Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
ZEN GAMES
Posts
Pages:
1
Cap_H
View playlists
CloseWhat do you think about these walking simulators? Like games where is nothing in particular for you to do. You can just walk around and enjoying your moves and beauty of unknown, haunting countryside. There is not any special goal or way to win the game.
I write this cuz I really like walking around in my own games before putting content in. Just listening to some music while walking. I like some other game built upon this as well and I'm annoyed when content is forced to player in these exploration based games.
I write this cuz I really like walking around in my own games before putting content in. Just listening to some music while walking. I like some other game built upon this as well and I'm annoyed when content is forced to player in these exploration based games.
SnowOwl
5188
Well, some of my games have been called walking simulators, so I guess I must like them.
It depends on what you're walking in, around, and through. If done well, it can make for a very mood-setting, enjoyable experience.
Yeah there's an entire genre for that. Fez comes to mind as a non-linear exploration-based games with no baddie to defeat, you just wander around these worlds achieving certain ill-defined goals but generally the goal is just to encourage exploration in this vast world of colour and become immersed in it.
I think that SnowOwl's right, but you know, it's probably to use the term "exploration" rather than walking simulator. I tend to dislike the stigmatization of games not qualifying as games if they don't have enough of what the person determines is gameplay. I think they would rather benefit from deeper interpreting what their feelings are towards a game, rather than just providing a blanket statement that these games are not really games at all. When someone says that, something triggers me inside, because my love for a concept called "design by reduction" comes to the fore, and it is essentially based on the concept that you can make a game better or more engaging by providing less content.
A game called Proteus gained critical acclaim for its atmospheric exploration and music-based graphical tweaks that it would employ, but there's not much to do in that game apart from walking around. This is the type of target that people would claim to say "it is not a game because it does not have gameplay". But I don't think that's the question you need to be asking yourself. You shouldn't be asking yourself "is this a game?" you should be asking yourself, "do I feel better for playing this? Does this make me more edified, does it instruct me, does it inform, does it make me feel feelings that affect the soul, and advance me, and make me think?" I mean, we can qualify a game as being fun, but fun comes from a sense of vulnerability, a sense of humanness, that we can aspire to and cling to, because art is an expression of our humanity.
So by creating an exploration-based game, you can chalk it down to someone not being able to implement traditional gameplay effectively, OR you can come to the conclusion that graphics and audio and sound effects and BGM all meld together into one indistinct, hard-to-evaluate object that is the essence of all art, which is expression, and the connection between people that comes from that.
I think that SnowOwl's right, but you know, it's probably to use the term "exploration" rather than walking simulator. I tend to dislike the stigmatization of games not qualifying as games if they don't have enough of what the person determines is gameplay. I think they would rather benefit from deeper interpreting what their feelings are towards a game, rather than just providing a blanket statement that these games are not really games at all. When someone says that, something triggers me inside, because my love for a concept called "design by reduction" comes to the fore, and it is essentially based on the concept that you can make a game better or more engaging by providing less content.
A game called Proteus gained critical acclaim for its atmospheric exploration and music-based graphical tweaks that it would employ, but there's not much to do in that game apart from walking around. This is the type of target that people would claim to say "it is not a game because it does not have gameplay". But I don't think that's the question you need to be asking yourself. You shouldn't be asking yourself "is this a game?" you should be asking yourself, "do I feel better for playing this? Does this make me more edified, does it instruct me, does it inform, does it make me feel feelings that affect the soul, and advance me, and make me think?" I mean, we can qualify a game as being fun, but fun comes from a sense of vulnerability, a sense of humanness, that we can aspire to and cling to, because art is an expression of our humanity.
So by creating an exploration-based game, you can chalk it down to someone not being able to implement traditional gameplay effectively, OR you can come to the conclusion that graphics and audio and sound effects and BGM all meld together into one indistinct, hard-to-evaluate object that is the essence of all art, which is expression, and the connection between people that comes from that.
Shinan
4314
I greatly enjoy walking simulators. Walking around a beautiful interactive environment is just one of "those things". I think especially with VR this is going to be pretty amazing in the future.
I also like how they often employ environmental storytelling. I like walking around ruins and piecing together what actually happened there.
An example is sort of Left 4 Dead where (in single player) one of the things I enjoyed the most was observing the infected and just looking around the environment. So many interesting stories there. Too bad they had to be interrupted by constant shooting.
I also like how they often employ environmental storytelling. I like walking around ruins and piecing together what actually happened there.
An example is sort of Left 4 Dead where (in single player) one of the things I enjoyed the most was observing the infected and just looking around the environment. So many interesting stories there. Too bad they had to be interrupted by constant shooting.
