On Exploration
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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 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!
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 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!
Y'know, I actually have a PS2 now. I need to get my hands on SotC. And Ico. Meh.
Anyway. There is a fine line between "exploration" and "big empty space that I have to waste my time crossing to get to the next interesting thing", and then a pretty thick line between that and "dry, lifeless nation full of angry young men who have come to the Republic of SocialCommentarystan just to ruin your day" (I'm looking at you, Far Cry 2). There have been a handful of games that have nailed it down on at least a few tries- that lonely culvert with the windchimes in Half-Life 2's canals, the broadcasting tower in Fallout 3 looping a taped plea for help from 200 years ago, even Oblivion's drowned troll (with poorly-spelled suicide note). It takes a conscious decision for a developer to spend time on something that people can easily blow past, that half of their audience or more will never spend the time to look for, just for the few who like to putter around and find interesting things that change nothing but how we look at the game world.
Of course, those developers also have to make sure that we have a chance to find these interesting things without twenty armed thugs at every street corner with nothing better to do than shoot at us.
Anyway. There is a fine line between "exploration" and "big empty space that I have to waste my time crossing to get to the next interesting thing", and then a pretty thick line between that and "dry, lifeless nation full of angry young men who have come to the Republic of SocialCommentarystan just to ruin your day" (I'm looking at you, Far Cry 2). There have been a handful of games that have nailed it down on at least a few tries- that lonely culvert with the windchimes in Half-Life 2's canals, the broadcasting tower in Fallout 3 looping a taped plea for help from 200 years ago, even Oblivion's drowned troll (with poorly-spelled suicide note). It takes a conscious decision for a developer to spend time on something that people can easily blow past, that half of their audience or more will never spend the time to look for, just for the few who like to putter around and find interesting things that change nothing but how we look at the game world.
Of course, those developers also have to make sure that we have a chance to find these interesting things without twenty armed thugs at every street corner with nothing better to do than shoot at us.
Hey, I think I know that xSmootx dude. He's a half-troll on the Kingdom of Loathing boards. I remember that after they added a great javascript fight menu to replace the clunky html-based selection thingy they had before, and even made it option, he said he didn't like it because it felt unnecessary.
I think this column must have made him sexually aroused. Like, a lot.
OT: This is probably why I'm enjoying playing FUEL so much more than all signs say I should.
I think this column must have made him sexually aroused. Like, a lot.
OT: This is probably why I'm enjoying playing FUEL so much more than all signs say I should.
SOTC had a GPS system. It isn't as obvious as said giant arrow, but you could hold down the "tell me where to go button" and the light acts as the GPS. But people preferred to use the light beam as a pointer then ride off in that direction.
But it was so much more than just the GPS, it helped to put you in Wander's position. The giant arrow is intended for the gamer. your character doesn't see it. the light beam on the other hand is intended for both Wander and the gamer.
(As much as I hate the game I'm going to talk about) Prince of Persia 2008 also did a very good job of incorporating the GPS into the game. Elika made a ball of light which would guide the Prince to his destination.
that isn't to say that games without massive exploration aren't fun. Super Mario Bros/World were entirely "run to the right"
However, games where gameplay is made to deliver the player to the next cutscene, they walk a very fine line.
I love Kingdom Hearts, but there is practically no exploration value of any kind. Everything to see is everything you have seen from the initial play through. In Kingdom Hearts 2, we were graced with The World That Never Was, a giant dark city with an even bigger castle. We didn't get to explore any of it. We walked down a path that told the story.
Metal Gear Solid 4 apparently also suffers from this. 40 hours is the average playthough. 3-4 hours is actual gameplay.
Which reminds me, we didn't get a Metal Gear August this year. I was hoping they would get to another part of the story.
But it was so much more than just the GPS, it helped to put you in Wander's position. The giant arrow is intended for the gamer. your character doesn't see it. the light beam on the other hand is intended for both Wander and the gamer.
(As much as I hate the game I'm going to talk about) Prince of Persia 2008 also did a very good job of incorporating the GPS into the game. Elika made a ball of light which would guide the Prince to his destination.
that isn't to say that games without massive exploration aren't fun. Super Mario Bros/World were entirely "run to the right"
However, games where gameplay is made to deliver the player to the next cutscene, they walk a very fine line.
I love Kingdom Hearts, but there is practically no exploration value of any kind. Everything to see is everything you have seen from the initial play through. In Kingdom Hearts 2, we were graced with The World That Never Was, a giant dark city with an even bigger castle. We didn't get to explore any of it. We walked down a path that told the story.
