IGF jury discussion on Dear Esther

[Michaël Samyn]

There was a long discussion about Dear Esther among the judges of the Independent Games Festival. Part of it ventures into the "but is it a game?" territory (as if the mere presence of the word "game" in the title of the festival disqualifies everything that is accused of not being one). So I didn't read all of it. But the final thoughts offered by Mr X (an independent art game creator in his own right and producer of some highly successful AAA games, whose name I don't feel comfortable mentioning since it was a semi-private discussion), are a fine conclusion I entirely agree with.

1.) It would be a far worse experience if the devs had been lazy and thrown puzzles in, or some kind of challenge.

2.) It would have been far better if the devs had innovated on the mechanics rather than cloning FPS controls.

While I agree with this conclusion, I do find it easy to forgive Dear Esther its flaws simply because I know how hard it is to make something in this medium that goes beyond games. It's simply impossible for Dear Esther to be perfect at this point in time. There's too much work remaining to be done in this area. (that's why we're all here, isn't it?)

As an aside, I suspect that it is exactly because Dear Esther is conventional here and there (in its graphical rendering and its controls), that some of its critics are even considering it. They should be careful what they wish for!

[Jeroen D. Stout]

I sort-of talk about the 2nd point during my part of the presentations Dan, Pippin and I gave in Spain; which had the sort-of 'The Graveyard is the end-product of all art' slide. But my point was rather that The Graveyard is a 'devolution' from modern games. If we follow Thomas' interaction cycle idea, you could interpret the action in modern games not as violence for the sake of violence, but as violence for the sake of immersion. I.e., you shoot things, and then you feel really close to the story in a cut-scene. A game can draw you in by giving you high fidelity action; and games have evolved years to get to products which mix violence and narrative to get you immersed. And it is a very impressive solution.

Then 'we come along' and want to get immersion through interaction without having the violence. So suddenly we are on a deserted island without weapons or enemies, just with a story. Hence I think of the word devolution; we actually cannot combine this well-oiled combination of violence and narrative with the type of things we would like to say; so in having evolved too far towards violence, we have to make a branch at a lower point in evolution (in a sense). The problem for some judges, I think, is that we no longer have high fidelity action because we threw the violence out; lacking 20 years of high-cost development, we have bare-bones interaction. In a strange way, we have simplest part of mainstream games, yet also are now able to foresee reaching wholly different experiences.

So I see his point about innovation. But I think it is asking why it does not give the immersion cycle he is used to; sort-of expecting Dear Esther to replicate 20 years of completely different development in one game which already is trying to break free from other stigmas.

I even think because play is so cultural it is not a technical problem for Dear Esther but something you could not solve unless you mass-expose people to this type of games for 20 years and evolve with them. I always feel that if we had a dozen Dear Esther's over the coming five years, we would go forward rapidly as they would establish a pool in which they can compete; but now they compete (for some) with games 20 years ahead in evolution.

[God at play]

Perfectly stated, Jeroen, that's exactly how I feel about some mainstream games. They are genetically too similar to each other, such that if a cultural equivalent of a disease were to break out, it could wipe out the whole species.

But thankfully there is way too much interesting work being done outside of the mainstream for me to get too worried about this danger. And despite any particular perspective common in indie games, their rising prominence is only making it easier to thrive outside of the mainstream.

I always feel that if we had a dozen Dear Esther's over the coming five years, we would go forward rapidly as they would establish a pool in which they can compete; but now they compete (for some) with games 20 years ahead in evolution.

Oh it will happen. The future is looking bright indeed.

[Michaël Samyn]

I think you could generalize your statement to "action" rather than "violence", Jeroen. Because the same applies to humorous racing games or non-violent platform games, doesn't it?

[Jeroen D. Stout]

That is a good point... Perhaps 'competitive action' is the right word.

I still get a 'hidden in plain sight' sensation out of this. Strangely, it feels like the industry is cheating by using competitive action (which mostly is violent action ) to make their experiences more interesting. I think I think of 'cheating' because in interviews you hear talk of engaging experiences as-if they could do them without the competitive action. Yet if you took away the violence from nearly any title most players would have the art game complaints that it 'has no purpose' or that you 'cannot do anything', so these 'engaging experiences' with characters are partly faux.

[ghostwheel]

I think FPS controls are very good for exploration and first person type interaction. One of the things I didn't like about the graveyard was the locked camera. I really wanted to look around the environment. I don't understand this railing against the wasd control scheme. Yes, I've read the arguments against them and I think they are seriously flawed. Mouse look and wasd are the most elegant way, next to a gamepad, to explore a 3d virtual space. I don't have a problem with the control scheme in Dear Esther at all.

[ghostwheel]

That is a good point... Perhaps 'competitive action' is the right word.

I still get a 'hidden in plain sight' sensation out of this. Strangely, it feels like the industry is cheating by using competitive action (which mostly is violent action ) to make their experiences more interesting. I think I think of 'cheating' because in interviews you hear talk of engaging experiences as-if they could do them without the competitive action. Yet if you took away the violence from nearly any title most players would have the art game complaints that it 'has no purpose' or that you 'cannot do anything', so these 'engaging experiences' with characters are partly faux.

They would be right if all you did was remove the action. There are lots of options for replacing the action but they are either unimaginative or afraid to use them. I don't think there's anything wrong with action per se, it's just that devs always fall back on the tried and true. That and a lack of emotional maturity.

[Michaël Samyn]

I think FPS controls are very good for exploration and first person type interaction. One of the things I didn't like about the graveyard was the locked camera. I really wanted to look around the environment. I don't understand this railing against the wasd control scheme. Yes, I've read the arguments against them and I think they are seriously flawed. Mouse look and wasd are the most elegant way, next to a gamepad, to explore a 3d virtual space. I don't have a problem with the control scheme in Dear Esther at all.

