>>15148760
I'd also like to add: I used the word "justify", but that's not really a good word the more I think about it. Even if you've got a compelling walking simulator, lets say your story and character interactions are top notch.
Even with that, you've got to ask yourself this question: "Is my game improved by this design? Or is it harmed by this design?" Of course a gamedev should be asking himself this question constantly about everything he adds to his game. However, in this case the question is: "Is my game improved by having the majority of game play being walking?"
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I really do feel like it's way easier to make a better game by having the majority of game spent in the game be spent doing something compelling. Anything compelling that got put into the game, is it really shown in the best light when the player is interacting so little with the world? Is this amazing world you've painstakingly constructed better off when the player can't really interact with it? Or would everything be better if you just made an actual game play loop that is fun?