(02-26-2012 08:51 AM)Tanshaydar Wrote:
(02-26-2012 04:45 AM)Lee Wrote: ... is just bad trash, but even its singleplayer campaign hasn't yet devolved into something bad enough to rival the brainless HOLD-W fest in Dear Esther.
Actually you can finish first level of Black Ops with only pressing W button for a little time.
(02-26-2012 04:45 AM)Lee Wrote: DE comes nowhere near that because it relies on conveying its world, story and emotional value in a completely uninteractive way, almost exactly like it would if it was a visual novel.
Actually some visual novels have much more interactivity and require some critical thinking in some points. They are evolving too.
Thing is, in Blops, there are still people trying to kill you. If you just hold W like you would in Dear Esther, you'd still die. Even though it's terrible, there's still a slight element of challenge.
I don't get how visual novels can be interactive when, well, they're novels. There is not a semblance of interactivity in DE. The only controls you have are for walking, and since there is no feedback to walking, it is not interaction, but only action, and a very basic form of action at that. When you walk, DE reveals more monologue and landmarks, comparable to what you get when turning the pages of a book or strolling through a museum (these two things, for instance, are not interactive).
(02-26-2012 07:49 AM)Hunter of Shadows Wrote: I'm afraid all of that went a little bit over my head, can you dumb it down perchance?
Interaction is at the heart, soul, core, whatever of good game design.
Dear Esther has no interaction, merely a basic system of action (without prefix inter-, see my response to Tans above for more explanation)
Without interaction, the world is just something pretty to look at. It's barely explorable, and by the time you enter the caves, any hint of straying off the rail is gone completely.
Without interaction, the story keeps itself at a distance and refuses to actually challenge you to figure things out
. Rather, it just delivers itself like it's a book, which is something a few damn good games have already evolved from.
Without interaction, the "game" can't put you in a situation that would make you feel whatever emotion it wants you to feel, like smart in Portal 2, badass in Arkham City, energetic in Doom, or afraid in Amnesia. Again, it relies entirely on delivering this feeling like a book would.
It's not that books are bad at telling stories or making you feel emotions. It's just that games can make use of actual interaction and do these things so much better.
(02-26-2012 10:39 AM)Nyarlathotep Wrote:
Quote:comparing de to cod and mario omg 2 deep 4 me
And you're already on the defensive for no reason. Is it really that much of an insult to you if these people wanted to try one game that is solely based on walking around their island and slowly taking in the story and environment details? It was an important aspect to them, that's how they wanted Dear Esther to play. Emphasis on Dear Esther, that's not how they want all games to play. They've already done more gameplay heavy experiments in the past, and obviously will be in the future.
The point of his comparison wasn't to put those games down. He is just pointing out how broad of a category "Video Game" is and that Dear Esther is one, like it or not.
Of course I'm on the defensive. These people have made a title that involves the single dumbest example of game design in the history of game design and they try to make it sound deep by comparing it to games famous for their simplicity, like many Mario titles or the Call of Duty franchise. They want the depth of their story to overshadow the shallowness (rather, complete drought) of their gameplay, so they pick on other titles that don't
have stories at all. That's a monumentally cowardly attempt to try to make critics of their title look like fanboys of generally shit franchises. If someone can't get enough Cawhdoohty, then Dear Esther, regardless of its quality, is probably not going to please him at all.