Name: Babbdi
Creator: Sirius and Léonard Lemaitre
Platform: PC, Steam
Target audience: Unspecified (but perhaps PG13 – has some weird characters, and the atmosphere isnt kid-friendly – I felt depressed seeing the environment)
I think that a walking simulator is a deceptive way of making the player feel that they are completely free to do anything and uncover the story from there. However, in reality the player is restricted and this apparent freedom can soon become irritating.
When I started playing Babbdi, I was completely lost for the first 20 minutes or so. I had no idea what I was doing and why. I thought interacting with people would give me clues to figure out more about the game, but the dialogues seemed completely meaningless. I was not sure why the people looked like zombies and why the place looked so gloomy and haunted. I did not know my own character, goals and motivation. At the same time, I had the freedom to move around anywhere. I could jump from heights without dying, and talk to all these scary zombies without being attacked by them (didnt find any conflict – external or internal). I figured that although I have all the freedom in the game to do anything, I cannot make progress unless I realize what I am supposed to do. Soon, this freedom started feeling annoying – I just wanted the game to tell me what I should do next.
After sometime when I realized that this game is not super interesting, I happened to find controls in the main menu – agreed I should have looked at it before. And then I read somewhere on the screen that I have to collect 21 objects and I have not collected any yet. Then I realized what my goal was, and I guessed that the motivation could be to do something using the objects once I have them (maybe leave this scary town?).
I think that a game has a finite set of stories that the player can encounter while playing it. So, trying to make it completely flexible for the player is like assuming that the player would guess one of these stories from the set of infinite stories possible. I think that this is a bad assumption to make, and this is precisely why players could get annoyed. If the designer wants the player to stick to one of these narratives, then the player should only be given that much freedom in the game. The rest should be controlled by the game, so that the player does not end up wasting time.
The learning happens when the player follows one of the planned narratives, and the other times when the player is lost and tries to guess the story to make progress, there is little to learn. Players already have a life outside of game to try different stories, the point of a game in my humble opinion is to allow players to experience different stories so that the player could pick what they like and make it a part of their lives. I think that trying to simulate life in a game is an ambitious attempt and perhaps not required.
Something interesting about walking simulator is that although I hated the game, I could not stop myself from playing it. I continued walking around like one continues watching TikTok or Instagram reels and stories. I think the reason I was a bit addicted to it was because there was a flow which was just not stopped by anything in the game. I literally went into the strangest corners, jumped out of windows, dived into water bodies and rode a motorcycle without any obstacles which would prevent me from doing so. The graphics was fine (not great, but better than 2d pixels) and because of that the changing scenes kept me drawn to the game.
Overall I think that having a flow in the game is good which a walking simulator is good at, but providing more freedom than required can be frustrating and time-wasting.