Metal Gear Solid 4 apparently also suffers from this. 40 hours is the average playthough. 3-4 hours is actual gameplay.
Which reminds me, we didn't get a Metal Gear August this year. I was hoping they would get to another part of the story.
Finally! Someone mentions Metroid Prime in a positive light! That game was awesome. (and series; I only own the third one, sorry) The way Yahtzee kept mentioning Nintendo knocking off games like Metroid I got the feeling he didn't like them.(Sorry people, but Other M looks like a load of bullshit to me. My god does it look horrible!) Anyways, I love exploration, especially when a game manages to mix tension, mood, and a sense of discovery into the mix. Great job Yahtzee.
...I miss you Metroid Prime...
...I miss you Metroid Prime...
due to having curiosity, i also enjoy exploring game worlds when possible; especially if the game rewards you for it. the extra health and stamina came in handy for my initial gamefaq-less playthrough of SotC. that tiny colossus beat my ass all the way back up to the platform as punishment for missing him the first time.
being able to go where i please without getting reminded my next destination every five minutes helps with immersion. speaking of, people complain about the bleak and boring landscape of SotC when it just wouldn't have had the same atmosphere if a rainbow guided you through a lush green forest to the next smiling colossus armed with a giant lollipop.
games like bioshock, ratchet and clank, and kingdom hearts had some exploration as you could backtrack to old areas with new upgrades to reach previously unreachable areas which increased my interest in them.
being able to go where i please without getting reminded my next destination every five minutes helps with immersion. speaking of, people complain about the bleak and boring landscape of SotC when it just wouldn't have had the same atmosphere if a rainbow guided you through a lush green forest to the next smiling colossus armed with a giant lollipop.
games like bioshock, ratchet and clank, and kingdom hearts had some exploration as you could backtrack to old areas with new upgrades to reach previously unreachable areas which increased my interest in them.
In SotC, I liked getting fruit and shooting lizards. The banality of needing to hunt for nourishment in order to better face your challenges seemed right at home in this world. Remember the Neverending Story? The feel that there was true trials in a hard world for everyone was palpable, and I felt this game was the immersive version of that kind of story. Epic!
-Grumble- I'm incredibly frustrated that I have to constantly sound like a sheep here and agree with you. I sort of wish you'd attack some thing that I agree with just so I don't have to sound like a complete and utter sheep when I praise your reasoning and ideas. However it seems again you'd struck a cord that plays a sound I like. Exploration that is.
Though I'm not going to lie to you. I never played Shadow of the Colossus, the game was out for the PS2 and at the time of release I'd been stuck with an Xbox. When I finally got my hands on new PS2 the game was out of shops and the 360 was on it's was out. However I did play Windwaker and it truly was my favourite Legend of Zelda. I was at first a little sceptical as while I enjoyed Ocarina of time... I'm not that big of a LoZ fan and I wasn't all to interested in that game. However when I finally forked out the money for the game I started to enjoy it. I enjoyed it for, like you mentioned, exploration. I enjoyed going through the ocean trying to fill in every blank spot like that Cutler Becket fellow in PoC. I also enjoyed the whole mystery of it all, having no idea what would pop up next, a ghost ship?, a typhoon?... A Krakan maybe?. The fact that I was all alone on my little boat helpless and out in the middle of the ocean also helped increase the tension when some thing like a Ghost Ship did pop up.
I liked that kind of exploration. I like open ended world that I can sink my teeth into. It does seem like new games are trying for this type of exploration however they seem to think the best way to do it is to just make the map massive... However when they do this they seem to forget to fill the maps with anything of interest and this large map seems empty.
Speaking of maps, that's what also can spoil a large open end world. Maps revealing everything. Now I'm not against maps, however I would rather they leave all the areas you haven't been blanked out rather than revealing it all. That creates a sense of mystery, you don't know what's around the next corner, that black spot on the map could contain anything... Might be worth taking a look. When it's all revealed to us... there's no fun to it... I don't feel like I'm exploring, I feel like it's all already been done for me and I just have to go to set places to pick up a few items.
Well that's my two quid on it.
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.
Also I'll apologise if my grammar is extremely off in this post. It's 6 in the morning and I haven't slept since 8 Yesterday morning.
