After-all, I paid more then $10 to see that pile of crap Cop Out, (which, in my defense I knew literately nothing about before seeing) so in that example, even if this game completely destroys my computer, it is worth it.
Point is, I hate Tracy Morgan.
He stated a few times that he was reviewing it as an interactive story, not a game. Which is what it is. An interactive story. I detected no trolling in this article.
I'm still excited about it as i was excited about the mod.
P.S. Also, it's absolutely not like the Path, if someone thinks it is. The Path actually shoves in some videogame mechanics - 1, is very frustraiting and not really interesting to explore - 2. DE is just on an empty beautiful island, music and voice. Not a lot of people will be able and want to to push themselves though a sad story of loss. And that's understandable, especially given it's price.
Some guy reading a book while I'm walking around doesn't turn this into an interactive story.
I kind of expected that from a gameplay perspective, and a "fufilling lengthful" perspective that this was going to be a bust, but that's not what really interested me in it. It's just mind blowing to me how all of this was achieved in Source Engine, the same engine that powered Portal 2. But yeah, it is a shame he is charging $10 for this, because to 98% of the population its only worth about $3-$5, but ah well.
I just don't think thechineseroom intended it to be anything more than a hike across a mysterious island (with a story told via voiceover of course). I suspect an awful lot of people are going to buy it under the false impression that because it's being released on Steam that it's a 'game' in the traditional sense. The devs at thechineseroom have always been very interested in storytelling using game technology as the vehicle - in the case of Dear Esther, I think this is especially true.
A pen and paper RPG might take the form of a book, but that doesn't make it a novel. Dear Esther takes the form of a video game, but in most areas, that isn't what it is.
Like I said, I've no issue with you reviewing DE - it's good publicity if nothing else, and I enjoyed reading it :)
With regards to your first point, is anything you build in a video game engine automatically a game? I mean, obviously we'll call it that, because pretty much every alternative sounds like a massive wank ('interactive experience' anyone?) but is it true? Is an empty room a game? How about an empty field? An empty field with a narrator? Already we're close to DE without being close to any regular concept of a 'game'.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to devalue your opinion. I personally wouldn't give DE a numerical score because I don't feel that it has any factors with which to quantify a score. It's an experiment in interactive storytelling, and I can't think of a fair way to rate something like that until it has contemporaries with which to compare it.
Congratulations, you missed the point. I still don't know anything about the story nor do you, as it seemed you didn't get it.
Reviewing it as a game just because you can walk around is the wrong way in my opinion.
What I still wonder is if you are a CoD fan or someone whose attention span is really low. Then I'd categorize the review as trolling on Jim's level.
I 'played' the old mod of it, and loved it. Not as a 'game', or as an 'experience', simply as a thing. It was an interesting island to walk around while an amazing voice told you words which didn't really make sense. That was it. I'd recommend the mod to others, but mainly because it was interesting, and also ~free~.
I've not played this version, and don't really intend to, but if its simply the mod with higher production qualities and more lines, then I can 100% agree with any 'mileage may vary' comments. It's a 'thing' that shouldn't really be reviewed in any standard way, because people will always react differently to it.
So, what I'm trying to say is, fuck people who attack the reviewer for not reacting in the same way you do. Especially the people calling it 'trolling' and calling platform-preferences into question.
You've missed the point almost entirely with this review. For the price of a movie ticket you have a series of landscapes and caves painstakingly handmade by a well-talented artist, compelling writing, narrative, and a brilliantly composed soundtrack to match. Alongside this you have a story thats rotates in perspective with each playthrough. If the 2 hours playing through the story are thoroughly enjoyed (again, at the price of the movie ticket), then it will have succeeded most people's expectations.
This game was brilliantly refreshing, regardless of how it was paced; soaking in the ambiance and atmosphere is exactly how it's meant to be played. Marking it as a game when the game doesn't follow any traditional gameplay elements and then going on to compare to other AAA and Indie games alike which were promising gameplay over an audio/visual experience anyway is a very flawed perspective, especially coming from an accomplished reviewer such as yourself.
Reviews are generally responsible for critiquing elements of the game for what they promise to do, not what they 'should/could have been'. If they do it well, then it deserves a score that reflects that judgement.
You pay for what you get in this case, if you want a story driven experience with great visuals, emotional score, and top-notch writing, then I highly recommend you give Dear Esther your pocket change. Don't bother listening to this misconstrued review.
Fucking ADHD CoD gamurs.
Didn't expect more from this shitty website anyway.
I'm out.
Some people trying to defend "the reviewing sites that premierly target young xbox audience who thinks Modern Warfare series are the best games ever" by arguing we are "trolling reviewers with claiming they are trolling just because they don't share exactly our opinions".
Man... we don't want reviewers to have "EXACTLY SAME AS" our opinions, we just want "honest" reviewers.
For example in this Dear Esther situation. Yes, while it was still a mod, I played it and I can admit it was a bit boring. However, Dear Esther developer remaked the game with improving level design and graphics. After that, I got interested for the new product and started to wait.
It can be boring because it is not prepared for "fun", but describing this game as a "w-pressing application", is just pure trolling both us and the developer.
There are many visual novels (or visual novel games), mostly eroge games. you just mouse click all the way from the beginning to the end. you don't do anything just choose your path. however, that doesn't makes them mouse-clicking application.
We just want to have a honest review.
Surely there should be a professional level design, an atmosphering story telling or may ge a graphical art?
I am a newbie level designer, so it would be exciting for me (or for level designers, game developers or artists) to read the aspects of levels in this game and what is their pros and cons.
Instead of those, I see a wall of text complaining as "this is not a game, this is not fun and this is a w-pressing application".
if you don't like playing adventure games, visual novels and prefer to go and play some more Halo or Gears Of War,
then why you are reviewing this game but not some other reviewer who likes adventure games or visual novels?
You won't get some mindblowing story like Braid but it still manages to keep your interest.
What I really dislike is the way such games are handled. That shit wouldn't have happened if Burch was still around. Maybe the same score but at least a review that doesn't focus it's point that Dear Esther is not an actual game.
I mean, what the fuck is this line?
"There are rules and keys and narrative triggers and all those things we come to expect of a $9.99 purchase on Steam."
So because it has trigger points or in other words A mechanic you immediately categorize it into a standard game? With that kind of logic you could even say a movie is a game. Oo
"I think my issues with the design (including the level design) is pretty well represented in the review."
You haven't. The parts where you simply found dead ends far from main route, I've found points of interests like some symbolizing objects, allusions and even hidden noises/dialogs. By the way, some objects are changing in each play-through.
TrollFace, the game.
Oh it looks very good in places, the cave is the highlight and possibly worth the price of admission alone.
However...
The music is piecemeal, stylistically narrow and disconnected from the visuals.
The "experience" tasks you with exploring an island, an island that happens to be no more than a narrow corridor with an odd dead end. Don't even think of challenging the invisible walls, follow the corridor.
You are left with a stream of consciousness stretched out over 4 chapters, nothing connected, no narrative, no story. When they ran out of ideas they started writing on the walls. Of course they couldn't be bothered writing anything original so they just copy/pasted some Bible verses.
There is only the surface, and the surface is you holding the W key down with your middle finger for 70 minutes.
Okay I should've used 4 words:
W key, the game.

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow




















follow

