>Anecdotal report of what you thought doesn’t advance the conversation. I don't know what this means. If it is an insult, I am too stupid to understand it. >I

>Anecdotal report of what you thought doesn’t advance the conversation. I don't know what this means. If it is an insult, I am too stupid to understand it. >I feel that if you call Dear Esther’s interactivity “amazing”, you either haven’t played enough games to be able to expound judgement, or have a definition of “interactivity” different from most players. You could not experience the game without interacting with it. It's in first person. You move the story along as you discover new story elements. You experience emotions and perspectives first-hand. >The consensus is that it’s a good work of art, with a good story, visuals, and sound design, but that there isn’t much to interact with. Dear Esther would not work in any other medium. It would be extremely boring without the interactivity. So if we're circling back to the original comment that spawned this discussion: Interactivity is what makes the medium of video games unique. Dear Esther focuses on interactivity by making the entire story unravel as you choose to explore it yourself... interactively. Your point would stand if Dear Esther put you on rails and you barely pushed any buttons (like a Hideo Kojima cutscene). But that's not how the game is designed.