Walking sims - yay or nay?
THE WHY IS SIMPLE: BUDGET
One of the reasons walking simulators became a thing is that it allow developers to create immersive experiences on a tight budget; The state of current game engines allow to reach good graphics peretty easily since engines cut out the kind o work that in the past had to be built for each game.
However animations and character models are still too expensive. Unlike a tree that you can remix and repeat you can only repeat so many characters (non-elevant) e no relevant characters. Beyond their model they require rigging (a complex and somewhat boring/slow process) and then animations- wich by today standards can't be manually made anymore or people will call em bizarre and beat down the title. Mocap is still expensive- and facial capture? Oh god.
What happens then is that indies can make a good and awarded walking simulator avoiding these costs, but the genre is still too risky and niche to make/allow for anyone to put too much money on then. Even if its a success (the genre can be hit or miss) it doesn't make for the same Return over Investment of other genres.
Wich is a shame- because on my view they're one of our best bets for making gaming become even more mainstream and recognized as ample media/art form.
My bet that will only change when VR becomes cheap (like cardboard on smartphone/smart-glass cheap). We're talking future here- the day you can download a walking simulator in fancy graphics on your mobile, put the screen ahead of your eyes and walk or pretend to walk in a room being somewhere else the genre will probably surpass all other genres. Yes. It will. Also it will evolve into more varieties- like horror walking simulators becoming their own niche. Heck even historical single-experiences have a potential good market- like feeling whats like to watch a berlin parade of the nazi party then soon after the day berlin fell.
These kinds of oportunities will only happen when more money can be put into then- and it may take a longer while before anyone(not talking only publishers) can risk that kind o investment. Soonerish it may happen for a VR title but still they're already more expensive to make... so hold your horses.
Comment has been collapsed.
Greatest bad mark with so-called walking sims for me is the limited replayability of most of them, with some also having a rather lacking story (arc) from the get go - which makes them an over all underwhelming experience since, besides that, there's usually not much to do in games of this genre. There's some really enjoyable ones out there though and you seem to have listed the majority of them, so I refrain from needlessly repeating their titles :P.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tried Dear Esther yet? It's certainly is one of the lesser-praised games in the walking simulator genre, but it has a pretty neat graphics design.
Also, I wonder if To The Moon counts as a walking simulator? You basically only spend your time walking.
Comment has been collapsed.
To the Moon has some token gameplay elements, but yeah, it's the same idea of telling a story in the mold of a game. It's not hard to imagine a mode where the game plays itself and it would hardly have been less effective.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you loved The Stanley Parable, you should really try "Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist" - a free to play game by the same man that's behind The Stanley Parable. They have many similarities and I love them both.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they added stuff to a walking simulator it would be an actual game like an rpg.
You're describing like.. deus ex without combat.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have the same problem here. I am trying to imagine how this will look like but I can't see how this will have to be done and still has that walking sim vibe. More than willing to give it a try though.
What comes to mind is that I would like almost every triple A game ever made if they had a "no combat mode".
If will arange for a big party if they would finally build in this option in every game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I think the reason that What remains of Edith Finch has not been sold so much yet is because it did not have an interesting sale yet. It is the no. 1 on my WL so as soon as it gets a nice discount I will play it.
A few MUST play games if you like walking sims:
Infra
Ether One
And some more recommendations :
Everybody's gone to the Rapture
The Fidelio Incident
Oxenfree
The old city Leviathan
De-Void
Homesick
Still worth your time:
The moon sliver
Montague's Mount
Into blue Valley
Comment has been collapsed.
The Cursed Forest seems ok. Only played a few minutes so far though.
Old free version here.
Comment has been collapsed.
the old city was my first walking simulator and it was surprisingly interesting and a welcome change.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've been playing Consortium and I really like it. It's got some first person shooter game-play, but it's sort of peripheral in that you can entirely avoid the shooting stuff if you want. The main game-play is walking around a spaceship and talking to the crew. It does a pretty incredible job of giving you lots of dialogue options and making it feel like choices matter, it really is entirely up to you how you want to play the game. The way everyone on the ship is doing their own thing and the way you can interact with and interrupt events and change what happens makes it feel really alive. I can easily imagine a similar game that has the shooting elements completely removed. I wonder if people would still call it a walking simulator though, because with the focus on dialogue and interaction it's more of a talking simulator. Or a visual novel that lets you actual walk around a 3d environment. I think it's the closest I've seen a game come to the "one city block" idea so far, which is kind of where I want walking simulators to go.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm a bit conflicted about this genre of entertainment. I like stories, a lot. I also like games. I especially like games that incorporate stories, if done well. I'm willing to tolerate a bit of bland or disappointing gameplay if the story makes up for it.
