Prompt 1: An Undefined Experience
Key
components of a game include rules, challenges, goals and interaction. Games
usually involve mental or physical stimulation that can help develop specific
skills, serve as a form of entertainment or provide an
educational/psychological role. The term game is used in opposition of art
since games are categorized structured forms of work with distinct guidelines
and defined endings whereas art is boundless with infinite outcomes. The cross
product of the two works is more commonly used than one would think. Unfortunately,
some audiences are unwilling to appreciate the collaboration of the two worlds in
a concrete idea like a game. Leave it to Microsoft who partnered with The
Chinese Room, a British independent video game development studio who took on
the challenge of combining gaming with art as they released an experimental first
person video game that blurred the lines of a video game and the many dimensions of art which they named Dear
Esther. In Dear Esther the player
explores a deserted Hebridean island while listening to voiced over letters written
to a woman named Esther read by an undeclared narrator. First released in 2008
and remade in 2012, Dear Esther
continues to receive mixed reviews since audiences disbelieve it classifies as
a video game when really it’s beyond sophistication puts it in a league all its
own.
Defining
something ultimately declares its limit. Placing something in a category
creates boundaries that further prohibit anything more to come out of what was then
originally declared. By deciphering Dear
Esther as just a game or a work of art would be a stifling mistake. The
quirky combination of the simplistic yet frustrating player interaction and the
dramatic visual and musical components make Dear
Esther a beautiful creation. “Dear Esther only has three things going for it: its writing,
music, and visual”, describes the scene where the character experiences
the depths of the gloomy cave perfectly. A magnificent amount of sound
dramatizes the artful scenery inside the cave while unveiling a wave of
emotions as the player relates to the sadness of the character, and aren’t
drama and emotions aspects of a game?
Let’s
recall what defines a game: a structured format, rules, guidelines, goals,
challenges and interaction. Truth be told, Dear
Esther is not the best demonstration of solid evidence of the above
criteria. But what it does show is its versatility. This game, similar to other
games provides a form of entertainment. The player is not faced with the
challenge of dodging missiles or searching for a magical key that’ll help carry
the plot forward but with the chance to interpret the story however they
choose. “Dear Esther doesn't need puzzles or mechanics to draw you in. The
strength of the writing and the world alone is enough.” The lack of
puzzles and physical obstacles is necessary for the full experience. It allows
the audience to appreciate their progress in the game at their own pace while
the imagery and narrative take center stage.
Despite the reviews,
the player is in control of the action. Even though the only control is the “W”
key that allows the character to walk, (the only other action is ducking and
even that is automatic) Dear Esther
purposefully doesn’t allow the player to make their own actions. One review
stated “I do not believe Dear Esther
is the search for an answer, or even for a meaning…it is an experiment with the
senses and the emotions.” If one is looking for a way to put Dear Esther in its appropriate place it
may be helpful to accept what it is capable of and therefore does for others
rather than what it actually is. It is a journey through sight, sound and
illusion with a few metaphors thrown in to conjure up feelings relatable to
what the character is going through in the game. Emotion is a large contributor
when playing games, it can rile up feelings that can either benefit or hinder
the player. Dear Esther manages to
transcend the character’s emotion across the screen while still maintaining the
adventurous journey on the island. Other works might benefit from the fusion of
gaming and art; what is our world if we can’t appreciate the collaboration of
all works.
It’s vague plot and
lack of interaction with the player is almost like its way of inviting itself
into the video game world without actually claiming itself as a video game. Dear Esther is playing a trick of its
own, the identity game. Its purpose is not overshadowed by its lack of identity
and that is a game all on its own.
[1] http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/02/13/dear-esther-review
"Dear Esther Review", Keza
MacDonald, February 13, 2012
[2] http://www.destructoid.com/review-dear-esther-221082.phtml
"Dear Esther Review", Allistair
Pinsof, February 13, 2012
The scene
where the character experiences depths of the cave accompanied by dramatic
music.
2 comments:
Through the first paragraph, clearly you should be citing at least one external source, but aren't. This makes it hard to judge - where do the thoughts of your source(s) end, and your thoughts begin? There is also summarization of game mixed in with evaluation of it. This material isn't bad or irrelevant, but it is badly organized and needs citation.
In the 2nd paragraph you do something completely different: challenge (in some ways ) the prompt. This is fine, even good, but your organization is a mess - if this is your real argument, it should have replaced all or most of the first paragraph, becoming your real introduction.
Where is your definition of "game" coming from? It seems good, but it does seem like a citation is missing.
"Even though the only control is the “W” key that allows the character to walk, (the only other action is ducking and even that is automatic)" -- this is a sloppy, uncited paraphrase, and also untrue, for whatever that's worth - there are also controls to zoom in and swim up.
Overall: The moment when you challenge the prompt is interesting. Your definition of game is interesting and useful (if uncited). Your abbreviated discussion of music is interesting. Still, this is a mess. You don't use citation properly, you mostly avoid discussing any details of the game, and you don't have a consistent, identifiable argument. The fundamental cure for all of this would have been to really focus more clearly on the game itself - actually say *something* about the details of it.
I would tend to agree with the other comment. At the end of the post, I didn't feel as though your point, if there really was one, was made. You briefly touch upon some interesting points - ideas that could support a thorough revision - but do not ever actually use them to form an argument. Instead of going deeper with the observations you make, you simply state them so that the reader is confronted with multiple, unorganized thoughts.
Post a Comment