so you learn more about the character as you play sounds really fresh - I'd play that. That's an interesting twist on things, usually it's other characters like [[Final Fantasy X Auron) with their mysterious pasts guiding them to do something, not the player character.

And from what it sounds like, you wander around on this island and reminisce about your family. Those memories which trigger throughout the game serve to keep you going, to reach the end of the story. If you knew everything about the conflict, there would be no game. There'd be no suspense. You already know all the twists. And that's boring.

What freedom? I'm guessing freedom from the memories which seem to be plaguing him about the family he can no longer reconcile with. You're completely missing the point, and making up wild claims to try and undermine the opinions of your opponents.

As for this Paul and Jacobson thing, I'm stumped - maybe Jacobson was his ancestor, referred to by last name only. Or maybe you are taking things out of context and exaggerating issues again, like the "freedom" point. I don't know, I'm building my argument on common sense from what I can gather in the comments.

(Also just because it doesn't exist in whatever books you're studying, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist period. Half of TV Tropes' terms would not exist in your book - that doesn't mean they don't exist at all.)

You seem to have a branch with the girth of Hulk Hogan's forearm jammed up your ass. You seem to just... miss points, left and right. And when people argue that you are wrong or seeing things from an incorrect angle, you brush them off angrily and pretty much say "you're wrong, this is bad because I said so". Jesus Christ.

And lol @ the cheap stab at the Mass Effect 3 ending. I actually heard a rumor that the finale took place while Shepard was undergoing the effects of that Reaper gas or whatever? Which explains why the choice which conveniences the Reapers most is highlighted by blue, and the one that inconveniences them most is in red - you're succumbing to the gas. But that is unimportant to my comment. Your debating skills need work, as does your reasoning ability and how well you can take the opinions of others.

"What grief?" The entire point of the story is a guy coming to grips with a terrible tragedy. I know the plot isn't exactly straight-forward (the narrator is grief-stricken and delirious from an infection-induced fever, so I'm sure he's gonna be totally lucid), but for fuck's sake, that much should've been obvious.

"I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're full of shit."

Thanks for the insult. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

"And from what it sounds like, you wander around on this island and reminisce about your family. Those memories which trigger throughout the game serve to keep you going, to reach the end of the story. If you knew everything about the conflict, there would be no game. There'd be no suspense. You already know all the twists. And that's boring."

Family? What family? The only one we knew about was Esther. We don't know who Paul is - friend, cousin, something else? And the other people Mr. Narrator-we-don't-know-who-he-is mentions are totally unrelated to him, because they lived hundreds of years ago and it is clear that Donneley isn't his forefather.

And no, I have nothing against a bit of good mystery or conflict. In fact, I love mystery. But that mystery must be build from a subplot that the protagonist needs to analyze, like in a detective story, or a ghost story. There is no subplot for that mystery. And suspense is triggered when there is a possible outcome for the story that we as the reader/viewer/gamer do not wish to happen. Where in Dear Esther is that? Dear Esther is just some ramblings that build up to nothing. that's it.

The character can have a backstory as to why they are doing something, which can be left unknown to the player. Lots of games do it. The concept of adding it to the player character so you learn more about the character as you play sounds really fresh - I'd play that. That's an interesting twist on things, usually it's other characters like Auron with their mysterious pasts guiding them to do something, not the player character.

Problem is: the characters have no definition, no buildup and no development. What are you talking about? And on a sidenote, a lot of games do motives wrong. In BioshockInfinite, characters like the Lutece twins and Booker lack motive and reasoning for whatever they are doing. In fact, barely any game gives the playercharacter proper motives to accomplish the objective through the mechanics instead of just follow orders from random supporting characters.

What freedom? I'm guessing freedom from the memories which seem to be plaguing him about the family he can no longer reconcile with. You're completely missing the point, and making up wild claims to try and undermine the opinions of your opponents.

Really? Why hasn't he stated that, then? If someone longs for freedom, there has to be a subject that he requires freedom from. Wild guesses don't give a proper motive for a character, especially the protagonist, to get freedom.

As for this Paul and Jacobson thing, I'm stumped - maybe Jacobson was his ancestor, referred to by last name only. Or maybe you are taking things out of context and exaggerating issues again, like the "freedom" point. I don't know, I'm building my argument on common sense from what I can gather in the comments.

Jacobson didn't get any children, remember? Follow the story, and then come up with points that the narrative provides instead of relying on your HeadCanon. And no, I don't think I take things out of context. I think I just don't invent things that didn't happen in the story.

"I actually heard a rumor that the finale took place while Shepard was undergoing the effects of that Reaper gas or whatever"

HeadCanon! Everything that the narrative doesn't tell us that fans make up, are HeadCanon!

You seem to have a branch with the girth of Hulk Hogan's forearm jammed up your ass. You seem to just... miss points, left and right. And when people argue that you are wrong or seeing things from an incorrect angle, you brush them off angrily and pretty much say "you're wrong, this is bad because I said so". Jesus Christ.

