Dear Esther is art!

[♡ ♡]

Before everyone says blah blah this game isn't a game, Hold W is the game. Dear Esther simply is art. You are paying $2.49 for an amazing experience spanning approximately 1 hr to 1.5 hrs. If you go into Dear Esther letting its immersion take hold of you, taking in the beautiful environments and music. Delving into the mind-twisting themes, motifs and symbols, Dear Esther will have a dramatic effect on you. There is no rush go ahead explore everywhere, go places you thought were impossible to get to. Dear Esther is very emotional, the story is unlike anything I have experienced. It may not be for everyone, but for $2.49 Dear Esther is a masterpiece, "games" are interactive while art is something that will stay in your heart forever. Dear Esther is one of those stories you will not forget. If stories aren't your thing the environments alone are worth $2.49 to wander around in. If you are unsure, take a chance to be deeply moved by this story. Don't be afraid to play through it multiple times for all of the audio clips are randomized and the environments are non-linear, therefore you will have not seen the entire world or experienced the entire story in one playthrough. Once you let Dear Esther's story take hold of you it will never let go.

[C.Manuel. [ITA]]

Wow nice review of the game dude ! :)

[Tasteful Soup]

I teared up at the end.

[Toppramen]

One question haunts me. How did he get to the island??

[Yojigo]

just the push i needed to buy it. thanks

[Vader]

Excellent review!
Also, a great way to explore the environment is to use 'noclip'.

[Welshe]

Wait wait wait. This game takes of my body...man i better make sure this game doesn't makes me a devil of somesort that will post a good review about this game reproducing devils everywhere :O

Im scared.

[D. Plainview]

i totally agree with you
its a very nice experience

[WhatsHerFace]

Bad Wolf lähetti viestin:

I teared up at the end.

Yep. *sniff*

[Gilder The Squidslinger]

Yeah its art...finished it and sat there wondering...what the heck I just sat through. Does seem like you need multiple play throughs to get the entire story but honestly I think this title would have been better served as a visual novel. At least that way you'd have the concept of how much of the story you've seen because usually visual novels keep track of the art and story seen. I didn't know there was more till I read this.

Visuals are decent but I found the story on my play through very disjointed. One moment hes talking about 1700s, next a car accident, then about caves.

I appreciate the art style but I don't appreciate the sporadic storytelling. At times I'd be walking around in silence and I thought...isn't he going to say something? Perfect time to fill in more story. Yeah there is a time for silence and mood setting but there was some very long amounts of time between voiceovers.

[nakkis]

Hmm I have to say I expected more from the game. The choice of methods for conveying the emotions was at best what a preteen girl would use. I am pointing at the rather dull monologue, which seemed to be just trying to speak oh so deeply, while not giving any actual information about anything, and the paper boats etc.
I enjoyed the scenery though, the first 20mins of walking on the windswept hills was really immersive. But yeah, I hope they either make an actual game (which has well, choices) or they train hard on this whole storytelling thing.

[♡ ♡]

tuhosorsa lähetti viestin:

Hmm I have to say I expected more from the game. The choice of methods for conveying the emotions was at best what a preteen girl would use. I am pointing at the rather dull monologue, which seemed to be just trying to speak oh so deeply, while not giving any actual information about anything, and the paper boats etc.
I enjoyed the scenery though, the first 20mins of walking on the windswept hills was really immersive. But yeah, I hope they either make an actual game (which has well, choices) or they train hard on this whole storytelling thing.

In fact the chineseroom are working on another game an indirect sequel of Dear Esther called Everyone's Gone To Rapture which will have much more interaction and "gameplay". The story they were telling in Dear Esther was a story to make your own of, they leave out just enough story tad-bits you finish the story yourself where it may feel "incomplete".

[Gus the Crocodile]

Viglus lähetti viestin:

einexile lähetti viestin:

You lost me at art. Practically every game ever made is art. I am sick of hearing this from people whose experience of the arts is so narrow that they think the word is some badge of quality or legitimacy. Of course it's art, it's a thing somebody made with the hope of in some way affecting an audience, or nobody.

You can't honestly be saying the likes of Call Of Duty is art.

