Exploration - Wide vs Deep

[Spectrum_Prez]

I'm not going to add a poll, because the conversation just gets shallow and anemic.
Also, this ain't your daddy's versus thread, so give me a sec to explain.

Exploration is an element of gaming that has spread from RPGs to 'Action-Adventure' games, shooters, and the like. It's an integral part of immersion for single-player campaigns, but the basic approaches to the concept are oft under-examined by fans.

As far as I can tell, there are two essential approaches: wide vs deep. Now, I'm not saying that these are the only approaches, just that they lie on a spectrum and that games will find a place for themselves along it somewhere.

Deep - think along the lines of "Dungeon Crawling", the archetype perfected by Diablo 2 and taken to the extreme by Dante's Inferno or Fate. Organized around the idea of 'levels', it involves ever delving deeper into one/several cave/dungeon/maze or going upwards into a wizard's tower.

Wide - think GTA or a Bethesda game, or more recently Red Dead Redemption (aghhh when is the PC release coming?), plains/forests/highway to the horizon with landmarks here and there. A game might have several large 'wide' areas, such as Assassin's Creed, or one 'wide' over-map with many 'deep' nodes - like Bioware games.

So, where do you like your games to lie on the Wide-Deep spectrum? Is there one game that does it perfectly for your liking? Is there a game that you like, but would love if it moved itself toward one or the other side of the spectrum?

For example, I know people who criticize Oblivion for having really shallow dungeons, i.e. no depth. Other people (myself included) criticized Mass Effect 2 for having no real width i.e. no real free-roam areas.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

I like to have me a wide open world with many locations to visit and explore. Within that i like each and every place to have many dungeons, houses and temples along with people to interact with. Sort of like Dragon Age i've been playing for a long time with about 30-40 hours clocked in and i still haven't discovered all there is to be found (and that's including DLC)

 

[SleepyOtter]

Wide I suppose I mean I could Go for either one as long as the exploring is deep(or detailed), engaging(GTA), atmospheric(Bioshock) and I could tell a story through my surrondings(Half Life 2, Fallout)

 

[cheftacular]

Let's say 1 is Wide, with no dungeons or ancient tombs, but a massive game world. 10 is Deep, with a 10 square foot map but level after level of wizard's tower or caste prison.

Why not have Wide AND Deep? A good example of a game with both of these elements is TES: Oblivion. Oblivion has the widest game world of any game I've ever played, but the huge number of dungeons, caves, castles, and other indoor settings is incredible. Even if these are relatively simple compared to other games like Diablo, they're (for the most part) really complex.

Although if someone made me pick I'd prefer a Fallout 3-esque Bethesa game.

 

[The Night Shade]

Wide open because the exploration has more variaty than deep because deep means caverns,sewers,etc

 

[AlternatePFG]

I prefer the wide world, mostly because that usually allows for more variety in the locations usually. A deep dungeon usually feels like a drag for me.

 

[The Procrastinated End]

Can we just go with both because thats a hard choice.

 

[octafish]

I never really liked dungeon crawls when I played Pen and Paper games, and I don't really like them when I play video games. I'd rather find out what is over the next hill than what is around the next corner. A generalization, but one that is generally true.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Honestly, I can do with either. Since I practically grew up on turn-based RPGs, so I'm quite partial to deep(er) dungeons, but I can't say that they aren't taxing. I mean, I like Final Fantasy IV, but trekking through the Sealed Cave and the Cave of Monsters aren't that appealing to me, even though there's a lot of area to explore. It's similar with Pokemon. Yes, I like the games, but dungeons like Silph Co. and Mt. Coronet can go kiss my Arceus.

But that being said, I liked Oblivion when I played it, too, partly because of the sense of freedom and the ability to do pretty much whatever the fuck I wanted in whatever order I desired. The sheer number of actual dungeons meant I could loot one, and never deal with it again, and still never run out of cash--that was fun. But there really wasn't enough difference between the dungeons to actually make enough difference; even for shallow dungeons, I'd dread having to go through another rock cavern or series of halls. There just wasn't enough variance to make dungeon crawling all that appealing after the first several helpings.

I think the best balance would strike somewhere in the middle--a decent number of caves and dungeons to explore, but with enough variance to keep them interesting. Probably the closest game I've played that's near this point would be Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, since the theming for the different dungeons actually--but with actual order, it's more on the "deeper" end of the spectrum than its close cousin "Ocarina of Time," which arguably falls slightly closer to the "wide" side.

 

[Aethren]

Why not have both?

One word: Minecraft.

 

[Adventurer2626]

I rate width over depth but give me a hearty helping of both any day. I think my mood can have something to do with it though as some days I feel like galloping over the hills and seeing panoramic vistas and others I want to pretend I'm Indiana Jones. One may also be important for a particular game over another. I they're both perfectly reasonable approaches to exploration.