Walking simulators are a way to tell stories with more interactivity than you'd get by reading a book. But, and here's the rub, if it's not a game and you're not actually immersing yourself as a character who can make meaningful choices but as an observer, then all the faffing about you can do just makes for an inferior story. And since there's no game, the overall experience comes out worse than when the writer had just told a strong, linear story, in a traditional form. This is true even if you can make choices, if the choices amount to no more than "you see room A first" or "you are now bored because you didn't make the choice that would have given you the superior story" or especially "you have chosen to overlook a crucial detail that would have explained a lot, hey, it's not my fault you're not applying yourself".
Take Gone Home as an example. I played it. I didn't think it was bad. But I didn't think it was particular good either, and I'm sure happy I didn't pay full price for it, because that would have felt like a rip-off. If Gone Home had been a short story or a novella, I wouldn't have been particularly impressed either, but at least I wouldn't have expected more. Maybe there are pure walking simulators that wouldn't have worked as well as a book or a collection of stories, but I doubt it. I think people make a much bigger deal out of the "interactivity" than warranted.
Now of course you can make things more interesting by throwing in puzzles, irrevocable choices, timed events etcetera, but by that point you're no longer a pure walking simulator but becoming a game. And that's fine! I like games. You can also use the interactivity itself as a story hook and go all meta, like The Stanley Parable. I don't care for that either (I don't think it's half as clever as people think) but at least it makes use of the medium. That's not a trick you can keep repeating, though.
TL;DR: I don't hate walking simulators as a matter of principle, but I think a lot are terrible value for money, and even when they're not I'm thinking something better could have been done in the same running time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I personally haven't played any of those games that fall under "Walking Simulator" and nothing else. Short and simple reason- I do my research before considering playing any game and those look painfully boring.
Yeah, I value gameplay over story. What makes a "good" story is highly subjective so I'd rather the game have a strong basis in gameplay which would still keep me interested and engaged even if the story ends up sucking in my opinion. I have played games that left me extremely disappointed because they had shit gameplay while boasting "a great story" that fell flat on its face (I'm looking at you, The Walking Dead, and especially you, Brothers- A Tale of Two Sons). They just end up feeling like you're dragging yourself through mud until you reach the end in which you fall down a big mud waterfall.
Conversely you can also have a great story told through narrative and scenery while also at the same time having great gameplay (I'm praising you, Darkest Dungeon).
So, yeah, I'll just leave the Wandering-About-Until-Something-Happens Simulators to people who don't get bored by them.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's definitely not a game for everyone. A lot of people may be turned off by the basic art style or the massive amount of time it takes to explore. I liked it a lot because I found it very peaceful and atmospheric. I love open world games that let you explore in the woods. It's the type of game I like to play at the end of the day when I want to basically shut off the real world, forget about everything, and relax.
The game is absolutely massive and the notes are spread few and far between. The notes are not always the most interesting, they cover many different stories about different people and events that happened in the past.
I also really enjoyed the game Miasmata for similar reasons. This game doesn't have much of a story and is not as big, but I enjoyed the atmosphere, exploring, and basic survival mechanics.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess it's the art style that kept me from starting it. I don't like basic art but it was in some bundle a long time ago and I kept it as it does look a little interesting.
But I have it and you love it a lot, so let's give it a chance. The worst thing that can happen is that I don't like it, no big deal.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, you just have a different personal concept of 'video game'. And, at worst, maaaaybe might be caught up too much in semantics.
I think games as a genre have evolved past what's been the standard 'game' definition (like as in game theory, where it's predicated around fail states and mechanics, etc). There needs to be a new, bigger medium category.
Like what 'film' is to 'documentaries' and 'action flicks' - the latter sets out to do two different things and are judged in different ways, but are still part of the same medium.
'Interactive experience', maybe? It sounds kind of dopey, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice answer. I agree that we need a new definition for this kind of product. They are obviously not "games" (most of them don't even give you puzzles to solve, you just walk around pressing the same button to trigger new pieces of the story, be them audiologs or written diaries) but at the same time they "deserve" to exist, just because there's clearly an audience for them. I've loved some "walking simulators", like The Stanley Parable or Gone Home, so I understand their success as a genre, it's just that I think we should stop to discuss about them as games, 'cause they aren't. "Interactive experiences" sounds really cool, imho.
