Walking Simulators: Thanks to the Gamasutra article, I finally feel like I see fully where the interactivity lies in so-called “walking simulators”. With that in mind though, the genre name “walking simulator” does not seem appropriate at all. If the point of these games is to tell narrative by exploring the environment, then these games are not at all about walking. But, the fact that most “gamers” would label these games as “walking simulators” is telling.
Almost any game design class or textbook will begin with trying to define “what is a game”. They’ll go through the timeless rituals of adjusting the definition to be broader or narrower, and eventually reach a much more nuanced and thought out definition. For all this though, it seems like in practice, even game designers will throw out these carefully thought definitions for a few heuristics that describe what the Industry thinks a game is. For example: “Can I win or lose?”. If a game doesn’t contain the ability to do this, many people, even game designers, will label it as not a game. I know this, because I worked on such a game at the Global Game Jam, and this was people’s reaction to it.
Gamers think of games by how you manipulate the game state (i.e. moving in-world), and how you win. So, if they looked at a game like Dear Esther, it’s no surprise that the only material thing they would see to “do” in the game, the only obvious control, is walking. This goes with my reaction to the notgames article: that the industry’s mindset on games is so ubiquitous, that it is hard to even think outside of it.
