Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
The narrator's wife is pregnant (the ultrasound pictures inside the house in the 2nd chapter), while the narrator was in the hospital recovering from kidney stones (the multiple references to the stones, and when Esther came to visit him in the hospital). Shortly after he gets out of the hospital, Esther is in a car crash, and doesn't survive. The island is (in my opinion) created as a result of the narrator's "descent into delusion/madness" as a result of her death. Though he's, to some extent, able to come to terms with her passing (when you see the paper boats being sent out to sea near the end of the game), he doesn't fully 'recover', which is why he jumps from the tower at the end of the game. So he can be with her again.
But then again, the above paragraph is just my (paraphrased) opinion of the story.
In this particular instance, there are too many holes in the plot to make for one definite version.
There is very little we do know, a lot of stuff is up to interpretation. For example, while it's likely that Narrator is Paul, there are some arguments to be made against it. We don't even know for sure whether Esther is dead, she might just be in some sort of vegetative state/coma with no hope of recovery.
The only thing that is quite certain is that Narrator has mental problems and dies in the end.
Personally I don't necessarily think that this is great storytelling - but I understand many people go crazy for that sort of thing ;)
I find the claim "she was pregnant" to be a bit curious, though. Are there any more hints than the ultrasound pictures in that one building? Because, those didn't look like they depicted an embryo/fetus or anything of the sort. I'd also have thought the narrator would have goshed some more about this supposed pregnancy, in some obscure way or another?
But yes, the narrator has gone off the rails so you can't trust anything he says as fact. The Dear Esther game before this version warned you of that. You really need to take cues from the environment as to what's going on, but even so, it's designed to be ambiguous with a 'whatever you want' interpretation.
You are right, an ultrasound picture usually implies pregnancy, but it is a bit surprising how utterly, utterly inconsequential this ends up being - with the narrator never actually commenting on it and no references to it made elsewhere.
Not to be too contrary now, but I feel this is akin to saying "she was blind/crippled/a rape victim" or similar - a quick way to ensure a player's sympathy without actually having to work for it ;) We actually don't know a thing about Esther - except she was pregnant, and now she is dead.
Anyways, it doesn't really seem to matter in the grand scale of things, but thanks for the reply and the clarification!
Edit: Didn't know "rape" was censored! So: "A victim of unwanted carnal attention"
I'm not clear as to why he's in the state he's in; from his dialogue, his kidney stones are long past, and the car accident was long past. Esther has been dead for a while, so what happened to him? He says he has talked to Paul since the accident, and he stole some of the ashes from the funeral (Why would he need to steal them if Esther was his wife?) If he's in a coma as the dev commentary suggests, how did he get in that state. Is his theft of the Hebrides book a coma dream, and was his conversation with Paul also a dream, or did any of these events happen in his real life. It's certain the place he is in is not normal. There are ghosts, and bits of the car wreckage, shrines, urns, not to mention all the books at the bottom of that one gully. He has also mentioned he thinks he's done all this before.
LOL
Thank you for the laugh. It's been a long day.
And how is a story left open to interpretation not a story? You just posted your own interpretation, showing that they did their job, even if you are clearly an insecure bible-thumper. How is the presentation of music, narration, and setting inherently "wrong" if it's what the dev's intended? It's not a demo, it's exactly as long as the dev's intended it to be.
We get it, you're scared of the unique. I'm sorry you were unable to appreciate this little nugget of art, typical jealous reaction from someone who has accomplished so little in their own life. I guess anything more high-minded that driving a dune buggy down a beach crushing giant ants is too "pretentious" and "vain".
I'd recommend reading my review (I posted it last night) if you need a clearer explanation.
Well, it's in your Steam library for one, and that means it's enough of a game that Valve saw fit to allow it on their platform. You start it up, you have the option to "start new game", there are graphics, audio and control options. You use ASDF to move around, and mouse to look. You manually move through the gameworld taking in the experience, and the dev's trickle-feed you story, atmosphere and presentation entirely as they intended. If it were "software", then you would be using it to draw a picture or compile PDF files or something. It's a game, just one of the first of its kind, which is why it grates on people like you so thoroughly. You afraid of change. Then again, it's all subjective anyway.
On the contrary, they very specifically wrote multiple overlapping interpretations, with the intent of keeping the player guessing, and leaving it up to their imagination. Nothing wrong with that, it is a common trope in some of the best literature. Every time you think you have it figured out, something comes along to cause a shard of doubt. They very explicitly state in the commentary that this was their intention, because it respects the most important storytelling aspect of all-- the player's imagination. If you are someone who needs everything to be cut and dry to fit your narrow little worldview, look elsewhere. All of the different theories proposed on the forums is testement to the game's longevity, and plenty of games use this storytelling tactic and are wildly successful. What is "100% truth" anyway? There's no such thing. I've seen thermal imaging maps of the visible universe stretching back to the Big Bang, I've seen museums filled with fossils in varying states of change, I've watched bacteria evolve anti-biotic resistences in real time through a microscope, I've observes trillions of varieties of insects that would never have fit on an Ark. "God did it" isn't something you can test in a laboratory.
The dev's aren't lying to the player. You are lying to yourself.
I'm evil for liking a game with no gore and no violence? Yet you claim Dear Esther isn't up to the standard of Half-Life 2, a game about murder and mayhem? My my, so much hypocrisy and judgment over a harmless game. How un-Christ like. I know atheists who are better Christians than you. Perhaps they could give you a few pointers on how to be a better human being. Let me know if you'd like me to hook you up.
And how hilariously presumptuous and patronizing of you to assume I'm not a "true believer" just because I disagree with you. Isn't it blasphemous to presume that your interpretation is the correct one, or the only one? An omnipotent, omnipresent God is far larger than anything your little mind can comprehend. Yet here you are, putting everything you believe about God into a little carefully-labelled box, and then worshiping the box instead of God.
I finally see what's really going on here. In one of the commentary nodes the (extremely talented) Jessica Curry asks Dan why he is an atheist, and he gives an incredibly throught out and humanistic response, wherein he draws on all aspects of life instead of the narrow one you arbitrarily chose to adhere to, and it drove you crazy, because you've been brainwashed into believing that anyone who doesn't prescribe to your personal cut-and-dry perversion of belief is ♥♥♥♥♥! You've made a virtue out of ignorance, and have once again had that horrible epiphony shoved in your face... by a GAME. How brittle is your belief system if that is all it takes to get a rise out of you.
Ah, so you went with the "killed himself" interpretation. That's... shallow, but judging by your attitude thus far it's not a stretch that you missed out on a lot of symbolism because you were stuck up on a bible verse.
Sorry, I'm going to have to go with the cumulative positive Steam user rating over some quack who believes in a deity that drowns his children. Such insecurity from a higher power.
I reckon your mind would make a brilliant Dear Esther 2...