Comment has been collapsed.
ccccc: that made me really happy to hear. I was a little wary, because most people who say '[walking sim] isn't a game....' either explicitly or implicitly follow up with '... so stop talking about them/stop making them/they DON'T deserve to exist'.
There are some overlap when talking about them vs. talking about 'traditional' games - like graphics, how it runs, level design, sound design. Some things that are less important in traditional games become more important, like atmosphere, pacing, and writing.
But, I dunno, usually I compare games like... Thomas Was Alone to Firewatch. Both games are heavily influenced by their stunning stories, which serves as the context of the actions you take in the game.
So what makes Thomas Was Alone inherently MORE game-y than Firewatch? The fact that you jump in T.W.A, and solve more puzzles? But in Firewatch, you have to navigate a large map, keep a sharp eye out for details, and piece together a story based on what was said and not said - those are skills, too, not just mindlessly pushing 'W'. You can argue that if one thing is 'just clicking' or 'just tapping some buttons' .... that's ALL video games.
In every video game, you have to think to proceed, to understand what's going on to move the story forward. If you don't 'get' a movie or a book, you COULD just keep flipping pages or keep watching and you'd get to the end, but every game - walking sims included - requires at least SOME understanding for the player to move the action/narrative forward. The definition of 'what's a game?' is evolving, too.
Comment has been collapsed.
For me, the most useful definition is that a game is something you can win, by criteria set forth by the game itself. The criteria cannot be trivial -- it must be possible to lose.
A pure story-based experience can't be won or lost. You can have a good or a bad time with it, as with all forms of entertainment, but that's something else. "Making it through to the end" cannot by itself be a win criterion if that takes no skill (other than "overcoming boredom", which doesn't count in my book).
Something isn't good or bad just because you can or can't win it, but in order to be called a game, to me, you must be able to win it. If not, what you've got is a toy, or a story, or a simulator (which is a very advanced toy). When people use "game" casually, they mean any kind of computer program that is intended to be used in leisure time (anything you "play"), but that lumps together so much that it's of limited use when we want to distinguish between experiences.
To be clear, I've played horrible games that you could definitely win, but you'd never want to, and I've also had wonderful interactive experiences were I didn't have to apply any kind of skill whatsoever. "Not a game game" isn't a value judgement from me.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 pretty much this.
I'd recommend anyday Gone Home over, let's say, an asset-flip-game with broken mechanics and boring puzzles. But that doesn't make Gone Home a better game, because that's not what it is. More or less like if I'd recommend Breaking Bad over Suicide Squad, without saying that BB is a "better movie", because it's not a movie. It's just something else.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are a lot of things that are considered games where absolutely no skill is involved. Let's take the Goose Game: unless you play against a professional dice roller like myself, it's 100% luck 0% skill, you just have to "make it through the end". Knowing the board layout won't help you against a novice opponent who gets better dice rolls than you.
(Just pointing that out. I'm not arguing that walking sims are actually games, or the opposite - in fact I think "video game" as an expression is a relic of the past and we should definitely come up with a better term for what the medium actually is nowadays.)
Comment has been collapsed.
The Goose game is considered a game because you can win it, but I agree: because "winning" involves getting lucky, and doesn't depend on anything you do at all (other than continuing the game) it's a very weak sort of game, even though most people would agree it's a game. I'd put "pure luck based" games in their own bin and forget about them.This goose is a lame duck.
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't played many of them, but I do enjoy them a lot and hope to play more. I agree that the ones I have played do not have any other characters and it would be fun to try one with character interaction, but that may be a reason why I like the ones I have played so much. The ones I have enjoyed a lot are open world, atmospheric, have basic survival aspects, and you are alone in the woods, I enjoy that a lot. I also enjoyed using maps that do not tell you where you are on the map.
Some people may not consider these walking simulators because they have survival aspects, but I do. You literally just walk and explore through the woods for hours and it is beautiful. There is a very slight survival aspect in both games and there are some other basic mechanics, but for the most part they are just walking and finding pieces of the story.
Eidolon (took me 50 hours to complete)
Miasmata (20 hours to complete)
I played Dear Esther, but didn't like it. I found both the story and the landscapes boring.