My arguments against first person WASD navigation are:
1) It makes people sick. Auriea can only play such a game for a minute or two before she's nauseous for hours. I think this is especially caused by the unpredictable floatiness of a mouse controlled camera.
2) To me, it feels like I have a box on my head and I'm looking through a little slit. The angle of view never corresponds with that in real life. This is why I play Skyrim in third person: it give me a much more immersive feeling of the environment.
3) First person motion through space feels very artificial to me. Either it's too smooth and I feel like I'm a truck or a train, or they do that head bobbing thing and then I feel like I'm drunk.

[ghostwheel]

The first one is certainly legitimate. Head-bob does it to me, though my reaction is nowhere near as strong as Auriea's. The other two seem much more subjective. My feeling about 3rd person camera is the opposite of yours. I find it less immersive. Of course, when looking at a screen, you don't have peripheral vision. I don't think the artificiality can be avoided. The whole experience of computer (not)games is artificial.

[György Dudas]

here an worthwhile article by Michael Abbott (brainy gamer blog)

http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2012/02/dear-eisenstein.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+brainygamer+%28Brainy+Gamer%29

(Tale of Tales is mentioned)...

[Michaël Samyn]

here an worthwhile article by Michael Abbott (brainy gamer blog)

http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2012/02/dear-eisenstein.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+brainygamer+%28Brainy+Gamer%29

(Tale of Tales is mentioned)...

I'm jealous of people who get meaning out of Dear Esther.  

Many people seem to underestimate how important the simulation aspect of videogames is. It's like a dirty secret that they're embarrassed about for some reason. Because they think it's shallow. Or something. They're wrong.

[György Dudas]

I need to play Dear Esther... (especially since my daughter's name is Esther )
I hope it has earned its praise ... I like what Michael wrote about montage. I am quite intrigued now.

[György Dudas]

Played it through once. First thing I did was changing the movement configuration from WASD to Mouse. Left mouse button moves forward, right mouse button zooms in. More convenient that way...

If it would be a film, it would feel very primitive. Like a failed film experiment. No cuts (edits), no framing etc. But it is not a film, you can walk around it and choose what to look at. Unfortunately it feels very primitive as a videogame, too. Almost no interaction at all.

On the other hand it uses music, sound and voice acting to create a very defined atmosphere and with great effect. It does not explain everything to you, and as a player it is your responsibility to put everything together. There is a bit of handholding where you are allowed to walk, which harms the illusion of exploration a bit.

The ending (spoiler). I don't like it that it is basically a cutscene where you are thrown out of the immersion. Your main "goal" in Dear Esther is to get to the highest spot on the island, and when you reach that tower/ladder, your control is taken away. You are not allowed to walk up the ladder, you can't do anything but watch. I think this is a huge mistake on part of the game. I would have preferred to climb up the ladder myself, take a look around and then the game might fade out. Instead we get a corny flight over the water...

I did not care too much about the car-accident narrative. I wish it had a different or more interesting narrative core.
I think I will replay it, to get a better look at it...

I would support it to receive the IGF main prize, though. It is definitely the way to push the medium (what Tale of Tales did already a few years ago )

[axcho]

That is a good point... Perhaps 'competitive action' is the right word.

I still get a 'hidden in plain sight' sensation out of this. Strangely, it feels like the industry is cheating by using competitive action (which mostly is violent action ) to make their experiences more interesting. I think I think of 'cheating' because in interviews you hear talk of engaging experiences as-if they could do them without the competitive action. Yet if you took away the violence from nearly any title most players would have the art game complaints that it 'has no purpose' or that you 'cannot do anything', so these 'engaging experiences' with characters are partly faux.

Hidden in plain sight? Reminds me of this:
http://ludusnovus.net/2011/08/15/why-so-few-violent-games/

Also, would The Love Letter count as competitive action? Maybe it would.

Actually, I've heard several players say that it feels strangely like playing a FPS because of the focus on cover and line-of-sight, so who knows...

On the other hand it uses music, sound and voice acting to create a very defined atmosphere and with great effect.

I've been reading the book Story by Robert McKee, and I just came across an idea that may have relevance here.

In the chapter on "Scene Design", McKee differentiates between emotion and mood. Mood is that stuff that games are pretty good at - it's atmosphere, it creates the context, shapes the emotional expectations of the viewer (or player), but it is not emotion in itself.

Emotion is the product of a positive or negative change in value (which in a game context might be collecting a coin, or jumping across a chasm, or killing an enemy, or conversely, getting killed), and mood. Without the action, the change in value, the mood remains inert, disembodied potential. With the action, the mood focuses the positive or negative twinge into a specific emotion.

Here's a quote from the book:

The arc of the scene, sequence, or act determines the basic emotion. Mood makes it specific. But mood will not substitute for emotion. When we want mood experiences, we go to concerts or museums. When we want meaningful emotional experience, we go to the storyteller. It does the writer no good to write an exposition-filled scene in which nothing changes, then set it in a garden at sundown, thinking that a golden mood will carry the day.

I think this hits at a common failing (or at least, a common criticism) of many "art" games - just like movies or books, mood is not enough to create strong emotional engagement. You need story (or gameplay) to create positive and negative "value" that the audience will care strongly about.

I think we are just beginning to learn how to do that. I'm looking forward to it.

[Michaël Samyn]

Interesting distinction. I'm very much interested in creating a mood in my work. But I prefer to leave to emotions to the player.