If I can have both I want both. Challenge is necessary to make a game fun for me while exploration can make me slow down and take in the setting. Linear and easy games just aren't engaging for meNomanslander said:I believe that when it come to the appeal of video games, there are two categories that generally separates what we want, and what we expect from them. We're either looking for a challenge: something to test our might. Or, we're looking for an intriguing experience.
Now, of course, this is my opinion - there can be dozens or over hundreds of other factors involved - but, right now, just play with me...
Basically, when you're looking for a challenge, you might be playing a online match, a fighting game, or a game on the hardest difficulty setting. Story or exploration doesn't concern you, and it's all about the gameplay and its fluidity, or variety of options you can engage an opponent.
Now, with exploration, the focus can be the story, or the sheer experience of it all. You like to side quest and veer away from the obvious path (sandbox). A lot of times, you're looking for something unique and innovative. Gameplay doesn't come down to how well you completed a mission (or, if you were able to at all), but what you did to get there.
So, what would you guys prefer?
Personally, I would probably choose both. But if I had to choose one, I'd go with a challenge.
Poll: Challenge Vs. Exploration... what do you prefer?
- Thread starter Nomanslander
- Start date
Both, always both.
Sometimes I feel like getting challenged and sometimes I feel like exploring some stuff, if your game has both then I'm buying it right away, if it has only one then it will probably wait till I really really need to get that specific itch scratched... usually these end up slipping out of view because others just offer more.
Sometimes I feel like getting challenged and sometimes I feel like exploring some stuff, if your game has both then I'm buying it right away, if it has only one then it will probably wait till I really really need to get that specific itch scratched... usually these end up slipping out of view because others just offer more.
Exploration. I enjoy the occasional challenge and I need it to keep my reflexes sharp, but exploring new areas and finding new enemies to fight is more interesting to me than just fighting.
Exploration. Give me a big open world that I can wander around in freely. Hence my love of Minecraft and MMOs, and my disapointment with post-Cataclysm WoW and with SWTOR, that are as linear as any single player game.
That's not to say I don't occassionally enjoy a well paced linear game, but for the most part I like to able to step off the rails and go exploring, rather than being dragged from one set piece to the next like an automaton.
That's not to say I don't occassionally enjoy a well paced linear game, but for the most part I like to able to step off the rails and go exploring, rather than being dragged from one set piece to the next like an automaton.
If I was forced to choose, then I'd go for exploration. I prefer games like The Elder Scrolls, Fallout and Mass Effect for the great stories and large maps to go exploring in. But games need to have a balance between exploration and challenge because it's easy to get bored with only going for one.
By your definition I would pick exploration as I like playing through a story. However I also like it if my game comes with enough challenge to keep me occupied throughout the story. I like Dark Souls at the moment as its a very challenging game however its got enough story elements and exploration of large environments to keep me pushing through the challenges.
Exploration all the way. I love the Elder Scrolls and Fallout and their ilk, but if you'll allow me to be a little abstract, then I enjoy most the games that present me with great vistas and excellent presentation and music and characters and stories and such, and in finding these experiences, I suppose i am exploring new ideas. I prefer that aspect of gaming far more than maxing my APM or testing my twitch reflexes
The reason I didn't put up an option for both is... well, I figured that that would be a given. Anyone that's anyone would want both; it's human nature to want more. But, I feel like when developers choose to make a game, they usually try to go heavy one way or another. It's hard to put enough resources into a game to make both the gameplay exhilarating and the world/story engrossing.Mr.K. said:
Gears of War franchise is an example of a game that was all about tweaking the cover base shooting mechanic to its finest. Since it was the game that started cover base shooters, the developers felt like it had to be the best. Its a very linear game, with a story about as one-note and by-the-books as shit. Sure, some people liked the characters and story, but from one iteration in the franchise to the next, it was all about perfecting the cover base shooting gameplay and make sure it surpasses other games that took up the style.
And that's what people who strive for a challenge look for in a game.
