4 ms·

What do you mean by walking simulator, you mean RPGs like Skyrim, Fallout, etc?

by joshlemer 4y ago

jabroni_salad 4y ago
It's kind of a derogative descriptor for narrative games lacking in action. Games such as The Stanley Parable.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Action seems like the wrong word. Walking simulators lack any skill requirements. They’re basically just choose your own adventure stories with a small number, or even just one, choice to make, but you navigate with a character movement instead of picking options from a menu.
  - marvin 4y ago
    It's still a bit of a derogatory term, and it doesn't entirely match up to history. Text adventure games, point & click adventure games and so on were very similar in gameplay mechanics to many games that get this moniker. Many of them do incorporate enough puzzle elements that the game consists of more than just taping down the up arrow. Often, the term feels like it attempts to reduce the term "game" to something more narrow than what the art form does and has encompassed, historically. Not all games require mechanical skill. Not all games are what you expect them to be. Etc.
dagw 4y ago
"Walking simulators" is term for games the focus is on exploration and storytelling rather than combat and more traditionally skill based gameplay mechanics. Most of the game loop involves walking from place to place, enjoying the scenery and discover the next part of the story. As a rule you're not really tested in the game and as such you cannot really fail the game, although the choices you make can lead to 'better' and 'worse' endings.
account42 4y ago
No, Walking Simulator generally refers to games that eschew almost all gameplay besides walking around and looking at things. Like with any genre, there is no hard line of what is or isn't a walking simulator but think games like Dear Esther [0], Firewatch [1] or Proteus [2]. While RPGs typically do have a focus on story, there is also a heavy character building and/or progression component as well as almost always some form of combat. [0] https://store.steampowered.com/app/203810/Dear_Esther/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/203810/Dear_Esther/ [1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/383870/Firewatch/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/383870/Firewatch/ [2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/219680/Proteus/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/219680/Proteus/
- lapetitejort 4y ago
  I've noticed that while initially derided as not being "real games", AAA games have started to co-opt the design into even the most action-heavy games. Uncharted, God of War, and Returnal have long sections of just walking and character building.
  - jerf 4y ago
    Games constantly have this tension of 1. wanting to include story 2. but a truly interactive story is really freaking hard (no sarcasm), so 3. the story isn't interactive, which means that 4. the solved problem of telling non-interactive stories is cinema, so games use cinematic techniques. The problem is that this strange attractor for games is constantly pulling the game into just being a movie, because the need to control things for the cinematic portion spreads. If I need you to be wearing a shirt with pockets for this cutscene, you can't shop for arbitrary clothes, or they just don't show up in a cutscene. If this character needs to be alive for a cutscene five hours in, you can't kill them now. If you can't kill them now, you must be denied the interactivity to do so. It is very difficult to confine this need for control in a story-heavy game because it naturally tends to spread out until everything is completely controlled for the benefit of the cinema and it is just a fancy movie. I'm neither condemning nor praising this right now. Just describing. "Walking simulators" solve the problem by essentially stripping you of all ability to change the environment except on very specific rails. This can support non-linear story telling, but not arbitrarily-changing stories. In the case of AAA games, a key indicator of this is your character suddenly holstering the weapon that is otherwise their constant companion with no player input, and since the only verb you meaningfully had to change the environment up to this point was "shoot", now you have no environment changing abilities, and the game need not explain why suddenly everyone and everything in the world is bulletproof since you simply can not fire. That said, I think the case for calling them "not real games" has some virtue to it. It isn't like there's a bright shining line, but there's certainly "games" that are more interactive (in the limit, consider something like Minecraft) and there are games that are less interactive (in the limit, things that are essentially just choose your own adventure), and as is so often the case in practical philosophy, just because we can't draw a bright shining line doesn't mean we can't at least come close, or that the inability to draw a line means that we have to pretend there are no differences at all.

What do you mean by walking simulator, you mean RPGs like Skyrim, Fallout, etc?

jabroni_salad 4y ago

It's kind of a derogative descriptor for narrative games lacking in action. Games such as The Stanley Parable.

oneoff786 4y ago
Action seems like the wrong word. Walking simulators lack any skill requirements. They’re basically just choose your own adventure stories with a small number, or even just one, choice to make, but you navigate with a character movement instead of picking options from a menu.
- marvin 4y ago
  It's still a bit of a derogatory term, and it doesn't entirely match up to history. Text adventure games, point & click adventure games and so on were very similar in gameplay mechanics to many games that get this moniker. Many of them do incorporate enough puzzle elements that the game consists of more than just taping down the up arrow. Often, the term feels like it attempts to reduce the term "game" to something more narrow than what the art form does and has encompassed, historically. Not all games require mechanical skill. Not all games are what you expect them to be. Etc.

dagw 4y ago

"Walking simulators" is term for games the focus is on exploration and storytelling rather than combat and more traditionally skill based gameplay mechanics. Most of the game loop involves walking from place to place, enjoying the scenery and discover the next part of the story. As a rule you're not really tested in the game and as such you cannot really fail the game, although the choices you make can lead to 'better' and 'worse' endings.

account42 4y ago

No, Walking Simulator generally refers to games that eschew almost all gameplay besides walking around and looking at things. Like with any genre, there is no hard line of what is or isn't a walking simulator but think games like Dear Esther [0], Firewatch [1] or Proteus [2]. While RPGs typically do have a focus on story, there is also a heavy character building and/or progression component as well as almost always some form of combat. [0] https://store.steampowered.com/app/203810/Dear_Esther/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/203810/Dear_Esther/ [1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/383870/Firewatch/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/383870/Firewatch/ [2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/219680/Proteus/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/219680/Proteus/

lapetitejort 4y ago
I've noticed that while initially derided as not being "real games", AAA games have started to co-opt the design into even the most action-heavy games. Uncharted, God of War, and Returnal have long sections of just walking and character building.
- jerf 4y ago
  Games constantly have this tension of 1. wanting to include story 2. but a truly interactive story is really freaking hard (no sarcasm), so 3. the story isn't interactive, which means that 4. the solved problem of telling non-interactive stories is cinema, so games use cinematic techniques. The problem is that this strange attractor for games is constantly pulling the game into just being a movie, because the need to control things for the cinematic portion spreads. If I need you to be wearing a shirt with pockets for this cutscene, you can't shop for arbitrary clothes, or they just don't show up in a cutscene. If this character needs to be alive for a cutscene five hours in, you can't kill them now. If you can't kill them now, you must be denied the interactivity to do so. It is very difficult to confine this need for control in a story-heavy game because it naturally tends to spread out until everything is completely controlled for the benefit of the cinema and it is just a fancy movie. I'm neither condemning nor praising this right now. Just describing. "Walking simulators" solve the problem by essentially stripping you of all ability to change the environment except on very specific rails. This can support non-linear story telling, but not arbitrarily-changing stories. In the case of AAA games, a key indicator of this is your character suddenly holstering the weapon that is otherwise their constant companion with no player input, and since the only verb you meaningfully had to change the environment up to this point was "shoot", now you have no environment changing abilities, and the game need not explain why suddenly everyone and everything in the world is bulletproof since you simply can not fire. That said, I think the case for calling them "not real games" has some virtue to it. It isn't like there's a bright shining line, but there's certainly "games" that are more interactive (in the limit, consider something like Minecraft) and there are games that are less interactive (in the limit, things that are essentially just choose your own adventure), and as is so often the case in practical philosophy, just because we can't draw a bright shining line doesn't mean we can't at least come close, or that the inability to draw a line means that we have to pretend there are no differences at all.