I like games that have open world "pointless" exploration elements. They're a fun thing to play if you want downtime from games that are really involved or action packed, and they trigger my innate desire to explore around every bend and discover things about the world I'm in.
One such game that comes to mind is FRACT OSC, an atmospheric puzzle game with some great Tron-esque landscapes to explore. Games like Oblivion and Skyrim are also really fun to just go out and explore the countryside in, even if they don't technically count as purely exploration driven games. There's also Starseed Pilgrim, which is pretty fun, although it runs out of steam fairly quickly.
One such game that comes to mind is FRACT OSC, an atmospheric puzzle game with some great Tron-esque landscapes to explore. Games like Oblivion and Skyrim are also really fun to just go out and explore the countryside in, even if they don't technically count as purely exploration driven games. There's also Starseed Pilgrim, which is pretty fun, although it runs out of steam fairly quickly.
author=CashmereCat
Yeah there's an entire genre for that. Fez comes to mind as a non-linear exploration-based games with no baddie to defeat, you just wander around these worlds achieving certain ill-defined goals but generally the goal is just to encourage exploration in this vast world of colour and become immersed in it.
I think that SnowOwl's right, but you know, it's probably to use the term "exploration" rather than walking simulator. I tend to dislike the stigmatization of games not qualifying as games if they don't have enough of what the person determines is gameplay. I think they would rather benefit from deeper interpreting what their feelings are towards a game, rather than just providing a blanket statement that these games are not really games at all. When someone says that, something triggers me inside, because my love for a concept called "design by reduction" comes to the fore, and it is essentially based on the concept that you can make a game better or more engaging by providing less content.
A game called Proteus gained critical acclaim for its atmospheric exploration and music-based graphical tweaks that it would employ, but there's not much to do in that game apart from walking around. This is the type of target that people would claim to say "it is not a game because it does not have gameplay". But I don't think that's the question you need to be asking yourself. You shouldn't be asking yourself "is this a game?" you should be asking yourself, "do I feel better for playing this? Does this make me more edified, does it instruct me, does it inform, does it make me feel feelings that affect the soul, and advance me, and make me think?" I mean, we can qualify a game as being fun, but fun comes from a sense of vulnerability, a sense of humanness, that we can aspire to and cling to, because art is an expression of our humanity.
So by creating an exploration-based game, you can chalk it down to someone not being able to implement traditional gameplay effectively, OR you can come to the conclusion that graphics and audio and sound effects and BGM all meld together into one indistinct, hard-to-evaluate object that is the essence of all art, which is expression, and the connection between people that comes from that.
Real talk, this is a deep ass post. It actually made me think. Good reading!
I don't want to come across as one of those douchebags who thinks they're cooler than everyone else around them, but...couldn't we just walk...outside? IRL?
EDIT: I mean, when it comes to stuff like football games then no, the average Joe cannot play like Lionel Messi, so it makes sense, but walking requires no skill whatsoever. I guess there's the scenery, but that's probably dependent on your individual location...
EDIT: I mean, when it comes to stuff like football games then no, the average Joe cannot play like Lionel Messi, so it makes sense, but walking requires no skill whatsoever. I guess there's the scenery, but that's probably dependent on your individual location...
author=Yellow Magic
I don't want to come across as one of those douchebags who thinks they're cooler than everyone else around them, but...couldn't we just walk...outside? IRL?
I grew up in a major city in the East Coast. Until I moved out to Washington State, if someone would have said to me "if you wanted to see mountains and forests and plains just walk outside" I would have laughed at them.
People underestimate the vast environmental differences that video games give you the opportunity to explore. Not everyone has real life access to a desert, an ocean, mountains, or even mundane things like forests and plains. Let alone fantasy shit like ruins and surreal environments. How many people can just walk around outside and see shit like you can in Shadow of the Colossus?
Journey is a great example of this kind of game. The idea is to explore and look around at this cool world. I mean, I like having goals in my games (which is why I hate MMOs because the fucking things never, ever end) but I'm big on exploration, especially when there's treasure involved. It's what makes me love games like Skyrim and Minecraft.
No, seriously, even with zombies and creepers and shit, you walk around in MC and the world generates these crazy-ass mountains and waterfalls and biomes like mesas of all kinds of colours with canyons and oceans and lakes of lava and... Hell, add in some mods and you've then go things like ruins and castles and pirate ships. Then add some resource packs and shaders and you've got shit like this:
http://i41.tinypic.com/oa582w.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/92/e2/b8/92e2b845f1b19cd039a49719b324eedc.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MyRSslHw5ag/maxresdefault.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YkgY8a6.jpg?1
http://www.wallsave.com/wallpapers/2560x1600/man-of-steel/1495678/man-of-steel-minecraft-sunset-wallchan-1495678.jpg
Then you start building shit like:
http://i.imgur.com/CYAF3Wg.jpg
Minecraft is very therapeutic.