Irony http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose-of-Reason/Psychology-Self-Improvement/People-Who-Can-t-Take-Criticism.html

"And on a sidenote, a lot of games do motives wrong. In Bioshock Infinite, characters like the Lutece twins and Booker lack motive and reasoning for whatever they are doing. In fact, barely any game gives the playercharacter proper motives to accomplish the objective through the mechanics instead of just follow orders from random supporting characters."

I disagree with the suggestion that Booker and the player lack "proper" motives, but my question is that if you feel many games lack character motivation, what makes Dear Esther particularly bad for it?

"But that mystery must be build from a subplot that the protagonist needs to analyze, like in a detective story, or a ghost story. There is no subplot for that mystery. And suspense is triggered when there is a possible outcome for the story that we as the reader/viewer/gamer do not wish to happen. Where in Dear Esther is that? Dear Esther is just some ramblings that build up to nothing. that's it."

The mystery is figuring out what exactly happened. The mystery is figuring out how the other anecdotal characters and clues relate. The mystery is wondering how far we can trust the protagonist's ramblings. The mystery is in considering the relevance of details such as the recurring number 21. We want to know what happens as the scenery grows more surreal, the ghost sightings become more frequent, and the protagonist becomes increasingly feverish. Suspense is the sense of trepidation we feel, as we wonder what will happen to this wounded man, as he climbs up towards certain death. I think a lot of the qualities you are looking for are there to be found, but they are presented in an unusual way that you dislike.

I disagree with the suggestion that Booker and the player lack "proper" motives, but my question is that if you feel many games lack character motivation, what makes Dear Esther particularly bad for it?

Simple: both the player and the PlayerCharacter lack any motive to do anything. We're not even properly introduced to what the player-character wants to do, like going to the cell tower. I also never understood why he needed to take such a strange route to get there. Maybe he wanted to see some places that meant a lot to him, fine. But at least we should be told about that. In the beginning of the game I was just looking around thinking: "okay, now what? What do I need to do? Where do I need to go?". Now I'm not really a fan of games that gives us chores to do by saying do this and do that to the player-character, but if the player-characters has his own choices for doing stuff that's fine. And we should be informed about said motive so we can go along with it.

The mystery is figuring out what exactly happened. The mystery is figuring out how the other anecdotal characters and clues relate. The mystery is wondering how far we can trust the protagonist's ramblings. The mystery is in considering the relevance of details such as the recurring number 21. We want to know what happens as the scenery grows more surreal, the ghost sightings become more frequent, and the protagonist becomes increasingly feverish. Suspense is the sense of trepidation we feel, as we wonder what will happen to this wounded man, as he climbs up towards certain death. I think a lot of the qualities you are looking for are there to be found, but they are presented in an unusual way that you dislike.

The problem is, as I said: what exactly happened doesn't lead to a subplot. I was expecting a subplot that would've happened in the past between the characters that are introduced which would eventually result in the PlayerCharacter as how we meet him in the beginning of the story. If we get things like motives, character definitions, development, etc then we can get some binding with that character (which is important considering it is the PlayerCharacter, but a hard thing to do. Instead we got nothing. Now, I'm all game for filtering the ramblings to find out what exactly had happened. The ramblings can be filtered in a way like saying that he sometimes goes off-topic when something difficult for him pops up, and what we understand from that would lead to the subplot. But that doesn't happen. inserting themes like the number 21 in the storyline is fine, as long as it has significance. Problem is: there is no plot where that fits. Also, if the PlayerCharacter is feverish, why don't we 'feel' that, like in the camera or in the movement as how more difficult it becomes to move around due to the leg? This is something called GameplayAndStorySegregation. The least the designers could do was code a few lines that would cause that. That isn't hard, a beginner in programming can handle that. And I don't know what qualities you're talking about except perhaps for the environment and the atmosphere. While I do agree those are good elements, they lack everything they need: a plot to life in and support. The fact that I've heard no one talk about the subplot that we were supposed to find says a lot.

But how can I describe the game? It is like building a foundation for a house and then sell it to someone as being a house while only selling the foundation: no one can life in it.

These are the simple fixes for Dear Esther:

1) Write a subplot that the player has to unravel. Then make a paper prototype on how the exposition through dialog will be given to the player in the level. 2) Hire a programmer or just follow some basic coding for the camera code so we can "feel" the struggle the PlayerCharacter is going through. 3) Give us some way to interact with the environment. Now this doesn't have to be so hard, like the player picking up items and looking at them. This can reveal objects like a piece of a letter or some artifact that triggers a long-lost memory of the protagonist. It is not difficult or expensive to develop and gives the player more motive to try to piece together the subplot based on what he can find on the island and connect the dots.

You're assuming that it's the player character that breaks their leg. Are you also the guy that died of syphilis? Gameplay and Story Segregation