Do you enjoy exploration and why? What makes for good/bad exploration?

[ZedClampet]

As I said in another thread, the main reason I quit BG3 and Rogue Trader was that they expected me to explore, and I didn't want to. The characters moved too slowly, and I dreaded having to backtrack. I just wanted to know exactly where I was supposed to go and go there. I felt like the games were just wasting my time.

I've played some games where I thoroughly enjoyed exploration, though. Palworld was one of those. Each new area was markedly different from the last and brought strange new pals to try to capture and new eggs to try to find and hatch. It felt like more than my curiosity was being rewarded. I was being genuinely rewarded with game-changing things for exploration.

In Soulmask, exploration was both rewarding in new materials and in new potential recruits. Atlas also had a system by which you had to explore new islands to get new blueprints, magical items and crafting materials. There was no looking around just to be looking around and possibly have a fight every now and then.

So what do you like/dislike about exploration and what makes it good or bad?

 

[Pifanjr]

In BG3, I love exploration because I can stumble upon side-quests, unique pieces of loot or just fun little secrets.

However, in Palworld the main things you find are some treasure boxes that are mostly worthless and new Pals, most of which are just a slightly better version of the Pals you've already found.

The best exploration is when it involves a gameplay loop you enjoy. The best way to do that is to make the act of travelling fun, the second best way is to minimize the amount of travelling needed to the next area that involves the gameplay loop you enjoy.

Exploration in Skyrim is fun to me not because I enjoy walking, but because the game is so densely packed with stuff that you're stumbling into something new every few steps. And the things you find are mostly side-quests or dungeons, often both, which provide the gameplay loop I enjoy.

 

[Rataplan]

In games like fallout or elder scrolls exploring can be very rewarding. In fall out you ussually find a rare weapon, a bobblehead or some other reward. But in games like uncharted and other shooters you can search for collectable items that serve no purpose. In doom eternal i do a bit of searching in order to find upgrades but you can also find toy versions of monsters, i don´t care about stuff like that at all. I find endlessly searching boring if there is no reward that you can use but are just there to be collected. So in uncharted for example i don´t even bother.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I like exploration when theres the possibility of finding something really useful that might improve my character or team, or something interesting to find. The problem comes when you try and define what something interesting is. Generic side quest #773 with the same enemies that have already appeared with a bigger number over their heads isnt going to cut it. Even worse is if I have to dig through all of that because theres a small chance that theres an actually interesting piece of content out there somewhere that could be missed otherwise.

Thats part of why I liked Infinity engine games and the ones inspired by them, or Baldurs Gate 3 and Divinity OS 2, the worlds feel curated and there was often something interesting to find in the corners. If its just collectables, generic enemies and marginal equipment upgrades 80% of the time then its likely I'm going to burn out. The only time I wouldnt is if the combat and moment to moment is engaging enough so that all thats needed is an excuse to keep playing. Dying Light, Elden Ring or Shadow of Mordor would count as those.

 

[Alm]

I loved exploring in breath of the wild because I loved the Zelda franchise and the world was built very well. I wasn't that fussed with exploring in tears of the kingdom so much because I had explored the first game so much though.

 

[Frindis]

I dislike exploration which takes you to invisible borders like the one you have in Assasin Creed: Odessey or New World. You should be able to visit any world location and only restrict movement inside dungeons or similar areas requiring a specific level or quest. Even better would be if you had a downscaled level version of the same instance so that even low levels could try them out. That goes both ways also, so a low level dungeon could have different tiers so high level players could do them for better rewards. A nice way to keep low-level content still viable.

I love exploring when the whole world is your oyster and you have to figure out stuff from the get-go. Combine this with hidden loot, puzzles, and other fun activities you can find, then it has piqued my interest.

One of the things I loved with both SWTOR and Guild Wars 2 was that you could stumble upon different jumping puzzles that would reward you with achievement/loot and was also really fun and at times frustratingly hard.