Edit: Thanks for the suggestions. I've been looking to get a copy of Firewatch for a while and now want to play some of the others you listed as well. I have also played and enjoyed both The Stanley Parable and The Beginners Guide.
Comment has been collapsed.
I will also list the (in my opinion) best walking simulators here.
Thanks, added couple missed ones to my wishlist.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have a problem with them specifically, but i find it hard to qualify them as videogames, since they tend to lack the whole "game" aspect.
I very much enjoyed The Stanley Parable, Life is Strange for what they where and consider SOMA to be an absolute masterpiece in terms of themes, characters, storytelling and art direction. I played a bit of The Vanishing of Ethan Carter and found it to be rather dull, despite being really pretty.
The issue with these kinds of... experiences... is that for every good one there's like 20 garbage ones and many that get praise despite being horrid, like Gone Home. They also tend to be over priced and pretentious.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd put a game like Life is Strange in a different category from Gone Home, as it has meaningful choices effectively leading to multiple stories, and a lot of dialogue initiated by you. The hallmark of pure walking simulators is that they really only tell one story (or a bunch of related stories, but without variation in the individual stories).
Of course "walking simulator" started off as a slur on games that don't appear to offer anything in the way of gameplay, so it's not like the term is well-defined. But the feel from "choose your own adventure" type experiences is really quite different from the "take a walk in our world" type experiences, so lumping them both under "walking simulator" seems unhelpful.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that's just splitting hairs.
The Stanley Parable also focuses on player choice as a plot point and your decisions will affect the outcome. The basic essentials shared by these games is a lack of meaningful gameplay elements or in some cases a "game over" condition. I think Life is Strange fits those quite well.
You can't really do anything more than walking (other than turn back time, but that's a plot device rather than a gameplay one) and talking to NPCs to piece together and advance the story, but the bulk of what you'll be doing is walking.
Just like with every other type of game, the "rules" that determine them are somewhat abstract and games don't really need to strictly fit into a pre-determined set of them. So despite LiS having more player interaction and influence than GH, it also focuses on telling a story through basic gameplay aspects and a continuous sort of exploration, so i'd say it fits into the genre since they share characteristics that are very specific to it, just like Dragon Age and Dark Souls both fit into RPG despite having little in common other than some defining aspects of the genre.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not splitting hairs if I like playing games like Life is Strange, and I don't like playing games like Gone Home, and I couldn't distinguish them because people call them both "walking simulators" by applying the rules :-)
That's the point I'm making, not whether or not both games could legitimately be called walking simulators. If "walking simulator" is the generic term for "not a game-you-can-win game", then Gone Home and Life is Strange both fit there comfortably, but as soon as you throw in multiple choice and encourage role playing the experience is substantially different. And these are not individual differences: games like Life is Strange and The Stanley Parable are clearly on one end of the dividing line, and games like Gone Home and Edith Finch are on the other end.
Similarly: I like RPGs, but I've never played a JRPG I liked. Even though JRPGs are clearly RPGs by any way you like to define RPGs, I'm glad they've got their own category. Although the RPG genre is also very broad, that's true. Though it's still not as bad as "action adventure", which could almost literally be anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
But... Interacting with another person is kinda the main thing you do in Firewatch. I mean, you are communicating with that woman almost all the time. There are also other games that are technically not considered to be walking simulators just because they use third person view, but that's the only difference; just look at such masterpieces as Night in the Woods and Oxenfree, gameplay is based on conversations there, and psychological depth of all three games is really impressive. Edith Finch, on the other hand, is not actually interested in any of the characters, the collection of vignettes is dedicated to a single fatalistic message and nothing else; honestly, I found the game to be a bit superficial.
I'd also add Sunset and Town of Light to your list.
Comment has been collapsed.
i like very much this genre of game, but i don't like walking simulatore words, i prefere "exploration focused game"
my list of played:
and surely i'd like to play soon Firewatch and What Remains of Edith Finch
Comment has been collapsed.
What about Lifeless Planet?
I played it a bit and is a nice game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I loved Lifeless Planet. I mainly had fun exploring and trying to get off of the map, and succeeded in a few places. The screenshot showcase on my Steam Profile is from where I got "off-map" at the end.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if you ask me if they evolve then they do not become the walking simulator so to speak.I am not sure how you can evolve them much more without making them not the "walking simulator genre".
