The reading I found most interesting was the article from electrondance.com arguing about degrading aspect of the term “walking simulator” and relabeling them as digital parallels of Japanese secret boxes. Most notably, how it automatically accuses the actual experiences of these programs focusing on content without necessarily requiring a barrier of challenge.
In my time with Gone Home, Proteus, and now The Path, I believe that the term can still apply for mainstream gaming as people from that of this debate will come into playing these works with expectations comparing them to traditional titles.
An interesting place for this for me specifically is the identification of when you think you are in walking simulator. For example, take the hit game The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask. It’s a game that millions of gamers and probably half of the class might list as one of the greatest games of all time. However, when I played it as a kid (and I guess now still without a guide), I can’t see it as more than a walking simulator/not-game to me, because while I know that it has its own designed story and mechanics available as you progress further into the game, my own skills were a barrier from me accessing more actions other than collecting rupees, swinging swords, and jumping around in a town while hearing the same annoying-as-fuck soundtrack on repeat. It remains one of my most hated “games” today.
So what I think I really mean is that these labels aren’t absolute for everyone, because everyone can experience a million emotions and responses to these virtual platforms. It is not just reaction to stories but also how you respond to available mechanics that increase or decrease the scope of how you deeply you can dive into the role/persona of the avatar and environments on screen.
