On Exploration

[Centrophy]

Exploration for the sake of exploration... sure I could get behind that the problem I had with SOTC was that the world was boring and was seemingly filled with nothing (Except lizards...). However a good example of exploration are the Unique Landscapes mods for TES:4. They didn't have any quests or treasures or anything but they were creative and interesting enough to keep you (or me) coming back to bathe in the "glory" of virtual nature. IMO that is a better example of exploration.

Yahtzee often illustrates and articulates my guilty pleasures in gaming. Sometimes I just feel like, "the dork" when I play games, because I always want a little more than what's offered. I scoff at minimaps and GPS features, unless the game explicitly supports it. Such as a high-tech futuristic adventure, it would be warranted. Though that doesn't mean there should be an arrow pulling you around like a silly child.

Oblivion is a prime example. Differing tastes in the game and series aside, one could hardly argue that it makes sense to have a fully illustrated map telling you exactly where you are, what your azimuth is (direction you're facing), and exactly where you need to go. Let's also not forget you could simply click anywhere on the map and go there..

How much more exciting and majestic would Oblivion have been if the map was just a hand-drawn antiquated sheet of cloth with ink blots and tears throughout? Whenever something need to be explored, a quest of sorts, then your character would vaguely draw a destination with ink and feather. So you look at your map for a minute and note to yourself that you must go north until Cheydinhal, then branch off the western path until you find the big boulder & tree landmark, cave destination directly to the north of that.

Seriously, isn't that what fantasy exploration is all about? Forget arrows and waypoints, it doesn't make sense anymore. Developers spend all this time designing fully realized and detailed 3D worlds, yet instead of using them in any sort of logical gameplay mechanic, they'll just design them as "pretty art". Not enough I say. It's time to start abandoning minimaps and waypoints altogether for the appropriate games.

I want my next quest NPC to tell me to leave the southern gate, and travel along the cobblestone path until I find the abandoned hovel, then proceed towards the tree line to start my investigation for the missing child kidnapped by bandits. As Yahtzee stated, I don't want to stare at a 10x10pixel minimap when I should be taking in the beautifully detailed world, and actually using it.

I don't want him to brifely (briefly) say, go fetch the child from the bandits, then have a destination pinpointed on my map, on my unable-to-malfunction compass and in full 3D in the form of an arrow on the horizon. How silly. I don't care if it "takes time" to find, that's kind of the point of a quest... you know, an "adventure", a freaking quest?? Not a monotonous task.

If people complain and whine that it's "too much work" and "not fun".. then.. get this.. they could make a separate difficulty!! The possibilities.... I shall journey to the patent office immediately!

Now you made up for it with the last sentence and different settings however I could tell you that I would not have enjoyed Oblivion if it didn't have a compass and waypoint system (I also used the mod where to fast travel you would have to be on horseback, which in my mind made sense). I was playing TES:3 the other day (A game I loved) and I was was constantly thinking about how much I hated the vague directions (Not to mention the god awful journal) and how I would constantly have to metagame (in other words look at a FAQ/map) to find things. There was this one quest which basically said the tomb was east of the village...(No other directions!) and I thought "okay..." and spent hours running and jumping over the bleak ashlands landscape looking for the damn tomb. This was part of the main quest!

I will however admit to going the opposite way the game leads me... (probably because I subconsciously believe the dev left secrets/treasures there) because I'm a rebel. Yay Thief.

 

[Sovvolf]

Speaking of exploration though, that new PoC game looks like the type of game to have some potentially good exploration. I mean you go around sailing every where, there's got to be plenty of undiscovered islands to explore, nasty sea beasties to run into and possibly a few ghost ships.

Call me dense if need be, but what does this acronym stand for? I browsed through the thread and didn't see any mention of this. What game are you talking about here? Sounds interesting, the sailing bit.

PoC = Pirates of the Caribbean. The new game is Pirates of the Caribbean: Armada of the Damned. What I'm talking about there is pure speculation, assumptions made from what I've seen. I hear you sail every where and you captain your own ship. I'm assuming you'll be able to got to different islands for explorations along with meeting sea monsters during your sailing. Not much of this as been confirmed yet unfortunately.

 

[unoleian]

Exploration is what keeps me into games, these days. I'm drawn to open worlds with hazy goals, and any chance to say "screw you, minimap. you say I need to be here, but what's on top of that mountain over there?" is what keeps me enthralled more than anything else.

On one hand, I love having waypoints and tick-marks to highlight where I need to be or where to go, or what's around the next switchback, but on another, I don't.

I works in some games. Others, not.


I loved how in Morrowind it was totally possible to stumble across a random cave entrance out of the blue and know absolutely nothing about it. Oblivion kind of took a sense of reward away by "saying," constantly, "HEY! LISTEN! There's a dungeon over here! Over here! Look over here! It's the Knotty Bramble! Over here! Over here!" and that was kind of a turn-off for me. Much the same for Fallout 3. I found more interesting set-pieces and random, satisfying discoveries in the occasional areas not tied to a tiny triangle.

