Well, I guess it does... Not enough of this kind of stuff around.

Agreed.

Barrow Hill 2 is hopefully coming around. Then we will have some solace...

I'd like to see a genre of lonely wandering in the mold of Dear Esther. Places where the world wasn't stuffed with puzzles. Just beautiful explorable landscapes with gentle nudges toward an understanding beyond puzzles.

agreed.

Wonder if we can get a group rate on Steam?

haha.. 2 people? they may comp us one drink lol...

One drink is better than nothing.

amen brother..

On my own dime, raising my own glass, here's to Dear Esther! May it be the first of many such experiments!

Sante!

And to you!

On a side note, I have found the environmental exploration offered by, of all things, hunting games, to be quite engaging. Whether hunting deer or dinosaurs, walking around a three dimensional environment can be both restful and compelling. More, please!

MrLipid, have a look at this.

There is also a free Half-Life 2 mod where you swim around as a mermaid, explore and solve puzzles. Or so people claim. In the half-hour I tried it, I got lost and couldn't find anything to do

As for games experiences like Dear Esther, FATALE is the only one I can think of that even comes close.

"**** NrLipid & tincup2 ******

I'd like to see a genre of lonely wandering in the mold of Dear Esther. Places where the world wasn't stuffed with puzzles. Just beautiful explorable landscapes with gentle nudges toward an understaWonder if we can get a group rate on Steam?

nding beyond puzzles.

-------   I Wonder if we can get a group rate on Steam?".

As you can gather from all of my posts - Dear Esther (and its style) are not my cup of tea, bottle of beer, or tot of whiskey 

I just don't understand it – maybe something missing in me ! I appreciate interactivity of at least SOME sort – and there is none whatsoever in Dear Esther – correction there IS (only) one thing  you have to scroll your mouse right or left and to a limited degree up and down. Apart from that you might as well be a couch potato on a VERY much larger & better screen;

And whilst on that subject. The game is touted as 3D – but that is another bluff ! Proper 3d is what exists in the last 3 Tex Murphy games where you can examine the top of a tall cupboard or whatever is under a low table or the contents of an open drawer or waste paper basket or dumpster.  DE has NOTHING even approaching that !

I can see that quite a number of gamers (not only members of JA) LOVE this type of "game" What percentage of players have bought the "game" or maybe will do ! I have not the slightest idea of course.

However if it becomes extremely popular I fear it will be the end of Quest-Adventure games for me and maybe for a number others and spell the death of the Adventure-game that has (so far wrongly ) sounded the death knoll of Quest Adventures.

But there's no accounting for taste.  I have loved the proper Quest-Adventure genre ever since I was enthralled in 1985  by the (now primitive)  video ghame "Alice in Wonderland" by Broderbund on my Apple 2C. Actually well before that - in 1977, a full 35 years ago on holiday with my wife by Lake Como, inserting an Italian  coin in a contraption to play a few minutes of 'PONG" (or whatever

Originally Posted By Len Green (26 FEB 2012 7:00am)

 

I can see that quite a number of gamers (not only members of JA) LOVE this type of "game" What percentage of players have bought the "game" or maybe will do ! I have not the slightest idea of course.

The developers posted on Steam that they sold over 50,000 copies in the very first week. That's quite a lot for an indie game. If you want to understand why so many people loved Dear Esther, go pay a visit to its Steam forum. I loved it too. Mesmerizing trip. 

However if it becomes extremely popular I fear it will be the end of Quest-Adventure games for me and maybe for a number others and spell the death of the Adventure-game that has (so far wrongly ) sounded the death knoll of Quest Adventures.

I hope there will be other innovative multimedia experiences in the vein of Dear Esther, with or without interaction. In the past we had creative stuff like Gadget, L-Zone, Bad Day on the Midway, The Dark Eye, and more recently The Path.  They will enrich the genre and of course other types of games/adventures will always be in demand as well.

Mr Innocent.

I highly recommend the now-rare Shark: Hunting the Great White. Swim around exploring the ocean...and avoiding becoming brunch for a variety of sharks, including a prehistoric monster the size of a city bus: megalodon. Great fun.

On thinking it over I would lioke to apologise for an inaccuracy/error - and I criticise errors of my own as well as otherrs !!!

I suppose that it is fair & correct to call the 'game' 3D despite what I wrote above.

I am not good at computer definitions ! You *CAN* access every point in a three dimensional framework (Not that you can do antything whatsoever when you are AT any point - unlike my example of Tex Murphy gams)).

Mea Culpa on that - but the g'game' is about as far removed from the adventures I prsnally love as can bbut that's a different subject !!!

On third thoughts (immediately after my previous post, was I wrong in my original statement after all - I begin to think NOT. Maybe somebody more au fait with these matters & accurate definitions can clarify ?!?

