[60654]

Gamedev here. It's nice that the article recognizes the recent "mellow games" popularity. There's always been that current in gaming - in the 2010s "walking simulators" were popular (but with much more focus on story), in 2000s / late 1990s it was "game toys" like The Sims, or online MUDS and Second Life and so on.

People always wanted virtual places to just chill, and not have to be challenged all the time or have to struggle etc.

But also the article's focus on chores feels like a distraction. It's not that chores as such are exciting, it's more that you're messing around in a virtual world with often unexpected physics (job sims), or otherwise simplifying the complexity of real life (trucking sims etc). And lots of this popularity is also because, with Unity and Unreal, it has become very easy to make these kinds of physics-based 3D worlds with wacky physics, especially for tiny teams on small budgets - so lots and lots of people are making them.

[matheusmoreira]

I love it when games have a creative mode. It's a nice balance between challenge and fun. Subnautica for example has a normal mode, a hardcore permadeath mode and a creative mode with no death and infinite resources. Building bases everywhere and watching the beautiful underwater landscapes and marine life is just so soothing.

[huachimingo]

LittleBigPlanet was a blast on creative/user-made maps.

You could have a fairly stupid concept (free-falling sponge, with a shark that follows you while only in water), copy the whole level and mod it to whatever new state you wanted.

[tenpies]

Frostpunk's sandbox mode was also fantastic.

Just build your city. Tech up. Send your explorers. Enjoy the beautiful scenery and soundtrack. And try to ignore the increasing semblance between our energy policies and the game's world.

[indigochill]

I personally feel there's a distinction between what's probably usually meant by "mellow games" (my drug of choice is still Euro Truck Simulator on that front) and MUDs, though. MUDs can be mellow, sure, but at least the ones I played had a lot more variety to them than the "X Simulator" genre which tend to have a narrower scope (and maybe more detail within that scope).

I guess I'd compare my experience of MUDs most closely with the Harvest Moon/Rune Factory genre in that you can fight monsters and level up or socialize with other characters (in this case, real people!) or take part in various in-character activities/festivals/etc. Much like some modern MMOs like WoW or Final Fantasy in some respects except I find the creativity lies more with the players even in the modern MUD scene.

[grimgrin]

I always like to link this when MUDs are mentioned

http://mudstats.com/Browse

[munk-a]

I'd really suggest going by one of the vote based rankers - since they tend to reflect more active communities much better. So... http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/mudlist.html

[Melatonic]

This is part of the reason I like Untitled Goose Game - many of the things seem sort of mundane but they add a lot of humour to it and keep it fresh

[aglavine]

I may be wrong, but I think there is more depth there, you are also interacting with a proto-AI in action. The virtualisation of a chore in a machine feels like a previous step to the learning of that chore by the machine.

[joshlemer]

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

[account42]

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/ [1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/383870/Firewatch/ [2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/219680/Proteus/

[lapetitejort]

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]

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.

[wolverine876]

Thanks, that is enlightening analysis.

> a truly interactive story is really freaking hard

Why do you think that is? I am not ignorant of reasons and explanations, such as needing too much content, but what do you think are the fundamental reasons?

[lapetitejort]

You, the real human, cannot say whatever you want to the NPCs. Instead you either have to rely on a few scripted choices, or a silent character. Neither of those are very fun. Interactive also implies the ability to change outcomes. That is also difficult as every outcome requires writing, animating, etc. So games give the illusion of choice with a few well defined branches, then railroad you into a few endings.

Another approach is to not craft an explicit narrative. Just give a fleshed out, lived-in world and let the person explore. Let knickknacks, street trash, architecture, NPC behavior, etc tell the story. How can a game describe a dystopian world without an NPC saying "I sure do hate being oppressed!" and giving a questline for toppling the government? Maybe draconian transportation systems, NPCs eyeing the character if not dressed right, ugly architecture seeping into established spaces.

[astrange]

Since Uncharted is an attempt to make a game series by putting AAA game stuff in the skeleton of an Indiana Jones movie, it suffers what they call “ludonarrative dissonance” by not just being a walking simulator game.

