It was interesting that you wrote about how the drawing is symbolic of how they complete each other, when this was something that we never made the connection on.

I think this is one of the biggest areas of criticism that walking simulators receive. The way that walking simulators are designed creates a hard limit on the players agency, in some cases even more so than a Twine based game, as those at least allow the player to make decisions that alter the outcome of the story. Meanwhile in a game like Gone-Home, that player is nothing more than an observer, and they have no impact on the games story, they can only discover it. This can be seen as both positive and negative, as it is similar to something like a book, where the player simply digests the story. However it can also be seen as a limitation, as the players agency is severely reduced compared to a typical video.

This portion of the text talks about the origins of the term "Walking Simulator." How, originally, the term was used as an insult to describe how dull the game was. I find it very interesting that prejudice was created towards walking simulators. This quote reflects the fact that a stigma towards walking simulators is ever present, and is even rooted in the game genre's origins. I feel this represents a symptom of the issue with the "gaming community" at large, as it is very common place to attack or belittle games/developers that makes video games that are different or not seen as video games in the traditional sense.

In this portion, Murray mentions the potential issues of following a maze like sequence of events. The main problem being that despite all of the discovery and exploration the participant may do, it still ultimately leads to the same outcome, no matter the route taken. I believe this is an apparent problem, as it diminishes the effects of the decisions the player has done. This may lead to a feeling of dissatisfaction, as the player may feel that the choices they made lacked importance.