Getting some guidance to keep the story on track is one thing. Keeps frustration down when all we want to do is get there, and see what's next. Ushering me to every "point of interest" within 10km is a different story. It takes away a lot of the fun, a lot of the surprise. Detracts from the desire to explore, to pay attention, and to be rewarded for such.

 

[viciouspen]

Shadow is one of the few games that has elicited a strong emotional reaction from me, not like "zomg zombies aaaaahh!!" but the kind that felt like something had attached itself to your heart and was applying a yanking motion.

It's the type of game you never want to end. That's the type of game you get to play level after level in gamer heaven.

 

[squid5580]

I would much rather play an exploration sandbox game like RDR than SOTC for 1 simple reason. When I am riding on my horse through RDR I never know what will happen next. Will I come across some damsel about to be hung? Or a bunch of bandits about to kill some poor guy? Maybe it will be a cougar who wants my horse for lunch? Or a horsejacker? Or a wagon being stolen? You know interesting things. Not oops you went the wrong way enjoy looking at your horses ass for another 20 minutes while you try another route. That to me is not fun. But apparently artsy games are not supposed to be fun. Or so I was just informed.

 

[ZetaAnime]

The exploration part of a game is sometimes what keeps me into the game knowing i need to find a place and the map does nothing for me. For one it keeps me playing unlike other games where they seem to end do fast and two looking at the art and styles they put into a game is also another reason why exploring a jungle or a town is fun and entertaining. And also a few hidden Easter eggs while exploring is always a plus.
TIMBAP_AJR

 

[Scottieburke]

Well. Shit. Someone actually believes the same as myself. I played SOTC and ADORED every second of it. The only thing that could top that is another next-gen version of the SAME game.

Simply put, The game was genius, and so is Yahtzee.

 

[Chaosthief]

Has anyone mentioned Aquaria yet? I personally loved the exploration aspect of it.

For those who don't know, Aquaria (http://www.bit-blot.com/aquaria/) is an indie title whose genre I guess could be described as 2D action-adventure, with very light RPG elements in the mix (You can use bits dropped from critters you kill to cook and make powerup foods, you can find outfits with helpful effects, and you can find health upgrades. That about covers the RPG aspect.)

Anyway, you play as an amnesiac mermaid (it's not as bad as it sounds!), Naija, searching through the ocean for her origin and for other sentient species. The environment in the beginning level seems pretty restrained. A few side things if you look around a bit, but primarily just temple 1 and temple 2. After those, you can finally advance out of that area.

The true open ocean floored me quite quickly. Even though Naija provides pretty broad hints of where to go next plotwise, the game makes very little effort to prevent you going an entirely different direction. A healthy slice of the entire game world's open for viewing even when you have only the two powers you obtained from the beginning.

But I'll carry on for a long while if I don't close off soon. Aquaria doesn't have quite the silent beauty of SotC, but it definitely has the loneliness. The way I say it makes it sound like a bad thing, but I mean it in the best way possible. Only a few sentient beings do actually reside in the world (semi-spoiler, but you get that impression pretty early in anyway). And I've noticed all the people with distaste for maps, fear not! The minimap only displays the structure of the land, and the main map only labels things after you find them.

I truly feel this game exemplifies exploration like the others you all have mentioned, with its vast and quite stunningly beautiful seascape.

Okay, okay, I'm done now.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I got the article, I just don't agree with the example... I feel exploration is rewarding when the designer give you something to explore. Its the little details that I found interesting and flesh out a setting for me. If the game is set on an huge, empty or generic environment, I don't feel interested in exploring it. It was just me, my horse, the ocassional lizard and endless miles of grass. While finding a new Colossus was always new and interesting, and maked me wonder what was next; riding over a hill was never a surprise, and never got me wonder what I was going to find...
Its the equivalent of Fuel, which advertised as "world record winner for world size"... It turned out, the world was mostly empty and functional generated.
Sorry if the example got into a soft spot for you, but you have to wonder, if the world gave you the feeling of a big, dead and empty world, maybe its because it was big, dead and empty.

Read the rest of my previous post. SotC is a fantastic example of a game world that is empty by design rather than convenience. It's full of small touches that indicate the previous existences of people, places, and things - which are now gone. Those small touches are conscious decisions on the part of the developer. You won't notice them if you're not exploring. Things like the tree, the village, and the garden have no impact on your progression in SotC. If you're only goal is to progress, you'll probably miss them - and to you, it will just be an empty, dead world same as any other.

 

[SpinFusor]

I would much rather play an exploration sandbox game like RDR than SOTC for 1 simple reason. When I am riding on my horse through RDR I never know what will happen next. Will I come across some damsel about to be hung? Or a bunch of bandits about to kill some poor guy? Maybe it will be a cougar who wants my horse for lunch? Or a horsejacker? Or a wagon being stolen? You know interesting things. Not oops you went the wrong way enjoy looking at your horses ass for another 20 minutes while you try another route. That to me is not fun. But apparently artsy games are not supposed to be fun. Or so I was just informed.