Though I'm not going to lie to you. I never played Shadow of the Colossus, the game was out for the PS2 and at the time of release I'd been stuck with an Xbox. When I finally got my hands on new PS2 the game was out of shops and the 360 was on it's was out. However I did play Windwaker and it truly was my favourite Legend of Zelda. I was at first a little sceptical as while I enjoyed Ocarina of time... I'm not that big of a LoZ fan and I wasn't all to interested in that game. However when I finally forked out the money for the game I started to enjoy it. I enjoyed it for, like you mentioned, exploration. I enjoyed going through the ocean trying to fill in every blank spot like that Cutler Becket fellow in PoC. I also enjoyed the whole mystery of it all, having no idea what would pop up next, a ghost ship?, a typhoon?... A Krakan maybe?. The fact that I was all alone on my little boat helpless and out in the middle of the ocean also helped increase the tension when some thing like a Ghost Ship did pop up.
I liked that kind of exploration. I like open ended world that I can sink my teeth into. It does seem like new games are trying for this type of exploration however they seem to think the best way to do it is to just make the map massive... However when they do this they seem to forget to fill the maps with anything of interest and this large map seems empty.
Speaking of maps, that's what also can spoil a large open end world. Maps revealing everything. Now I'm not against maps, however I would rather they leave all the areas you haven't been blanked out rather than revealing it all. That creates a sense of mystery, you don't know what's around the next corner, that black spot on the map could contain anything... Might be worth taking a look. When it's all revealed to us... there's no fun to it... I don't feel like I'm exploring, I feel like it's all already been done for me and I just have to go to set places to pick up a few items.
Well that's my two quid on it.
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.
Also I'll apologise if my grammar is extremely off in this post. It's 6 in the morning and I haven't slept since 8 Yesterday morning.
The article went over your head. Exploration in SotC is rewarding precisely because there are no artificial rewards. There isn't a guaranteed landmark every 100-200 yards or the promise of countless shiny collectibles. You explore because you want to see what's out there - as opposed to chasing some dev-inserted carrot. Exploration, like the story, is highly organic. There isn't an overriding sensation of "game design" permeating every inch of SotC. That's what makes it a special game to so many people.hermes200 said:
Also, people hating on the graphics are pretty far off-base. The art design holds up amazingly well, and the tech behind some of the effects was extremely high-end for PS2 at the time. In fact, HD versions of SotC and Ico look pretty damn good without any changes to texture detail or effects. It was a feat at release, and it still looks good with a simple bump in resolution and frame rate.
Finally, I think people are confusing "empty by design" with "empty because the dev is lazy". Wandering around the forbidden valley of SotC, I get the distinct impression that it's a dead land. Yes, most things are absent, but that absence is a palpable thing you see and feel as you journey through the many decaying ruins and remnants of the previous age. There's a very real sense that a vibrant and fully populated world once existed on that very spot - and now it's gone. That's entirely different playing through a game with a needlessly sparse or empty environment brought on by the limited funds or talents of the developers.
No my friend, I like to be rewarded by the developers for the time I spend in their game. If a world is bland and empty, it's bland and empty. If I wanted to waste my time just to "explore" such a wonderful gameworld I'd go play WoW instead. It's gameworld is infinitely vaster and boring-er.AgentNein said:
The poster above said he found the same things I find boring, wonderful. It's different tastes. I just wasn't convinced, while others may be totally immersed.
While I'm certainly one of the types that like to visit every corner of an area before moving off, in the case of SotC, I found myself ignoring a good chunck of that. I like exploration, don't get me wrong, and the reward can just as easily be a stunning vista as it can be a shiny bit of loot.
The thing though is, with SotC, is I found it lacking in variety: After a few finds, you clue into the fact that there isn't anything else but pretty scenery to find, and a few lizards. If you are exploring, you want to find something, but at least I would prefer not to know beforehand what I'm going to find. In SotC, I do just that: I will find landscape. Pretty landscape, but still just more landscape.
Morrowind, bleak and repetitative scenery nonewithstanding, did it better in this department. You might find a small village, or a sidequest, or just a cave with a few people in it. Had the landscape been more interesting, and the trekking across it less mindnumbing, it might have gotten the best of both worlds. I did have the sense that "If you just keep walking north, eventually I'll find something cool, and I may even get to use it". Same deal with Fallout 3, really.
Exploration is a great part of many games. As long as they put some variety into it.
The thing though is, with SotC, is I found it lacking in variety: After a few finds, you clue into the fact that there isn't anything else but pretty scenery to find, and a few lizards. If you are exploring, you want to find something, but at least I would prefer not to know beforehand what I'm going to find. In SotC, I do just that: I will find landscape. Pretty landscape, but still just more landscape.