Yeah, actually, we can. John Walker (of rockpapershotgun etc) put it quite succinctly on Twitter the other day: "There is no clearer means of expressing one's self-possessed stupidity than when one declares what is or is not art. "

Whether or not CoD is good art or interesting art or whatever, and all the reasons why or why not, are different questions. Call of Duty can be analysed and understood as a work of art like practically everything else made by human hands. And it should be, in the interest of understanding it, all our works and indeed ourselves more thoroughly. To treat "art" as an attribute innate to some objects but not others is pointless arrogance that serves only to reinforce biases and ultimately limit human understanding.

[♡ ♡]

Gus the Crocodile lähetti viestin:

Viglus lähetti viestin:

einexile lähetti viestin:

You lost me at art. Practically every game ever made is art. I am sick of hearing this from people whose experience of the arts is so narrow that they think the word is some badge of quality or legitimacy. Of course it's art, it's a thing somebody made with the hope of in some way affecting an audience, or nobody.

You can't honestly be saying the likes of Call Of Duty is art.

Yeah, actually, we can. John Walker (of rockpapershotgun etc) put it quite succinctly on Twitter the other day: "There is no clearer means of expressing one's self-possessed stupidity than when one declares what is or is not art. "

Whether or not CoD is good art or interesting art or whatever, and all the reasons why or why not, are different questions. Call of Duty can be analysed and understood as a work of art like practically everything else made by human hands. And it should be, in the interest of understanding it, all our works and indeed ourselves more thoroughly. To treat "art" as an attribute innate to some objects but not others is pointless arrogance that serves only to reinforce biases and ultimately limit human understanding.

As an avid reader of RPS and fan of John Walker's articles, your definition of "art" would imply a fork, or a hammer would be a work of art. This is the 21st century in this day and age those tools have no "aesthetic principles of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance"[according to dictionary.com], yes we may take them for granted but nevertheless it does not meet those terms. Neither does Call Of Duty meet any of these expectations of "art", yes Call Of Duty was made by human hands, but no does it have any more than ordinary signicance, intricacy, or appeal to anyone other than young children who also think war is fun and would like joining the army because it looked cool in Call Of Duty.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Yes, I completely agree that forks and hammers are art, when you want to look at them that way. What, have you never been to an art gallery where they're exhibiting things as banal as pots? That doesn't mean these things are not also practical tools, but they do have form, they have shapes and textures and colours, and they have significance, both influenced by and influencing human needs. So why can't someone stop and appreciate the artistry of a hammer? They may not be the most interesting works in the world, but they are art nonetheless. The Mona Lisa says nothing to me personally; I don't find it aesthetically appealing or of any particular significance. I simply don't see as reasonable me then saying "well, it must not be art".

But, you know, whatever. I'm a big fan of people being allowed to have their own definitions - dictionary.com (or any other dictionary) is not an authority on meaning, they simply document common uses. If you want to take that definition of art, that's ultimately your business, as long as you understand that it is not for you to decide what's beautiful "in this day and age". Beauty, appeal, or something being "of greater than ordinary significance" are all entirely subjective concepts, and thus so is your stance on what is and is not art. By which I mean, please stop with the disbelief ("you can't honestly be saying this!") at the notion that others may consider CoD art - it makes it look like you don't even understand your own position, let alone ours.

[♡ ♡]

For the sake of not repeating what I have already said and made clear, I agree I don't see anything in the Mona Lisa either never the less there is stuff to be said about it, the controversy of whether or not she is smiling etc etc. I said because we take for granted these tools, ie forks and hammers, that we don't see them as art although yes they were art and are being looked at again today for what greatness they were, but in this modern day a hammer is looked at as a tool not art and should not be looked at as art. A tool is a tool, art is art. We sure don't look at clubs from the cave man days as art, they are reserved for the public to see and say "Hey those were once used by us, how cool someone used to hunt with this" etc etc. Times move on and so does what people see as art. Everything in its day was art, but should not be continually brang up as art centuries down in time. I am sure people will laugh at the computers we used today hundreds of years down in time, for they now have implants, various augmentations etc etc and will look back and say "Wow look at how the world has evolved. Personal computers were once external objects for now they are one with humans and can adaptively reprogram and reconstruct themselves to what is standard tech for each day to come". Not "Wow that is a true work of art". For what was art is obsolete to their days standards of what a computer is now for them.