Well, I think RDR is a great example of how an amazing story can be strained by gameplay. Putting aside exploration, and how constantly you run into the same scenarios over and over, and over. John wants to leave his killing days behind yet is constantly duped into mass genocide and political intrigue, just for some tidbits of information. He is strung along an absurd number of times, not to advance the story, or to make the plot better, or stronger, but simply to give the player an excuse to kill tons and tons of people.

I'm not trying to criticize RDR, it was probably my favorite game this year. However, it serves to illustrate how even the best games do things that aren't really good for their stories to serve gameplay/content, and rarely if ever go out of their way to make the gameplay/content serve the story.

I think this is appropriate, it's how the vast majority of games are structured (and should be in my opinion). Like many have pointed out, most people plays games to have fun. The more fun, and excitement packed in the better. I certainly wouldn't have wanted RDR to emulate a SotC formula at all.

That being said, I think there's more than enough room in this huge industry for the occasional developer to think outside of the box, and go against the norm. Even if the game they make isn't everyone's cup o' tea. Because, trust me, the people who SotC resonated with had an extraordinary amount of fun.

 

[LazyAza]

So very very true Mr Croshaw. God how I love games with a good exploration element. Half the fun of Arkham Asylum was figuring out how to get all the riddler stuff, some of which was amazingly and cleverly well done.

Also anyone who shits on Shadow of the Collossus needs to be smacked hard across the head for being a moron. Its quite possibly -the- game with the best exploration gameplay of any ever and the boss fights are utterly incredible experiences, to the point you couldn't even call them just boss fights really. I'm still waiting for another game to do at least one boss fight as good as the ones from SotC. God of War 3 couldn't even manage it.

 

[hermes]

Read the rest of my previous post. SotC is a fantastic example of a game world that is empty by design rather than convenience. It's full of small touches that indicate the previous existences of people, places, and things - which are now gone. Those small touches are conscious decisions on the part of the developer. You won't notice them if you're not exploring. Things like the tree, the village, and the garden have no impact on your progression in SotC. If you're only goal is to progress, you'll probably miss them - and to you, it will just be an empty, dead world same as any other.

I get that the world is intentionally empty. I get that feeling of being alone in a huge world devoid of many things is an intentional design choice. I get that, I just don't feel an intentionally empty world gives me more motivation to explore than an world that is empty or generic due to laziness.
That is why SotC is not a good example about sucessful exploration to me...

 

[the wako kid]

exploration tis the shit. i think shadow of the colossus was great,exploration and everything, but my disappointment with the exploration is that theres nothing to find except for another colossus,which is why fallout and metroid are great,because they are a couple games that are rare in that you dont get frustrated if you get lost in them.one thing i hate is when a linear game looks like it has exploration and when you try to explore you find doors that lead to empty rooms so you have spent twqenty minutes looking for secret awesome nuggets covered in rocket sauce,only to find that youre looking in empty rooms.

 

[Hexador]

I think the same can be said about exploration in ES: Oblivion and Fallout 3. Massive worlds with all sorts of things to see makes games that much more fun. Although, fast travel tends to dilute the experience.

 

[dyslexicfaser]

Myself, I like Skies of Arcadia for that reason. It reads like an itemized list of Yahtzee's pet peeves about JRPGs (the messy-haired teenage protagonist with the ridiculous outfit alone would likely spark vitriol; his sleeves are buckled to the rest of his outfit!). It has a prison level, complete with robot guard. But it's a big game world (sky... thing) filled with neat stuff to find, and that makes up for a lot.

Also, airship battles.

 

[Whodat]

Another game that has an emphasis on exploration is Just Cause 2. The game is GIGANTIC in every sense of the word. Its fun to just fly around in a jet or explore for easter eggs in this epic sized map.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I get that the world is intentionally empty. I get that feeling of being alone in a huge world devoid of many things is an intentional design choice. I get that, I just don't feel an intentionally empty world gives me more motivation to explore than an world that is empty or generic due to laziness.
That is why SotC is not a good example about sucessful exploration to me...

Don't ever read The Road.

Games like Oblivion and Fallout 3, which seem to have publicly approved exploration elements, feel incredibly artificial to me precisely because they are so "filled with content". The devs have neatly organized all of the "exploration" such that you reliably find a landmark, dungeon, or bandit camp every 100-150 meters. It's very dense and rewarding and false. It's wilderness as a shopping mall. I can see the imprint of a level designer everywhere I turn, and that takes me out of the game. SotC was a much more organic experience because I didn't find something every 200 feet. There's definitely some beautiful scenery, but I wasn't led by the nose with obvious metagame "breadcrumbs".

Anyways, this specific discussion has turned highly subjective. You seem to be taking specific issue with the tone and aesthetic of the game world rather than the actual structure of it. You can definitely prefer not to explore a game that you find dour, depressing, and dead. For some people, those are selling points.

 

[Miumaru]

I like exploring. Another reason Morrowind is one of my favorite games and better than Oblivion.
Hell, when I realized EVERY Ancestral Tomb with locks have keys for every lock, key hunting was a fun game to play.