Morrowind, bleak and repetitative scenery nonewithstanding, did it better in this department. You might find a small village, or a sidequest, or just a cave with a few people in it. Had the landscape been more interesting, and the trekking across it less mindnumbing, it might have gotten the best of both worlds. I did have the sense that "If you just keep walking north, eventually I'll find something cool, and I may even get to use it". Same deal with Fallout 3, really.
Exploration is a great part of many games. As long as they put some variety into it.
I agree, even though Oblivion had the compass-arrow-in-your-face mechanic, this problem was partly sidestepped, given that there were always something else to do. Oblivion didn't force you to explore, but it rewarded you if you actively went about it.Neuromaster said:
)I agree mostly though -even while many of my favorite games have heavy exploration- we mustn't forget the benefits of encapsulating the player (ie. the tight, claustrophobic spaces in portal and the streamline of many shooters)
Love 'ya Yahtzee
Note: Just on the exploration as a gameplay mechanic point; has anyone played any ToT games? (the studio bases itself largely on explorative gameplay)
Love 'ya Yahtzee
Note: Just on the exploration as a gameplay mechanic point; has anyone played any ToT games? (the studio bases itself largely on explorative gameplay)
I suspect I may have asked Yahtzee this before in his retrospective Thief review (does he read the forum as well as Twitter?) but I do wonder what he thinks of mods for games like Thief. There are a lot of high quality fan missions that have much better exploration than Deadly Shadows had, good enough that I still play them.
To be fair to Deadly Shadows though, while it was in just about every way not as good as the first two games, I have to give it credit for The Cradle. It even did exploration right! There were optional little notes and visual details in out of the way places that let you learn the background of the place, such as the birdhouses and the elevator that goes up but not down.
I also need to find Shadow of the Colossus. I remember getting a demo with a magazine and playing the first Colossus fight over and over. Seeing the other 15 would be nice.
To be fair to Deadly Shadows though, while it was in just about every way not as good as the first two games, I have to give it credit for The Cradle. It even did exploration right! There were optional little notes and visual details in out of the way places that let you learn the background of the place, such as the birdhouses and the elevator that goes up but not down.
I also need to find Shadow of the Colossus. I remember getting a demo with a magazine and playing the first Colossus fight over and over. Seeing the other 15 would be nice.
I don't really see SotC as being about the exploration. I think the game is naturally appealing to those of us who like leaving no stone unturned (and don't need a carrot for our efforts). However, I feel the huge sprawling landscape had a much more important purpose. It was there to make you feel small and insignificant; to make you feel alone, and hopeless.
Nearly everything in the game was there to emphasize the mood, the narrative, etc. The game is essentially a powerful and cohesive interactive film. There is little to distract you from the plot, little to interrupt immersion, and little to break the mood. The games shortness even helps maintain it's narrative focus. Adding in side-quests, mini-games, collectibles, power-ups, Easter eggs, etc. might have made the game more fun (to some), but it would have completely destroyed it's impact. Making it just another decent game in a sea of decent games, and certainly making it less prevalent in the discussion of games as art.
I can appreciate that some people aren't looking for Mass Effect to become more like 2001: A Space Odyssey. That many people just want fun, and excitement, and replayability (I certainly hope most games stick with this formula). I can appreciate that some people don't get the appeal of SotC, and never will, and that's perfectly fine. I just think it's pointless to fault SotC for not catering to your taste in games, when there was clearly no intent to.
Nearly everything in the game was there to emphasize the mood, the narrative, etc. The game is essentially a powerful and cohesive interactive film. There is little to distract you from the plot, little to interrupt immersion, and little to break the mood. The games shortness even helps maintain it's narrative focus. Adding in side-quests, mini-games, collectibles, power-ups, Easter eggs, etc. might have made the game more fun (to some), but it would have completely destroyed it's impact. Making it just another decent game in a sea of decent games, and certainly making it less prevalent in the discussion of games as art.
I can appreciate that some people aren't looking for Mass Effect to become more like 2001: A Space Odyssey. That many people just want fun, and excitement, and replayability (I certainly hope most games stick with this formula). I can appreciate that some people don't get the appeal of SotC, and never will, and that's perfectly fine. I just think it's pointless to fault SotC for not catering to your taste in games, when there was clearly no intent to.
I have not tried minecraft yet.. And videos i have seen from it dont really tell me that much..Credendo said:
What is the purpose of the game? What is the goal?
Do you fight other people?
To me it looks extremely boring, but so many people like it so i start to wonder what the fasination is..
Ok so there are many, many things I loved about Fallout 3, and some things that I didn't.
