Last time I was talking about Dear Esther and about how rules play and culture all fit into it's game space. Like I said, the game is award winning but that does not mean that it does not have problems. It is not a perfect game because of what the developers want to accomplish, and the the many limiting rules in place to facilitate the vision. Players have complained about the slow pace that the game moves and about how limited interaction with the game environment forces the player to break immersion. Most of all, players have complained about the lack of freedom that the game allows.
The argument is: if the players are able to interact with the game environment, the storytelling elements of Dear Esther may potentially be enhanced. Imagine moving about in the game's world and interacting with various things on the island in order to progress the story forward. While that may sound beautiful in theory, it may also create unintended side effects that would break immersion more than the lack or interaction already does. For an example, picking up an abandoned pendant to hear a vignette of Esther talking about her marriage to your character would be great, but what if the object you need to interact with becomes bugged? That same pendant would, instead of activating the vignette, cause your character to fall through the floor into an expanse of infinite white. While this is an extreme example, it is not unheard of for a bug like this to happen. Another argument against interactive objects is that the players themselves could unintentionally, or even intentionally, ruin the storytelling experience by finding ways to play with the world and items in it in a way that does not fit with the experience. Lets say that the very same necklace is an object that you could pick up. If you collide with the pendant while trying to move closer to it, there are ways that the amulet can go flying away due to game physics. That would produce not only an annoying bug/glitch/strangeness, but it would also break the narrative that the developers so masterfully set up.
All of these reasons point towards reasons to make the game as it was, but are there ways for the game to have interactive pieces while keeping the narrative experience as smooth as possible? My answer to this question is a definite yes. While there are many ways that interaction can interfere with the story and content present in the game, there are specific challenges that could actually be implemented that would make the game more immersive, and minimize the amount of times that you break the magic circle. One such type of interaction would be the use of something as simple as a flashlight. Your character is holding a flashlight, and by shining it on specific parts of the environment, you will hear the anecdotes and move the story onward. In order to keep the story moving, the player will not need to shine the flashlight onto anything specifically, but just turn it on in a given area to move the tale forward. Another example of a non-immersion breaking interaction is a touch system, where the player will see their character reach out and touch an object, such as a cavern wall, to activate the story script. The player would also be able to interact with water by touching the surface and seeing the ripples, interact with tall grass by running his hand through it, or tracing the chalk markings on a standing stone. All of these things would not have the problems addressed before, or at least minimize them, and would help add to the immersion of the game.
The magic circle is a term coined by Johan Huizinga to describe the activity of play. The players would enter a "magic circle" where all of the rules of "real life" would be null and void, while the rules of play/the game would hold sway. A famous section of Homo Ludens in which Huizinga tries to describe how the magic circle works is: a little boy is playing on the font of a row of chairs when his father comes and hugs him before the boy replies "Don't kiss the engine, Daddy, or the carriages won't think it's real." The boy knows that the train is not real, but wants to pretend that it is within the magic circle, but his father unintentionally "breaks" the magic circle, causing the boy to tell his father that the make believe train won't think that it's real. In the magic circle, the rules of "real life" do not apply, and only the rules of play exist.
The argument is: if the players are able to interact with the game environment, the storytelling elements of Dear Esther may potentially be enhanced. Imagine moving about in the game's world and interacting with various things on the island in order to progress the story forward. While that may sound beautiful in theory, it may also create unintended side effects that would break immersion more than the lack or interaction already does. For an example, picking up an abandoned pendant to hear a vignette of Esther talking about her marriage to your character would be great, but what if the object you need to interact with becomes bugged? That same pendant would, instead of activating the vignette, cause your character to fall through the floor into an expanse of infinite white. While this is an extreme example, it is not unheard of for a bug like this to happen. Another argument against interactive objects is that the players themselves could unintentionally, or even intentionally, ruin the storytelling experience by finding ways to play with the world and items in it in a way that does not fit with the experience. Lets say that the very same necklace is an object that you could pick up. If you collide with the pendant while trying to move closer to it, there are ways that the amulet can go flying away due to game physics. That would produce not only an annoying bug/glitch/strangeness, but it would also break the narrative that the developers so masterfully set up.
All of these reasons point towards reasons to make the game as it was, but are there ways for the game to have interactive pieces while keeping the narrative experience as smooth as possible? My answer to this question is a definite yes. While there are many ways that interaction can interfere with the story and content present in the game, there are specific challenges that could actually be implemented that would make the game more immersive, and minimize the amount of times that you break the magic circle. One such type of interaction would be the use of something as simple as a flashlight. Your character is holding a flashlight, and by shining it on specific parts of the environment, you will hear the anecdotes and move the story onward. In order to keep the story moving, the player will not need to shine the flashlight onto anything specifically, but just turn it on in a given area to move the tale forward. Another example of a non-immersion breaking interaction is a touch system, where the player will see their character reach out and touch an object, such as a cavern wall, to activate the story script. The player would also be able to interact with water by touching the surface and seeing the ripples, interact with tall grass by running his hand through it, or tracing the chalk markings on a standing stone. All of these things would not have the problems addressed before, or at least minimize them, and would help add to the immersion of the game.
The magic circle is a term coined by Johan Huizinga to describe the activity of play. The players would enter a "magic circle" where all of the rules of "real life" would be null and void, while the rules of play/the game would hold sway. A famous section of Homo Ludens in which Huizinga tries to describe how the magic circle works is: a little boy is playing on the font of a row of chairs when his father comes and hugs him before the boy replies "Don't kiss the engine, Daddy, or the carriages won't think it's real." The boy knows that the train is not real, but wants to pretend that it is within the magic circle, but his father unintentionally "breaks" the magic circle, causing the boy to tell his father that the make believe train won't think that it's real. In the magic circle, the rules of "real life" do not apply, and only the rules of play exist.