 

[BeardyHat]

I just like exploring for the sake of it. It's very nice and rewarding when there are rewards at the end of the road, but I'm happy just to see something interesting, whether that's a vista or a ruined cabin or something.

Sometimes exploring is just about strategizing and figuring out how you're going to get to a place. How can I get up on that hill? Then looking for some method just to get there for the fun of it.

 

[Johnway]

On the whole yes. Stuff like Thief or Dishonored where rather then vast land to explore, the levels are detailed with multiple ways in sub quests, alternate methods of completing it.

For sandboxes, and open world exploration i like them as well, but its very important that there are points of interest and objectives. A vast land of nothing is boring. I mean a vast jungle with nothing but trees is boring, but lead the player around with small ruins or ancient trails leading to ancient temples is exciting, hell maybe throw in a subtle hints on the location of temples to discover and becomes a side quest adventure. of course, if they become cookie cutter and there are hundreds upon hundreds it gets boring again (even if it breaks up the tedium).

The other factor is not that the open world should not have vast amounts of nothing between those POIs. Either have smaller bases, villages or stop gaps with some side stories or something. failing that, give me a way to travel quickly like a steed etc.

I suppose the TLDR for an open world, make it a metroidvania! you can explore, but only a small amount is accessible at a time and further you go the more you can see and explore. The best openworld/metroidvania's are ones that are linear but allows freedom to explore. An example of this failing is Mafia series and L.A Noire. mafia 2 set in the city had little reason to explore apart from collectibles. So it was just missions in a big sandbox and its kinda disappointing to see not to make more use of it. Same with LA noire, the city is vast but besides some engagements and collectiables its a vast amount of nothing.

 

[Colif]

I like it if it is meaningful and isn't just random events. Obvious example below

Sacred 2: you could finish the entire story just by following main quest marker, so exploring wasn't mandatory but
And it is a big but
You missed out on so many fun side quests. Most of the game in fact. Entire regions. Hidden bosses. Most times I played it, the last thing I did was the main quest in each region.
I miss that game (and a working pc but that is another story).

 

[ZedClampet]

In BG3, I love exploration because I can stumble upon side-quests, unique pieces of loot or just fun little secrets.

However, in Palworld the main things you find are some treasure boxes that are mostly worthless and new Pals, most of which are just a slightly better version of the Pals you've already found.

This is all wrong. You and I are going to have to settle our differences via wrestling. It will be easier if you come here because I don't have a passport. Meet me at the 7 Eleven on Cedar Lane at 2:00 am. If you get there before me, my advice is not to talk to anyone you meet at the 7 Eleven on Cedar Lane at that time of day. In fact, if you see someone approaching, you should run away, and we can wrestle later (this is America, please remember to run away in an irregular zig-zag pattern). A great place to hide would be the dumpster behind "Second Chances" (a new thrift store across the street that hires former convicts to run the store--the manager spent time in prison for murder). Just make sure there aren't already people in the dumpster (alive or otherwise) before you hop in. If it's occupied, there's an Adult Supercenter next door that's open 24 hours a day. Grab some lingerie and run back to a dressing room and change into your new disguise, which will also allow you to make some spare cash...

There, I hope you read that whole thing as punishment for bad mouthing Palworld

 

[Zloth]

I'm an exploration junky. I really liked No Man's Sky when it first came out. Exploring meant finding new planets that are pretty much like the other planets you found, but with different colors and the animals have different parts attached. Good enough for me! (The rest of Gamedom, not so much.)

BG3's exploration has been particularly good. You can find alternate ways into many dungeons or through monster-infested buildings if you explore.

Subnautica has my favorite exploration of all time. There are useful things to find, beautiful things to find, and scary things to find.

 

[Colif]

Star failed was an example of badly done exploration. Made more obvious with maps.

 

[ZedClampet]

Star failed was an example of badly done exploration. Made more obvious with maps.

Wait, you don't think 900 planets covered with rocks makes for great exploration? Or is it just the invisible walls keeping you from the rest of the rocks the problem?