No, seriously, even with zombies and creepers and shit, you walk around in MC and the world generates these crazy-ass mountains and waterfalls and biomes like mesas of all kinds of colours with canyons and oceans and lakes of lava and... Hell, add in some mods and you've then go things like ruins and castles and pirate ships. Then add some resource packs and shaders and you've got shit like this:
http://i41.tinypic.com/oa582w.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/92/e2/b8/92e2b845f1b19cd039a49719b324eedc.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MyRSslHw5ag/maxresdefault.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YkgY8a6.jpg?1
http://www.wallsave.com/wallpapers/2560x1600/man-of-steel/1495678/man-of-steel-minecraft-sunset-wallchan-1495678.jpg
Then you start building shit like:
http://i.imgur.com/CYAF3Wg.jpg
Minecraft is very therapeutic.
author=Feldschlacht IVauthor=Yellow MagicI grew up in a major city in the East Coast. Until I moved out to Washington State, if someone would have said to me "if you wanted to see mountains and forests and plains just walk outside" I would have laughed at them.
I don't want to come across as one of those douchebags who thinks they're cooler than everyone else around them, but...couldn't we just walk...outside? IRL?
People underestimate the vast environmental differences that video games give you the opportunity to explore. Not everyone has real life access to a desert, an ocean, mountains, or even mundane things like forests and plains. Let alone fantasy shit like ruins and surreal environments. How many people can just walk around outside and see shit like you can in Shadow of the Colossus?
So much this. Which is weird because my most fav game to explore and wander around in is Shenmue 2. Something about that 80s Hong Kong setting.... The hilarious voice acting kinda helps too.
Darken
3952
author=cash
So by creating an exploration-based game, you can chalk it down to someone not being able to implement traditional gameplay effectively, OR you can come to the conclusion that graphics and audio and sound effects and BGM all meld together into one indistinct, hard-to-evaluate object that is the essence of all art, which is expression, and the connection between people that comes from that.
My biggest problem with this its hard to know what makes a good walking simulator and tell it from a bad one. I see a lot of articles and reviews praising these 20 min demos of nice looking things (or charmingly trashy things) with no real basis of what the author could do to make it better. I like Super Metroid a lot because its mechanics bring a purpose to each area and thus the gamey game gameplay compliments the atmosphere nicely.
Mind you maybe we're just not there yet, and we need more walking simulators to find out what makes a good one. But for now the conversation between each one is "I interpret it this story in this really subjective way" and leave it somewhere in the comments of a rock paper shotgun article.
I use the term walking simulator in a more embracing way btw, i think of it as a term like doom-clone where people didnt say it to diss people but really they had no idea what to call it before FPS came around. "Exploration" is too vague because the moment you add in goals and mechanics to that it becomes way different than a walking sim but still exploration.
author=Feldschlacht IV
[
I grew up in a major city in the East Coast. Until I moved out to Washington State, if someone would have said to me "if you wanted to see mountains and forests and plains just walk outside" I would have laughed at them.
People underestimate the vast environmental differences that video games give you the opportunity to explore. Not everyone has real life access to a desert, an ocean, mountains, or even mundane things like forests and plains. Let alone fantasy shit like ruins and surreal environments. How many people can just walk around outside and see shit like you can in Shadow of the Colossus?
Okay, I guess I can see your point. A pure walking game still sounds nothing but tedious, to me, though. I'd always prefer walking IRL when I need that zen, because staring at a computer screen too much bothers me and I like (relatively) fresh air - guess it helps that I live in inner London, walking distance from King's Cross. ;<
Blind
2262
author=CashmereCatYeah, 1000% this post.
But I don't think that's the question you need to be asking yourself. You shouldn't be asking yourself "is this a game?" you should be asking yourself, "do I feel better for playing this? Does this make me more edified, does it instruct me, does it inform, does it make me feel feelings that affect the soul, and advance me, and make me think?" I mean, we can qualify a game as being fun, but fun comes from a sense of vulnerability, a sense of humanness, that we can aspire to and cling to, because art is an expression of our humanity.
So by creating an exploration-based game, you can chalk it down to someone not being able to implement traditional gameplay effectively, OR you can come to the conclusion that graphics and audio and sound effects and BGM all meld together into one indistinct, hard-to-evaluate object that is the essence of all art, which is expression, and the connection between people that comes from that.
Tbh there are already quite a lot of games that have perfected the winning "formula" of game design as we commonly know it, i.e. grinding, dungeon, boss... Why not rewrite the formula a little?
Pages:
1