Indiana Jones might kill one guy per movie; Nathan Drake has shot thousands. He’s one of the most prolific mass killers in human history. And yet the cinematic parts of the game don’t seem to notice.

[AshamedCaptain]

> Indiana Jones might kill one guy per movie; Nathan Drake has shot thousands. He’s one of the most prolific mass killers in human history.

Having no idea about either of these games, I guess this is because, again, they combine a story-heavy narrative with a plain old shooter. I sometimes wish that these games which have interesting setting and/or narratives would actually try to innovate on the gaming part and avoid the "just kill them all" genre.

There should be something more between a "walking simulator" and a "kill them all" that allows you to enjoy the setting while still having some type of actual game inside.

[ssully]

That is kind of what survival games or "minecraft-likes" are. A lot of those games have little to no combat. Most of the game being enjoying the setting while engaging in the light game systems. No Man's Sky is probably the best example I can think of; while there is combat it is almost entirely optional or avoidable.

[benibela]

Perhaps Tomb Raider 1 is a walking simulator? You do not kill many humans

[lostcolony]

It's not a binary spectrum between action game and walking simulator.

Tomb Raider had some sections that probably fit the walking simulator genre, but also areas of action and puzzle games.

Walking simulator is defined by moving and exploration. Interactions usually involve reading, or changing your environment (not in ways to unlock new areas, but perhaps to see new things). Playing one, you clearly note the vibe. There isn't much to do except move forward and see/experience new things, building out a plot and understanding of a narrative as you do so. You don't generally drive the plot through your actions, but instead learn about it.

[thaumasiotes]

Tomb Raider is a pretty standard adventure game with a couple major exceptions:

- There's a lot of combat.

- The world is 3D rather than being 2D backgrounds.

But most of your time is spent wandering around solving puzzles and trying to figure out where to go next. It would be a better game, in my eyes, if they took the combat out entirely. Compare Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis.

[corrral]

Depending on the walking simulator, they've got more in common with some kind of immersive art installation than a "game". I get why people want to draw the distinction.

> Uncharted

Funnily enough, my favorite parts of Uncharted 4 were the parts where it became a walking simulator. I was surprised both that the game contained so much of that, and that I liked it better than the rest of the game.

[asiachick]

You forgot the best IMO walking simulator, The Stanley Parable

https://store.steampowered.com/app/221910/The_Stanley_Parabl...

[nsv]

In this genre is one of my favorite games, The Beginner's Guide by Davey Wreden.

[Beltalowda]

I always considered these games to be more or less the successor to LucasArt-style point & click adventures.

[ansible]

I consider walking simulators to be in the same category as the old LucasArts-style point & click adventures.

Often there is the very reduced or entirely eliminated puzzle-solving component.

In the old point & click adventures, with the very linear story, if you can't figure out a puzzle, then you are stuck. You absolutely can't advance through the story.

With the walking simulators, if you miss some bit, then you miss a part of the overall story, but you'll still get to the end and get the big picture. And you can usually go back and pick it up if you realized you missed something.

BTW, some walking simulators I can recommend:

Gone Home - very good story.

What Remains of Edith Finch - also very good and heartbreaking story.

Tacoma - also decent.

Observation - trippy story

Return of the Obra Din - this is a bit closer to the old point & click in the sense that you are a detective, and must actually Sherlock your way through.

[corrral]

I wouldn't have classed Return of the Obra Din as a walking simulator, but more of a puzzler like Myst. Was great, though. I'd recommend both The Talos Principle and The Witness, along those lines.

My favorite pure "walking simulator" I've played, by a mile, is Firewatch. Haven't played What Remains yet, though.

[ansible]

That's fair. I haven't tried Fire Watch yet, but it is on my list.

[mherdeg]

This is kind of a sliding scale -- I'd put Jazzpunk or Thirty Flights of Loving in the same category but I think they're traditionally considered "adventure games".

Feels like a very different genre from, like, IF where you have to work hard to see the whole story (Trinity, Curses).

[Akronymus]

Speaking of walking sims, I personally think that INFRA [1] is the single best one out there.

[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/251110/INFRA/

[dagw]

"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.

[jabroni_salad]

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

[oneoff786]

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]

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.