 

[Colif]

Each of the 900 only having 3 locations also makes it meaningless and needlessly time consuming. Thank god they gave us so many loading screens

I guess the buggy made it less annoying for those who played it

 

[SHR-51]

See, exploration in Starfield was always suspect to me. As soon as Todd came out with his "1000 planets you can visit" speech, my first thought was "No, give me 5 planets, man, but make them packed with stuff and different and interesting."
I still feel like trying Starfield though whenever it becomes 75% off

 

[Pifanjr]

See, exploration in Starfield was always suspect to me. As soon as Todd came out with his "1000 planets you can visit" speech, my first thought was "No, give me 5 planets, man, but make them packed with stuff and different and interesting."
I still feel like trying Starfield though whenever it becomes 75% off

I still think they should've made 95% of those planets completely empty and made it obvious on the star map which ones have nothing on them. Their only purpose would be to mine some resources, see the sights and maybe plop a base down if you like what you see. Maybe have the occasional distress call from a stranded ship or something from one of them.

Then for the remaining 50 planets, another 90% just has a single POI, like an abandoned facility, a mine, a pirate outpost, something like that. Then you have 5 planets left to populate with good stuff.

 

[Smellincoffee]

If it's worth my while. Exploring the world was my FAVORITE thing about starting RDR2 -- I'd gone all over the map before getting to chapter 3. If it's just a lot of repeating textures, though, then no.

 

[isleepinabed]

Absolutely. Often it's the best parts of the game. When it's linear it's just too straightforward.

From the various answers here it seems some consider sidequests "exploration", while others like to make their own fun.

In all I would say this is about player choice within the game world and the game's rules. By making your own objectives you can enjoy the game world and mechanics but you make the rules. As for exploration within game worlds and how some have noted, sidequests can also be very linear affairs that are not exploratory at all - just a different line to follow, to the same effect.

But even the most linear games can have exploration. Consider the game Rez, which can be described as an "on-rails" shooter, or Xevious, which is an earlier shmup with forced scrolling. Both games are critically devoid of the possibility to go elsewhere but the pre-determined paths. Yet, they managed to include exploration in the manner of high-scoring, with hidden treasure or areas that boost scoring runs.

An example of exploration in game rules I would say for instance enjoying the game while playing within the rules, or changing the rules, for instance playing a fighting game without jumping, an action game without killing, or GTA with all the cheats.

So the fundamental difference I think is "padding". "Padding", I'd say, is always bad. But at least it should be optional.
In RPGs there's a certain expectation that games have to last a certain number of hours, even if it hurts its quality... But that "1000 planets" thing comes from way back. Text games in the 80s used to advertise thousands of rooms - most of them empty and with bare descriptions. A Mind Forever Voyaging was a famous false advertiser in that regard...

 

[January's Ghost]

I do love to explore.

But it's hit or miss.

Having lots of land to explore that all looks the same is blah (looking at you AC Valhalla). I want eye candy. Even if it is just keeping my eye on Candy.

Explorable areas must have some kind of significant change to feel rewarding, not just version 15 of "unlock the temple door for a chest" a Merlin trial or whatever.

Some games are exceptions.

Anyway, just make me appreciate the fact that I went out of my way to see what was at the top of that hill or whatever. And don't make me chase a question mark on a map to that area just so you can say "Look, our world is full!"

 

[Zloth]

Xevious

Before there was pressing space on every fraggin' wall section in a level, there was bombing every pixel in Xevious!

 

[Colif]

I mostly play arpg and they have trained me to clear all maps as you either need the experience of killing everything or there were possible things to find.
Especially if the maps are randomly created each time.
I will explore the first time and judge a game by that.
Sacred 2 encouraged you to explore. It even tracked how much you had uncovered as you started with fog of war and it was up to you how much you saw. Some equipment actually increased your sight distance. It was a big map and a lot of it wasn't necessary to finish game.
I might edit this later and add a picture of its map.