At it's core it means nothing to really do other then observe the world around you with no interaction with the people just the environment but even that imo should be at a minimum.The basis of the genre is just pretty much walking around.Though that is just me as it seems some call hunting games walking simulators just based on you doing a lot of walking which is wrong you kill things which again is not what walking simulators are about.
Just check out this page and see how many games imo do not belong on that list..
http://store.steampowered.com/tag/en/Walking%20Simulator/
I mean Life Is Strange is on that list based on what that you walk?You interact with other people and the environment and you actually change what goes on around you.
So I am not sold on ..
Layer's Of Fear being on that list as it's more of a psychological horror game then walking simulator.
Also I am not 100% sold on Firewatch either since from what I gather has a lot of interaction with people like you actually interact with them.
Anyhow I fine with "Walking Simulators" being short as long as the story is good and the price is right after all how fun can a game be if you have to walk around hardly doing anything for say 40 hours?
Comment has been collapsed.
The genre relies on a lot of mystery and vagueness. If the mystery doesn't pay off, the experience feels very cheap.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think some walking simulators offer some very interesting experiences. I really enjoyed Ethan Carter, for example. But I think videogames are still far from offering the level of narrative they are capable of, and while these are usually lower budget games, I don't think doing away with regular gameplay mechanics is the answer to better story telling. For example, everyone hailed Gone Home as this narrative masterpiece, when in fact it's a passable experience that hits close to home for some due to the LGBT element and the immersive atmosphere. Something that should be context becomes the narrative. Same with Dear Esther. I think walking sims sometimes commit the mistakes of resembling a painting with narrative context more than a story with substance and plot drive. So neither yay or nay. There are good and bad walking sims.
Comment has been collapsed.
12 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by lostsoul67
17,176 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by Yade
1,760 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by jojo1241
272 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Foxhack
251 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by MeguminShiro
4 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Sewaz
29 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by GCTuba
139 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by OneNonLy
52 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by jacoz26
3 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by VampireXL
189 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by xeos23
102 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by zibo86
139 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by Aidaa
1,266 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by FreakyHouse
So, I absolutely enjoy this relatively new genre known as walking simulators. There are quite a few black sheep, of course. But we already had so many highlights. Games that bring something new to the table. Games that tell brilliant stories in a different, innovative way.
Some example would be Firewatch, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Virginia or the new What Remains of Edith Finch. Fantastic experiences, well worth the money in my opinion (despite the short length). Very few games in other genres deliver storywise like these games do. But at the same time, there is something fundamentally wrong with the genre.
Most walking simulators don't have any actual (visible) interaction with other people in them. Usually the scheme is "wander around in an empty space and find out what happened". Sure, there are a few exceptions to that. But in general that's what you do in most of these games.
Firewatch has the encounter with the teenagers at the lake, for instance. But do you really interact with them? Barely. You only see them from afar, and the whole scene is quite short anyway. Aside from that, you barely ever see anyone else. A guy on a rock, running off as soon as you see him. That's about it.
Ethan Carter shows other characters only in cutscenes (flashbacks). As beautiful as the game is, you walk around completely alone all the time.
Virginia actually has a descent number of other characters in it. And I appreciate that. But sadly, Virginia didn't get the reception I was hoping for (because I loved it).
Edith Finch has some other characters in it. But again - only in the story sequences. All the walking inside the house you do once again alone. Still a fantastic game, of course.
But I think you know where I'm going with this. Modern walking simulators should evolve and go further than they did until now. Why don't we have a walking simulator that let's you experience a story in the middle of a crowded city? I get that it's a budget thing. Empty environments are way easier to make, and therefore cheaper. But I personally am absolutely ready for a high-budget walking simulator that gives me the whole package. I mean, imagine one in a futuristic Blade-Runner-like scenario. With lots of people on the street, complaining about stuff, and flying cars right above you. What potential! I hope at some point someone invests a huge pile of money and takes the next evolutionary step of this promising genre. And I hope he'll succeed.
Let me know what you think about this. Do you even like those games, that prioritize story over gameplay? Or do they bore you to death? Which ones did you play, and which are your favorites?
I will also list the (in my opinion) best walking simulators here. Maybe you'll get some inspiration from it. Some of these games could certainly use some help sales-wise It really makes me sad to see, that a masterpiece like Edith Finch barely sold any copies. What is wrong with today's gamers? Are they all playing Dota now and have no time anymore for a brilliant story experience? ^^
If you have any recommendations of your own, please feel free to post them. I am always looking for this type of games. :)
Comment has been collapsed.