In this critical play, I focused on Places, a free walking simulation game hosted on jlv.fi/places. The game consists of small, atmospheric 3D “paintings” through which the player can walk, run, and even jump. The author of both the website and the Places project is unknown, but the game appears to be open to the public. Most of its levels (or episodes) are accessible via a web browser, with some available for download on Linux and Windows.
The game tells a story as you move through its different levels or environments. You can climb up and down mountains, run to increase pace, and feel subtle terrain differences, such as the resistance when walking through water. I believe the game communicates narrative through its mechanics and exploration-driven experience. However, due to its limited interactivity, the experience can become dull over time. When compared to the RPG-based games we played in CS247G’s section, Places feels significantly less engaging.
From a game design perspective, the simplicity of constraining player actions to movement, jumping, and running is interesting. Yet, this minimalism doesn’t hold the player’s attention for long. The lack of additional mechanics or interactive elements made it easy to lose interest. While it may be unfair to compare this game to high-budget titles like Skyrim or Red Dead Redemption, incorporating additional gameplay layers, such as tasks or interactions with the environment, could significantly enhance player engagement and replayability.
In contrast to the other RPG-based games we explored in the section, which emphasized imaginative exploration, Places offers a more visually grounded but mechanically limited experience. The RPG games relied on moderator-driven narratives and the player’s imagination, creating a much richer interaction space. Despite the RPG game’s explicit goal of promoting peace and non-violence, consequence-driven storytelling, often leading to violent outcomes due to dice rolls, made the gameplay more dynamic and engaging than the constrained actions available in Places.
Lastly, in terms of realism and accessibility, Places shows some effort in simulating natural movement, such as slowing down when walking through water (see Figure 1, from Giphy). However, it lacks meaningful accessibility features. For instance, the game is not inclusive for blind or visually impaired players. Adding features such as a narrated first-person experience or audio descriptions of the environment would significantly improve accessibility and broaden the game’s reach.
