[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

[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/

[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.