YES ; You can mouse-scroll right & left as the x-axis & coordinates - and you can  mouse-scroll up and down as the y-axis & coordinates. This is simply a TWO dimensional (2D) framework but not 3D.  In order to obtain real 3D, you would have to be able to mouse-scroll in and out of the screen making it the Z-axis and coordinates. 

Hence AFAIK, this is simply a 2D affair and not a 3D one.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean Len, but if we want to be 100% accurate, nothing shown on a 2D surface (like a TV or computer monitor) is "real 3D".

Lately there is a push in both movies and games for a more convincing 3D experience, though it is based in the way the human eye/brain perceive images and depth of vision.

The most inexpensive way to experience this is to watch a movie in 3D at any cinema that supports the technology. Bear in mind, they give you special glasses to wear, but they can easily be worn over regular glasses. The latest hit in 3D is Martin Scorsese's "Hugo", a nominee for a number of Academy Awards tonight.

Similar technology is available for home use in both TVs and computer monitors, though it doesn't come cheap. But a number of games have "3D Vision" support for at least a couple of years now, though they are mostly action games. I seem to remember that Resident Evil 5 was among the first, and it was released September 2009.

The only adventure that officially supports this new 3D technology is "The Rockin' Dead", though by most accounts it isn't a very good adventure game despite the eye candy.

Thanks for the info MrInnocent - I'm not at all knowledgeable about 3D applications.

The little that I DO know concerns some techniques for obtaining real or apparent 3D -  and Dear Esther does NOT utilize ANY of them and so IMHO should not be categorized as 3D when it is pure 2D where you can view both (only) dimensions in 360 degrees !.

"I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean Len, but if we want to be 100% accurate, nothing shown on a 2D surface (like a TV or computer monitor) is "real 3D"

With respect I think that you know MUCH more about 3D than I do'

I think that in order to get or simulate 3D you must give the onlooker the reality or feeling of being able to see objects in proper perspective i,e, being able to differentiate and gauge distances N.B In nature this is done by having TWO separated eyes each of which receives slightly different images whence the brain automatically translates them into the correct distance. This is why peple who are blind in one eye (including myself often teaspoon the sugar just outside the cup instead of into it

Their are ways of doing this with people who have normal vision in both eyes. The oldest method of achieving this is using spectacles whose 2 'lenses' are of different colours. But it can also be done with spectacles using light polarized in 2 different planes or even lasers & probably other methods.

Mathematically ( 3D orthogonal  graphical geometry) you can only represent things in 3D space  using THREE axes x, y, & z not as Dear Esther does using 2 dimensions only, x & y only!

.

"

You are right about 3D (like most things!) having a precise mathematical definition, and maybe Dear Esther (I still have not played it) doesn't adhere to it strictly. But that is true of  many computer games claiming to be 3D, so singling Dear Esther out as dishonest seems a bit harsh.

Part of the problem is that the term "3D graphics" has become common among gamers, and it has nothing to do with mathematic or otherwise scientific interpretations. It mostly means a computer generated environment rendered in real-time (as opposed to pre-rendered, like the vast majority of third-person adventure games, that have the advantage of being capable of exquisite detail, but are very time-consuming to create and have a fixed resolution ) that allows your character to move and look around more or less freely in it. That's what 3D means in "gamer culture", and you and I will never convince them to care that it is not true from a mathematician's point of view.

Mr Innocent,

I agree 200% with EVERYTHING you qwrote in your above post I don't *ALWAYS* disagree or argue - hehehe).

THANX --- Len 

What I meant in my previous post here was the following :-

Mr Innocent pointed out that MANY games claim to be 3D whereas in fact none of them actually are and the whole term 3D is technically accurately incorrect for *ALL* of them.

He furthermore claims  that in that case (with which I agree with him absolutely) why should I "pick on" Dear Esther particularly.

He is completely correct, and I apologise !

3D refers to 3D wireframe type computer modelling. Each point of an object in a 3D model [a game level for instance or an object within a level] is described by a 3 number coordinate corresponding to the XYZ axes. 2D textures are then "mapped" onto the facets of 3D spaces and objects created in this manner to give them visual quality. But mapping doesn't make the model 2D or even 2.5D.

3D movement consists of forwards/backwards, up/down, left/right, the same axes we use to move around in our sad little world.

Zooming in or out is the dimunition or augmentation of a particular field of view from within the 3D model, not an axis per se. Narrow the "cone of vision" while keeping the area of the screen unchanged will have the effect of magnification, broadening it will do the opposite.

Dear Esther is 3D by the conventional computer modelling definition, as are most games billed as 3D these days.

Pre-render slideshow games like Riven are 2D from our "gamers" point of view, but 3D models were used to create the scenes from which the individual snapshots we see were taken. By not letting us wander around Riven in glorious 3D they were relieved of modelling and rendering *every* object and surface, something that was probably beyond the computational or budget limitations of the game industry at the time. Yet even today highly refined pre-render 2D slideshow games compete graphically with the best 3D games of today in view-to-view comparisons.

Edit: In fact they usually surpass 3D in pure rendering detail