Kein Wrote:Re-read my post. I was talking about Dear Esther in a first part.
I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to all those wild speculations going on in this thread in general. (That's why I was so surprised) Please disregard what I said
Bridge Wrote:In my opinion, [...] art isat its core communication. An artist's highest aspiration (in my opinion) is to communicate something which he thinks is worthwhile to his audience and by doing so somehow improving their lives or at least leaving them with knowledge or experience they did not have beforehand.
Quote: However, I think there can be no doubt when you are dealing with fragments of a story that appear in random order. It is not thought out at all and is intended to be confusing.
Yes, it is indeed intended to be confusing. Have you heard the talk Dan gave at the GDC Europe about Dear Esther? I think you might find it interesting...Here's the
link that got posted eons ago in this very thread. Can't find the actual video right now tho...hm. maybe I 'll stumble across it later.
Basically, what he's saying there is that Dear Esther has no message. It has no "right" interpretation and he never had a complete, coherent story in mind when writing and arranging the monologue snippets.
This is because the intention behind the experiment was not to have the player passively listen to a story or make him unravel some mystery with a predefined answer. Instead he merely wanted to inspire the player to come up with his own story. I think he calls it a "toolbox" in the talk. Just how you can give someone colors and make him paint his own painting, or a physics engine to play around with, he was giving the player snippets of hints and metaphors, so he could form his own version of what happened.
That's also why the texts are placed semi-randomly (not entirely randomly though), so that there could be many variations and every player could come up with a unique story that was his own creation.
I think I remember him jokingly calling Dear Esther a "story-Minecraft" in that talk...
So yeah, what I'm saying is, you can of course think that experiment is a dumb/pointless/pretentious/whatever one, but you can't deny that it succeeded in a way: I have never heard two interpretations of Dear Esther that were exactly the same.
(Personally, I found the experience quite engaging... it felt kinda like a creative brain-exercise. Unlike
Braid, which was even more cryptic but
had a predefined interpretation. That was pretentious as hell in my opinion! ^^)
Eh... maybe we should open a Dear Esther thread instead. I'm starting to feel kinda bad, adding to this already bloated-as-hell thread.