I haven't played one in a while but wouldn't be opposed if it had an interesting premise. But most are shoddy horror or boring slogs where the dev jerks himself off. I think the last one I played was Layers of Fear 1 the Halloween last year. It was okay
You get three. After the third one you go "yeah I kinda need gameplay in my video game no matter how pretentious it is" and and never touch a walking sim again. So make those three count.
Death Stranding was too boring for me. I don't mind walking a bunch, but there has to be some sort of gameplay thrown in too, running from quest to quest in classic wow for example.
>When did you grow out of walking simulators?
Quite early on.
I was on board with the idea when the concept emerged - back when Stanley's Parable and Dear Esther were still just free mods. I enjoyed both of them, and the idea of them going full commercial sounded fair. I like variety of game concepts, and ever since I first played Pathologic 1 back in 2006 or so, I was craving more artsy game experiences. So I was completely onboard.
But the concept really did get really boring very fast. Turns out, walking sims are like VN's - a format that is inherently not well disposed to telling stories. That does not mean there are no good walking sims (or VN's), it just means that if there IS a good one, it's DESPITE being a walking sim.
Almost universally, walking sims end up not really enriching the experience, in fact most of them would be better at storytelling if they chose any other format instead.
So around the time the genre started getting really popular (around 2013/14) I was already pretty much over them.
>I really like INFRA,
Yeah, INFRA is probably the best thing walking sim's gave us. Unless we also count games like Miasmata, or Kentucky Route Zero or Pathologic 1 itself for that matter.
INFRA is a good example that despite the format being shit, it is possible to make something worth-while even with an inherently flawed formula.
Again, there have been some walking sims I enjoyed. It's just that if somebody says "hey, I'm making a walking sim", my expectations are going to be inherently lower than if he announces any other format. I'm not saying it's going to be shit, but I am saying that statistically, it's more likely going to be shit than not, and you could probably achieve the same goal better and easier with some other format.
> Turns out, walking sims are like VN's - a format that is inherently not well disposed to telling stories
Uh, why? That's like saying books aren't well suited to telling stories.
I don't have a problem with walking sims in theory, if anything I find them a potentially refreshing alternative to the dismal ubiquity of combat as gameplay. The problem of course is that they're almost all executed as very trite themepark tracks, you're not expected to do anything except walk forward and watch the next story anamatronic off to the side. A walking sim that involves me navigating or manipulating things in the environment or interpreting information, I don't have a problem with that being a form of multimedia that exists. I think one of the worst byproducts of the modern industry's obsession with streamlining is that a lot of avenues for non combat gameplay have been wiped, you can't expect the player to go through any kind of mental procedure lest they get bored or confused.
A walking sim defined as a 3d point and click adventure game is fine, it's a very useful mode to investigate an environment and manipulate small objects. a walking sim defined as an "it's a small world after all ride" is different.
>What exactly are walking simulators?
There is no rigid definition, it's one of those "fuzzy borders" concept, but in general, what most people mean by Walking Simulators is a game that:
1) is played in first person
2) narrative progression is entirely dependent on the player just moving forward through the environments
3) there is little interaction with the environments, usually most if not all interaction is just some form of triggering more exposition
4) has little or no other gameplay systems other than walking around
5) has little or no fail-states - you can't really fuck up and lose, or the punishment for fucking up is extremely trivial.
The definition is this vague on purpose. There are few examples of an absolutely pure walking sims - like the game that really started the trend - Dear Esther.
In that game, you can't do anything but walk forward and listen to audio that is triggered by you either moving to the next location, or interacting with an object. It's linear, there are no puzzles, no branching pathways, nothing.
But most games after that did add at least SOME minor interactions. Like Vanishing of Ethan Carter. Most people consider that a walking sim, because walking forward and listening to audio is MOST of the game.
But it does have a couple of puzzles, and even one very basic stealth segment where you can fail, get caught and be killed.
The puzzles are simple, and there are only like 3 of them, and you can't fail them, just get slowed down.
And the stealth just one segment, barely 5 minutes long, and the only punishment for fucking up is instantly being teleported back at the start, it's super simple and after it, it goes back to walking and talking.
Same with INFRA. 80% walking, 20% puzzles, and even a handful of action sequences or platforming challenges. is it a walking sim?
When you want to decide what is or isn't a walking sim, you always have to use a bit of your own reasoning, figure out for yourself where to draw a line.
But moving irl is fun because you can feel it in your body. Walking in video games is nothing but holding a key. One of my favorite activities is just to go bike and come home very exhausted.
back in 2012, i bought journey without knowing anything about it because everyone said it was a masterpiece and i wanted to experience it fully blind
i kept asking myself "where's the fucking game?" for almost two hours before dropping it
thankfully, i never had to grow into them.
the moment I realized DayZ's gameplay was completely circular
>scavenge loot
>to kill zombies
>so you can scavenge more loot
that has nothing to do with OP's question
DayZ is where the term came from, retard
hahaha you kid
lol what, no
Yes. The term was made up to describe the mod.
wrong. it was made to describe gone home. it upset homosexuals everywhere then was applied to other games where the gameplay was shite
im too fat to walk
Was never into walking sims but I still enjoy mindless autistic shit like trial-and-error and grinding from time to time.
I haven't played one in a while but wouldn't be opposed if it had an interesting premise. But most are shoddy horror or boring slogs where the dev jerks himself off. I think the last one I played was Layers of Fear 1 the Halloween last year. It was okay
fighting is for brats. gentlemen enjoy aesthetics, the people met, landscape and architecture.
walking>grinding
I think around the time I got into running simulators.