 

[isleepinabed]

Before there was pressing space on every fraggin' wall section in a level, there was bombing every pixel in Xevious!

Of course it's different playing at home or playing it in arcades with limited credits, but the lineage of exploration within the strict design of arcade games is fascinating stuff.
To allow exploration without extending gametime and, at the same time spurring more credit feeding to entice high scores that are only achievable with exploration. Very well thought.

 

[red_5ive]

I just like exploring for the sake of it.

I'm an exploration junky.

This is also me 110%. I'm a sucker for exploration in any open world game and will spend every second I can unveiling every inch of the map. I started a replay of Ghost Recon: Breakpoint a little over a month ago, and I'm barely 50% into unlocking everything, despite the fact that I'd already done that in my initial play-through. I love exploring that much.

I also spent many hours driving around in Cyberpunk for no other reason than just because I could. And I have more than a dozen playthroughs in Fallout 4, each time I went through every knook and crannie of the map and built up each settlement.

 

[Colif]

I might edit this later and add a picture of its map.

I know its around somewhere, instead of finding it I found some old WOW shots I didn't know I had.

The map was so big you needed to zoom out, scroll to zone and zoom back in again

https://www.sacredwiki.org/index.php/Sacred_2:Map_of_Ancaria

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Absolutely. Often it's the best parts of the game. When it's linear it's just too straightforward.

From the various answers here it seems some consider sidequests "exploration", while others like to make their own fun.

I think to some people exploration is a reward within itself. I used to be the type who would religiously wander RTS campaign maps just to get rid of any mm fog of war left before finishing off a level. Now that my time is a lot more limited I dont want to spend it doing what I perceive to be useless busy work. Its also partly what often stops me playing through story game campaigns more than once.

In all I would say this is about player choice within the game world and the game's rules. By making your own objectives you can enjoy the game world and mechanics but you make the rules. As for exploration within game worlds and how some have noted, sidequests can also be very linear affairs that are not exploratory at all - just a different line to follow, to the same effect.

Theres definitely differing tastes along these lines. Related to what I said above, I dont see time spent in an open world as any kind of holiday or downtime, I dont really care to exist in a game world playing a role that isnt myself, I just want to be engaged by the world, gameplay or mechanics and maybe watch a good story play out. The moment a mission is over is quite often when my brain starts thinking I should be doing something else instead. I do realize that engagement is subjective.

But even the most linear games can have exploration. Consider the game Rez, which can be described as an "on-rails" shooter, or Xevious, which is an earlier shmup with forced scrolling. Both games are critically devoid of the possibility to go elsewhere but the pre-determined paths. Yet, they managed to include exploration in the manner of high-scoring, with hidden treasure or areas that boost scoring runs.

Kind of related, in more limited scope games I almost always explore all I can. In a Last of Us or Jedi Fallen Order I still want to see every scrap of the map I can find reasonably, because I know that theres a high chance theres something interesting to see or find there and the time investment isnt going to be crazy. Funnily enough I found Elden Ring to be the same. Even a weird enemy or view I knew would have been deliberately placed there for a reason and the art is so surreal and beautiful its worth it just to see the weird corners. Its also motivates you to go and do as much as posssible because levelling up is pretty helpful. In most other open world games I dont feel like the world is designed to be that big, and levelling up at a certain point is not necessary, its just full of...

So the fundamental difference I think is "padding". "Padding", I'd say, is always bad. But at least it should be optional.

Space for the sake of space, the only one that every really drew me in properly, mainly because of the world was Skyrim. To be fair I have complained that Elden Ring was too big. Probably because I spent a lot of time trying to do everything possible in one playthrough.

Fact is though they wouldnt make these massive open worlds if they hadnt been selling, seems we may have reached a bit of a tipping point in the last few years with Starfield and UBi games getting flak for it from a growing section of the community. And its not like theres not a whole universe of games outside of massive open worlds anyway, so its pointless to neg on the genre when you can just play something else.