Walking simulator is an incredibly over-simplistic description of those types of games. They can be great fun if you give them the chance!
It's shorthand for "not mechanically deep = not a game"
I get it, they're not my games either really outside a few. but the term is typically used as a dismissal. Like "bullshit waifu JRPG"
you might get a sense about what that means but it doesn't mean the guy saying it isn't being a dick about it
It's usually used in the context of "not a real fucking game, just some hipster walking simulator"
which is a real shit attitude
I think if you pay actual money for Proteus, you'll be angry.
To me, the definition of "walking simulator" is "environmental exploration and/or narration focused game with violence not being the main way of interaction".
storafötter;166495119 said:Havent played many of them but isnt Unfinished Swan one? It had some interesting parts but it was pretty boring for most part.
I guess that comes down to whether you consider, say, a visual novel a game.I have nothing against the genre (in fact I think many of them like Proteus are a breath of fresh air), but "walking simulators" and "not games" both apply. The problem is that people, especially here, are so used to "game = good" that they immediately assume "not game = bad" and fall into defensive stance any time the comment is made. It's not a dishonor not to be a game . They would fall into the broader category of "interactive media", which also includes "interactive fiction".
Most "walking simulators" have mechanics outside of walking (Ignoring how walking itself is a mechanic). Gone Home for example has you click on objects to examine them and pick them up.You need mechanics to be mechanically deep or shallow. A walking simulator has no "mechanics", you just walk. If there are mechanics it's not a walking simulator by definition.
Exploration, collecting items, piecing together a narrative. Most have a definite ending that you reach by achieving certain goals. Even Proteus has mechanics and an objective: finding and touching the stones.You need mechanics to be mechanically deep or shallow. A walking simulator has no "mechanics", you just walk. If there are mechanics it's not a walking simulator by definition.
I may have trolled that game with that exact title on Twitch back in the day. I showed them!Ironically the first game I've seen that attached to was DayZ
It had some slight survival mechanics so it's technically not a pure "walking sim" but Eidolon is gorgeous
This topic reminded me that I cannot help but think that 10 years or so from now once VR is completely established and graphics are damn new life like, a big part of it is not even going to be games, but Historical Recreations.
Being a passenger on the Titanic as it is sinking.
The Normandy Invasion.
JFK the moments before he is assassinated.
Paul Revere letting everyone know "the British are coming"
It is literally endless. Just any major moments in history.
Sure, there have been games like the Medal Of Honor series that have already done this, but if it can be done in VR, as authentically replicated as possible, I think it would be huge, and actually appeal to a much wider audience than just gamers.
There is also Sports. I think so many people would love to experience some classic moments in sports history from the perspective of those who created them...
If no company is already thinking about this and I just created the next big thing, all I ask is you look me up and give me 2% of your profits.
The big thing to it being truly successful is iOS type pricing, with the pricing changing depending on the length and intensity of said moment.
But the visuals need to be damn near life like for it to really be a huge success. So I do believe we are no less than 10 years off. If not further.
In that case, you've just disqualified more than half of the games mentioned here.You need mechanics to be mechanically deep or shallow. A walking simulator has no "mechanics", you just walk. If there are mechanics it's not a walking simulator by definition.
In that case, you've just disqualified more than half of the games mentioned here.
I don't know how anyone can say that The Vanishing of Ethan Carter has no mechanics, it's a goddamn adventure/puzzle game. Eidolon or DayZ have mechanics that fall in line with their survival themes. Jazzpunk has many mechanics, there are a ton of big and small mechanics you experience throughout that game (games within games).
Looking over the examples in this thread, out appears that there aren't many games that get tagged with this attempted insult on Steam that actually have no mechanics other than walking around. Dear Esther, Proteus (P.T. also falls in this category, though it's not on Steam, obviously) - and then you've got something like Mountain, which clearly does not have any mechanics... not even walking around, so the walking simulator label would be wrong again.
I think that tag/label is a wholly unsatisfactory thing, borne out of spite and a lack of understanding and evolved from mean spirited insider joke into an actual thing.
Very disappointing, overall.
You made some very interesting questions, and I agree with all of your points. Sadly I have no idea how to answer them, and that's probably why the "walking sim" label still exists, because people haven't found anything better or more descriptive than that.Good thoughts on this, especially on the diversity of these titles. From this and the broader discussion, it seems like we're trying to tackle these questions:
1) Is there one genre that even covers many of these games? You can often argue that certain games don't belong to certain genres even though many people group them as such, and that would certainly be the case here. Yet, we like to categorize things. Makes our thought processes easier, even if lessens the meanings of what we're categorizing and by extension our ability to really understand them.