Precisely what I was coming around to say.ShinyCharizard said:
I'd prefer to have both, if possible. That's why Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are so great in my eyes. The levels in Demon's Souls are linear, yes, but there's so much more in each level you can find by going out and looking around for it. Dark Souls is a whole lot of exploration with tons of challenge thrown in. You gotta stay wary of your surroundings lest you get jumped by something wicked and get your face torn off.
Nomanslander said:
I Disagree with you 100%, I found Dark Souls has both challenge and exploration and I found it unbearable dull. However, I loved the Walking Dead which is a fairly easy and linear game. The Walking Dead does not provide a challenge to test you, or provide expansive settings to explore. It merely provides you with Narrative and Atmosphere. (which cannot simply be lumped with exploration.)
I would argue that both Exploration and Challenge are not enjoyable unless coupled with an interesting narrative or atmosphere. Without a narrative or atmosphere challenge only serves to make the game frustrating. However, when coupled with another element challenge can add a lot to the experience. (challenge is an essential part of survival horror, but without would fall flat without an narrative or atmosphere.) This is getting too long but the same thing applies to exploration, if the story and setting are not interesting, the player does not want to explore.
I believe that it's crucial to have challenge within exploration. :<
Like in a game of survival, one can stay in the shelter and slowly be destroyed or risk exploring to bring materials back, or even relocate shelter to a better location. :3
Like in a game of survival, one can stay in the shelter and slowly be destroyed or risk exploring to bring materials back, or even relocate shelter to a better location. :3
I would say a little of both. It's one of the reasons that I love Dark Souls so much. Yeah you've got a linear path to follow, and such, but there is a lot to see.
Open world games used to amaze me back when GTA3 came out, but now other than a few places that stand out in open world games, it's more or less the same street/valley/field copy pasted ad nauseum.
Plus it's much easier to make great looking levels when a player is "railroaded" through it.
Besides, when I played Oblivion and Skyrim, I tended to fast travel when possible, because there isn't really much to see anyways (unless it's a PoI on the map, and even than most were just smaller waypoints.) Not saying there weren't some cool setpieces in Skyrim and other open world games, but it felt detached from the rest of the games world, whereas Dark Souls' World felt like one big setpiece. Demon's Souls felt detached too, but I think that's mainly due to how the Nexus handled the traveling.
It's another reason why I hold Super Metroid(2D), and Dark Souls(3D) up as high as I do in level design. Zebes was roughly an open world(in fact all Metroid games have been, I think), but you were pulled through it in a semi-linear fashion. You could sequence break, and there was a lot of exploring to do. You could beat the game and come back to try to find other hidden areas and such that you didn't find last time. Hell, my last play through, I had found a room with this weird turtle thing retracting into its shell and spinning at me(It was in Maridia if you're curious). And I thought I had found everything already, or at the very least, seen every creature on the planet.
Open world games used to amaze me back when GTA3 came out, but now other than a few places that stand out in open world games, it's more or less the same street/valley/field copy pasted ad nauseum.
Plus it's much easier to make great looking levels when a player is "railroaded" through it.
Besides, when I played Oblivion and Skyrim, I tended to fast travel when possible, because there isn't really much to see anyways (unless it's a PoI on the map, and even than most were just smaller waypoints.) Not saying there weren't some cool setpieces in Skyrim and other open world games, but it felt detached from the rest of the games world, whereas Dark Souls' World felt like one big setpiece. Demon's Souls felt detached too, but I think that's mainly due to how the Nexus handled the traveling.
It's another reason why I hold Super Metroid(2D), and Dark Souls(3D) up as high as I do in level design. Zebes was roughly an open world(in fact all Metroid games have been, I think), but you were pulled through it in a semi-linear fashion. You could sequence break, and there was a lot of exploring to do. You could beat the game and come back to try to find other hidden areas and such that you didn't find last time. Hell, my last play through, I had found a room with this weird turtle thing retracting into its shell and spinning at me(It was in Maridia if you're curious). And I thought I had found everything already, or at the very least, seen every creature on the planet.