Header image

Dear Esther

PC review by James Dewitt on 10th January 2013

It’s perfectly reasonable to ask why something like Dear Esther exists in the first place. Essentially a remake of a Half-Life 2 mod. Problem is, it’s not really a videogame. Critics have been struggling to attach a label to Dear Esther—experimental, interactive movie, a narrative experience—none of which really describe it accurately. Dear Esther is a game that isn’t a game.

At its most basic level, Dear Esther is about a nameless protagonist traversing an island while occasionally narrating snippets of dialogue. This is an unreliable narrator, as his exposition becomes more blurred and obscure as things drag on. The titular Esther is his departed wife, allegedly, and he has written multiple letters to her. It’s difficult to empathize with the narrator as he prattles on about cartography and other inanities rather than about the horrible grieving the death of a loved one leaves in its wake.

screenshot

Unsubtle hints are alluding to the cause of Esther’s death border on becoming a gag later on as the narrator keeps repeating the same metaphor like a parrot. The island itself may or may not be metaphorical, which is also true of most characters referenced by the narrator. Dear Esther is clearly trying to be a work of art, so it’s no surprise that it carries with it a level of pretentiousness and obscurity commonly found in other ‘experimental’ titles.

Dear Esther’s value will ultimately be determined by how well it can draw players into its narrative and the sad truth is that there’s nothing to draw one’s interest to the ’story’ or lack thereof. There are no other characters, no great mysteries to be uncovered, or compelling reason to trudge from one point to the next. With nothing to dwell on, it’s easy to experience Dear Esther in about two hours, give or take any aimless wandering.

screenshot

Walking around is done at a glacial pace that can’t ever be sped up, no matter how irritating it becomes. At least the surroundings are nice to look at. Beaches, caves, and the entire island itself are rendered beautifully. Dear Esther might be the best-looking game to ever be powered by the Source engine. But with that comes the crushing realization that exploration isn’t possible given the invisible barriers that constantly show up whenever the player veers off the linear pathway.

Stirring orchestral music occasionally breaks up the dullness, but it quickly fades leaving silence and an overall feeling of emptiness to proceedings. Our humble narrator chimes in with infrequent observations. Some are very well-written, others sound off-key, but overall they come across as little snippets by someone who had a few pages worth of material and couldn’t connect them in any meaningful way.

screenshot

What profundities can be reached after one experiences/plays Dear Esther? After so much walking and personal reflection, what is the point of the entire experience? None, although the developers might beg to differ. Thus it falls to the player to fill in the blanks left by the game with their own conclusions. Kept at arm’s length the whole time, it’s difficult to picture getting attached enough on this metaphorical journey to do so. There is nothing to be gained over playing Dear Esther versus watching a playthrough video of it online.

Why Dear Esther exists is something of a mystery. It’s certainly not a game, nor does it fit snugly into any other descriptor, but a more important question would be whether or not the experience is compelling. With no story or true narrative to latch onto, there’s no reason for players to care about what’s going on. And there’s only one thing ever going on in Dear Esther: nothing. Broken up into individual pieces—the graphics, writing, and music clearly show talent and might have led to interesting stories or games—but together they form a dull, lifeless experience that’s quickly forgotten.

Three out of ten

Spread the word

About the author

James Dewitt is a Senior Staff Writer at Thunderbolt, having joined in March 2010.

Comments

  • Nathan

    10th January 2013

    Gravatar

    Funny how I don’t even like story driven games but I managed to enjoy this more than you…

    Also did you manage to see any ghosts? They popup a few times through your journey, always thought that was interesting and I wish more games had a mysterious stuff like that.

  • Guymar Dudikoff

    10th January 2013

    Gravatar

    Proof positive that video gaming, and by extension video game reviewing has finally caught up to the level of pretentiousness that exists in film. Not referring to your review, but I looked up the title on Wikipedia, and reading the synopsis, I’m thinking:

    A. Why would someone play this? See B.

    B. Why would someone call a game like this “One of the most haunting and well-executed titles of this or any other generation?” See C

    C. For the same reason movie critics give rave reviews to crappy art house films that nobody remembers after 3 months. See D.

    D. Some people just like plastic flamingos and want to look smart, what can you say?

    There are many, many fantastically written games where the game play, admittedly takes a backseat to the story. Any number of RPGs, Gabriel Knight, Silent Hill…sure, these are games, but we’re mostly playing for the story. This sounds to me like someone thought they didn’t have to provide the most rudimentary of gaming mechanics to the narrative. I mean, is it even possible to lose the game?

    We already have something like this. They’re called “movies”

Add your own comment »

You may also enjoy