2) If we could identify a genre, what would be the name of it? For example, what is Uncharted? Adventure game? Shooter? Puzzle game? Cinematic action adventure? For the games we're talking about in this thread, what would be the first one or two words that come to mind? I though of exploration, but maybe that's not as relevant as other descriptions.
3) Speaking of which, how do we describe major characteristics of a game? The OP talked about tags in Steam. Proteus has exploration, indie, walking simulator, and relaxing as popular user tags. Are these enough to describe the game? People know what "space sim" connotes (a user tag for Elite Dangerous), but what about "walking sim"?
Cool discussion, and I agree with those that argue VR will likely change how we characterize and appreciate these exploration games. Throw a game with traditional controls on a tablet, and all of a sudden it feels very different. I think VR will do the same since it will change how the player interacts and experiences the environment.
I can see where someone using the term "walking sim" comes from, but the moment they start saying the "not games" bullshit is when they lose me. These are a different kind of games from your regular ones, but they are games nevertheless. They do have mechanics, they allow you to move around and give you restrictions in how to do that. They let you go somewhere and not somewhere else, many have a win condition (explore the entire area, get to the end of the level, listen to the whole story). Nowhere in the definition of games is it stated they require a certain degree of interactivity with the environment to be called that. And if you're talking about the lack of fail states, then we should strike Prey and the newer Lego games off the games list because you can't die (or lose) there.I have nothing against the genre (in fact I think many of them like Proteus are a breath of fresh air), but "walking simulators" and "not games" both apply. The problem is that people, especially here, are so used to "game = good" that they immediately assume "not game = bad" and fall into defensive stance any time the comment is made. It's not a dishonor not to be a game . They would fall into the broader category of "interactive media", which also includes "interactive fiction".
You need mechanics to be mechanically deep or shallow. A walking simulator has no "mechanics", you just walk. If there are mechanics it's not a walking simulator by definition.
I guess that comes down to whether you consider, say, a visual novel a game.
Most "walking simulators" have mechanics outside of walking (Ignoring how walking itself is a mechanic). Gone Home for example has you click on objects to examine them and pick them up.
Also, would adding mechanics make them more games? If you took Mario from Super Mario 64 and put him in Dear Esther, would it cease to be a walking simulator?
Exploration, collecting items, piecing together a narrative. Most have a definite ending that you reach by achieving certain goals. Even Proteus has mechanics and an objective: finding and touching the stones.
Sure, some are essentially virtual art installations. But most are more than just walking
In that case, you've just disqualified more than half of the games mentioned here.
I don't know how anyone can say that The Vanishing of Ethan Carter has no mechanics, it's a goddamn adventure/puzzle game. Eidolon or DayZ have mechanics that fall in line with their survival themes. Jazzpunk has many mechanics, there are a ton of big and small mechanics you experience throughout that game (games within games).
Looking over the examples in this thread, out appears that there aren't many games that get tagged with this attempted insult on Steam that actually have no mechanics other than walking around. Dear Esther, Proteus (P.T. also falls in this category, though it's not on Steam, obviously)
- and then you've got something like Mountain, which clearly does not have any mechanics... not even walking around, so the walking simulator label would be wrong again.
I think that tag/label is a wholly unsatisfactory thing, borne out of spite and a lack of understanding and evolved from mean spirited insider joke into an actual thing.
Very disappointing, overall.
I can see where someone using the term "walking sim" comes from, but the moment they start saying the "not games" bullshit is when they lose me.
These are a different kind of games from your regular ones, but they are games nevertheless. They do have mechanics, they allow you to move around and give you restrictions in how to do that. They let you go somewhere and not somewhere else, many have a win condition (explore the entire area, get to the end of the level, listen to the whole story). Nowhere in the definition of games is it stated they require a certain degree of interactivity with the environment to be called that. And if you're talking about the lack of fail states, then we should strike Prey and the newer Lego games off the games list because you can't die (or lose) there.
I think the main thing that separates stuff like Dear Esther and Proteus and others from the "not games" is interactivityPerhaps we should start with a definition of "game" we can all agree on. The traditional definition I've seen most often says that they have rules and objectives. In "Dear Esther", where you can and can't physically walk is not a "rule", otherwise me going to the bakery in real life is a game. If I add a rule that I can only go to the bakery by hopping on odd-numbered tiles, that makes it a game. Can any of you provide a definition of game that includes media like Dear Esther but not other stuff we know not to be games?