Digital Nightfall on 15/2/2012 at 08:52
In my glass!
HipBreaker on 15/2/2012 at 16:27
I found it to be very enjoyable. Such immersion is rarely found, in my experience.
jay pettitt on 15/2/2012 at 19:07
Did you enjoy it? I'm not sure I did. At least, it's not the word I'd choose.
I marvelled at it. When it started I thought: that's nice, they've replaced the beginning with a cut-scene - and I stood there, on the jetty, staring into the water waiting for it to end so I could take control begin exploring.
I questioned it occasionally, only to be satisfied later that I was out of my depth all along and had been outsmarted. And I succumbed to it. I think succumb is the word I'd use.
ZylonBane on 15/2/2012 at 19:26
Since none of you mooks can apparently be bothered to actually link to what you're talking about--
(
http://store.steampowered.com/video/203810?snr=1_5_9__400) Dear Esther on Steam
Cripes, $10 for a barely-interactive Source engine demo? I was expecting them to charge no more than half that.
jay pettitt on 15/2/2012 at 20:08
it is interactive if you use your brain :mad:
Seriously ZB, it's a bottle of wine or a cheap DVD on any other night. I think Esther and the work that's gone into it has gotta be a fair equivalent to that, no?
And if you don't think its for you the (
http://www.moddb.com/mods/dear-esther/downloads) original version is still free.
Sulphur on 15/2/2012 at 20:26
It's already (
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-15-indie-game-dear-esther-profitable-in-less-than-six-hours) earned its production budget back in six hours.
Which means two things:
1) It was relatively cheap to make at $55,000 even with the new music, VO, and art - four people, in toto, I think, over a one year period? Not bad.
2) This warm, fuzzy feeling I'm getting from realising that, even at $10, more than enough people like this sort of thing to stump up the cash for it - it's not a game, but it is extremely well-written, well-told, and well-produced interactive fiction. And people are willing to buy it.
This bodes extremely well.
Koki on 15/2/2012 at 20:30
More people paid more to watch Jack and Jill
How does that bode
ZylonBane on 15/2/2012 at 20:32
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
it is interactive if you use your brain
There is a point on the scale of cryptic writing beyond which the writer depends on the reader using their brain to such a degree that the reader is essentially doing the writer's job for them. That is the point at which the writer can just fuck off, as far as I'm concerned. Dear Esther appears to comfortably occupy this zone. If I wanted to use my brain that much, I'd be writing my own fiction, not subjecting myself to an hour of Englishman vs Thesaurus.
Not really relevant. What you're paying for is the graphics, without which this is little more than the world's slowest, most disjointed audiobook.
Sulphur on 15/2/2012 at 20:38
Quote Posted by Koki
More people paid more to watch Jack and Jill
How does that bode
Adam Sandler, meh. He's got a conditioned and pre-determined audience.
Use a better target.
Also, uh, Dear Esther is
cryptic? It's vague and a little obscure but surely the broad strokes weren't white paint on a white canvas. Some people were probably casualties of the randomised audio making things blurrier than they should be, which is a shame and a flaw, but I don't think I was plain
lucky to realise that it's quite basically about
a car, a driver, a man and his wife and events involving them?
demagogue on 15/2/2012 at 20:59
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Not really relevant. What you're paying for is the graphics, without which this is little more than the world's slowest, most disjointed audiobook.
What they're paying for is a way to send the message that they like this kind of artfaggotry in games and want to see more of it. I doubt many people ever thought, wow look at that graphics upgrade. I gotta have that!