One of the things that I didn't - you have a MASSIVE sandbox landscape, full of interesting stuff to find and do. And while you're making your way across it, especially at the higher levels, you will be interrupted by scorpions or robots or raiders EVERY. TWO. GODDAMN. SECONDS. Also see: Oblivion, and every other single-player RPG ever made.
Seriously, random encounters should die a slow, agonizing death, alongside monsters that level alongside the player. (See "Oblivion", where the most challenging opponents in the entire game are the f--king goblins.) Why not give us a lot of set points where larger-scale encounters can be found, should the player want them? Instead of constantly being molested by minotaurs in "Oblivion" once you reach a high enough level, why didn't the game have "hard" areas, such as the spooooky forest which all the villagers would warn you not to go into because there was nasty ghoulies in there?
Another thing that should disappear: levelling with no visible signs of levelling. If I double my sword-swinging stat, I want the sword to be visibly faster and more powerful, capable of a lot more swings in the same time, etc. I don't want it to look exactly the same but get told that I've done more damage by some stat on the screen. I have Microsoft Excel for that. I want that sword to produce a more visible effect on the enemy - stagger them more, or produce more blood, etc - and LOOK like it's being swung with more force. I also want there to be a gameplay "benefit" other than just being told that it's doing more damage (and because the monsters level with you, this turns out to be a deficit anyway).
Soooo to recap this rather long-winded post:
1) Get rid of random encounters that just detract from the "exploration" aspect. Add encounters that you can (and must) plan ahead for, each one challenging and imaginative and different in difficulty. So if you're feeling ambitious, you can take on a minotaur king at level 1; and if you're looking for some easy XP, you can take on a cavern of goblins as a level 100 sorceror who can summon demon-lords at will.
2) Get rid of levelled creatures. There is NOTHING more annoying in "Oblivion" than being able to finally take on those damn goblins, only to discover that they're now all "Goblin Warlords" because the game arbitrarily decided that you were too powerful.
3) Make "levelling" feel as though it has an actual effect. If I level up magical abilities, I want my fireballs to be bigger and burn stuff for longer. If I level up bludgeoning weapons, I want them to be visibly more forceful. If I level up blades, I want them to swing faster and do more cutting damage, etc.
Seriously, is there ANY reason why this stuff can't happen, technically speaking, in a modern game?
One of the things that I didn't - you have a MASSIVE sandbox landscape, full of interesting stuff to find and do. And while you're making your way across it, especially at the higher levels, you will be interrupted by scorpions or robots or raiders EVERY. TWO. GODDAMN. SECONDS. Also see: Oblivion, and every other single-player RPG ever made.
Seriously, random encounters should die a slow, agonizing death, alongside monsters that level alongside the player. (See "Oblivion", where the most challenging opponents in the entire game are the f--king goblins.) Why not give us a lot of set points where larger-scale encounters can be found, should the player want them? Instead of constantly being molested by minotaurs in "Oblivion" once you reach a high enough level, why didn't the game have "hard" areas, such as the spooooky forest which all the villagers would warn you not to go into because there was nasty ghoulies in there?
Another thing that should disappear: levelling with no visible signs of levelling. If I double my sword-swinging stat, I want the sword to be visibly faster and more powerful, capable of a lot more swings in the same time, etc. I don't want it to look exactly the same but get told that I've done more damage by some stat on the screen. I have Microsoft Excel for that. I want that sword to produce a more visible effect on the enemy - stagger them more, or produce more blood, etc - and LOOK like it's being swung with more force. I also want there to be a gameplay "benefit" other than just being told that it's doing more damage (and because the monsters level with you, this turns out to be a deficit anyway).
Soooo to recap this rather long-winded post:
1) Get rid of random encounters that just detract from the "exploration" aspect. Add encounters that you can (and must) plan ahead for, each one challenging and imaginative and different in difficulty. So if you're feeling ambitious, you can take on a minotaur king at level 1; and if you're looking for some easy XP, you can take on a cavern of goblins as a level 100 sorceror who can summon demon-lords at will.
2) Get rid of levelled creatures. There is NOTHING more annoying in "Oblivion" than being able to finally take on those damn goblins, only to discover that they're now all "Goblin Warlords" because the game arbitrarily decided that you were too powerful.
3) Make "levelling" feel as though it has an actual effect. If I level up magical abilities, I want my fireballs to be bigger and burn stuff for longer. If I level up bludgeoning weapons, I want them to be visibly more forceful. If I level up blades, I want them to swing faster and do more cutting damage, etc.
Seriously, is there ANY reason why this stuff can't happen, technically speaking, in a modern game?