You get three. After the third one you go "yeah I kinda need gameplay in my video game no matter how pretentious it is" and and never touch a walking sim again. So make those three count.
Death Stranding was too boring for me. I don't mind walking a bunch, but there has to be some sort of gameplay thrown in too, running from quest to quest in classic wow for example.
after I played one (1)
>Redditbob
>When did you grow out of walking simulators?
Quite early on.
I was on board with the idea when the concept emerged - back when Stanley's Parable and Dear Esther were still just free mods. I enjoyed both of them, and the idea of them going full commercial sounded fair. I like variety of game concepts, and ever since I first played Pathologic 1 back in 2006 or so, I was craving more artsy game experiences. So I was completely onboard.
But the concept really did get really boring very fast. Turns out, walking sims are like VN's - a format that is inherently not well disposed to telling stories. That does not mean there are no good walking sims (or VN's), it just means that if there IS a good one, it's DESPITE being a walking sim.
Almost universally, walking sims end up not really enriching the experience, in fact most of them would be better at storytelling if they chose any other format instead.
So around the time the genre started getting really popular (around 2013/14) I was already pretty much over them.
I really like INFRA, it's like if half life and a point and click adventure game had a baby in finland
>I really like INFRA,
Yeah, INFRA is probably the best thing walking sim's gave us. Unless we also count games like Miasmata, or Kentucky Route Zero or Pathologic 1 itself for that matter.
INFRA is a good example that despite the format being shit, it is possible to make something worth-while even with an inherently flawed formula.
Again, there have been some walking sims I enjoyed. It's just that if somebody says "hey, I'm making a walking sim", my expectations are going to be inherently lower than if he announces any other format. I'm not saying it's going to be shit, but I am saying that statistically, it's more likely going to be shit than not, and you could probably achieve the same goal better and easier with some other format.
> Turns out, walking sims are like VN's - a format that is inherently not well disposed to telling stories
Uh, why? That's like saying books aren't well suited to telling stories.
>VN's
Learn to write if you want me to read your drivel.
Picked up The Invincible and I've been enjoying it
Pretty much after I beat INFRA because I realized nothing will likely ever top it
>tfw no whiprock island dlc
I swear to fuck if they're waiting for the ARG to get completed
When I discovered driving simulators
I don't have a problem with walking sims in theory, if anything I find them a potentially refreshing alternative to the dismal ubiquity of combat as gameplay. The problem of course is that they're almost all executed as very trite themepark tracks, you're not expected to do anything except walk forward and watch the next story anamatronic off to the side. A walking sim that involves me navigating or manipulating things in the environment or interpreting information, I don't have a problem with that being a form of multimedia that exists. I think one of the worst byproducts of the modern industry's obsession with streamlining is that a lot of avenues for non combat gameplay have been wiped, you can't expect the player to go through any kind of mental procedure lest they get bored or confused.
What you're looking for is a point n click adventure akin to those mystery puzzle games.
Play INFRA
A walking sim defined as a 3d point and click adventure game is fine, it's a very useful mode to investigate an environment and manipulate small objects. a walking sim defined as an "it's a small world after all ride" is different.
I embraced trucking simulators instead
I was never into them until Lust From Beyond came out.
Titties really do make everything better.
Never liked them.
Thankfully I started gaming with a SNES + RTS games on PC.
What exactly are walking simulators? I played Outlast recently and it was the first time I felt like playing a walking simulator
>What exactly are walking simulators?
There is no rigid definition, it's one of those "fuzzy borders" concept, but in general, what most people mean by Walking Simulators is a game that:
1) is played in first person
2) narrative progression is entirely dependent on the player just moving forward through the environments
3) there is little interaction with the environments, usually most if not all interaction is just some form of triggering more exposition
4) has little or no other gameplay systems other than walking around
5) has little or no fail-states - you can't really fuck up and lose, or the punishment for fucking up is extremely trivial.
The definition is this vague on purpose. There are few examples of an absolutely pure walking sims - like the game that really started the trend - Dear Esther.
In that game, you can't do anything but walk forward and listen to audio that is triggered by you either moving to the next location, or interacting with an object. It's linear, there are no puzzles, no branching pathways, nothing.
But most games after that did add at least SOME minor interactions. Like Vanishing of Ethan Carter. Most people consider that a walking sim, because walking forward and listening to audio is MOST of the game.
But it does have a couple of puzzles, and even one very basic stealth segment where you can fail, get caught and be killed.
The puzzles are simple, and there are only like 3 of them, and you can't fail them, just get slowed down.
And the stealth just one segment, barely 5 minutes long, and the only punishment for fucking up is instantly being teleported back at the start, it's super simple and after it, it goes back to walking and talking.
Same with INFRA. 80% walking, 20% puzzles, and even a handful of action sequences or platforming challenges. is it a walking sim?
When you want to decide what is or isn't a walking sim, you always have to use a bit of your own reasoning, figure out for yourself where to draw a line.
When I became American and got my mobility scooter
I walk everywhere in real life I hardly ever drive anywhere unless extremely far away
But moving irl is fun because you can feel it in your body. Walking in video games is nothing but holding a key. One of my favorite activities is just to go bike and come home very exhausted.
Fair enough but sometimes I just want to do that without real human interaction because most people suck
??????????
bicycling or walking alone has no human interaction. Walking in games is just waste of time. It's a dead experience.
back in 2012, i bought journey without knowing anything about it because everyone said it was a masterpiece and i wanted to experience it fully blind
i kept asking myself "where's the fucking game?" for almost two hours before dropping it
Thank god the flying cheats and jetpack didn't made me that way
The world was much smaller than todays open world.