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

[mjs warlord]

Any game that makes me say just another 10 minutes ( 1 hour really ) gets my vote

 

[isleepinabed]

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.

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.



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...


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.

I agree with your comments.

I think there's something that ticks the obsessive in some of us, like the urge to unlock all of the map or, as has been the case in the last 15 years, the achievements/trophies, etc.

In the same way some sidequests or map sections are padding, so too are many achievements. But can you really say you've beaten the game if you haven't 100% completion rate?

These days there's a lot of choice and, perhaps, playing with these innate behavioural mechanisms is a cost-effective way some developers have found to make their games more compelling without making them necessarily better.
I guess the endgoal would be a game that could be explored forever, and played forever. That would be dangerous in a singleplayer game with one time single purchase sales. But on subscription services that's quite appealing. And, for the player, it would bring about a reasonable cost per minute played, all things considered... (not as good as a one-time single purchase, of course).

I had a former work colleague who, as of 2018, only played the original Starcraft. At that time Starcraft II had recently become FTP and I suggested maybe he'd like to try it. Nope, the original was enough for him and he must have used for thousands of hours at this point. It's all explored-out!

 

[Pifanjr]

But can you really say you've beaten the game if you haven't 100% completion rate?

Absolutely.

These days there's a lot of choice and, perhaps, playing with these innate behavioural mechanisms is a cost-effective way some developers have found to make their games more compelling without making them necessarily better.
I guess the endgoal would be a game that could be explored forever, and played forever. That would be dangerous in a singleplayer game with one time single purchase sales. But on subscription services that's quite appealing. And, for the player, it would bring about a reasonable cost per minute played, all things considered... (not as good as a one-time single purchase, of course).

I can't imagine a single game having infinite stuff worth exploring. It might have infinite stuff that can be explored, but that's easy. Keeping it interesting seems impossible.

I had a former work colleague who, as of 2018, only played the original Starcraft. At that time Starcraft II had recently become FTP and I suggested maybe he'd like to try it. Nope, the original was enough for him and he must have used for thousands of hours at this point. It's all explored-out!

Sometimes I'm jealous of people who can enjoy one thing seemingly forever. Playing a game for a 1,000 hours is honestly already near impossible for me, let alone multiple thousands of hours.

 

[red_5ive]

I tend to play solo more these days in multi-player games, if I decide to play a MP game. Most of the people I used to play with just want to rip through everything, and they have to wait for me because I'm tailing behind somewhere enjoying the scenery lol. And now every time family/friends hit me up to play something I'm hesitant. I decided that playing solo even in MP games suits me better, but I'll join in if someone needs help in something or of it's a team-only activity that I need to complete.

Still, I've moved on to mostly single-player open world games where I can take my time. It does have the unfortunate result of a larger backlog of my Steam Library. I used to tell my wife I want a woodshop when I retire, but I get the feeling I'm going to be doing a lot more gaming instead.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I agree with your comments.

I think there's something that ticks the obsessive in some of us, like the urge to unlock all of the map or, as has been the case in the last 15 years, the achievements/trophies, etc.

In the same way some sidequests or map sections are padding, so too are many achievements. But can you really say you've beaten the game if you haven't 100% completion rate?

Agree with @Pifanjr here, I like to try for some achievements but I havent 100% anything on purpose. I play until I'm finished with a game, that might be when I've beaten the campaign or it might be when I get bored and move on.

I see the angle though, achievements are sort of optional extra content in a way the same as side quests. Where I think it differs is, achievements arent diluting the game experience in the way an oversized world or a lot of very similar content does. I also see that if youre having fun then it doesnt feel like padding at all.

We've talked about it here a few times before, but price per hour isnt something I factor in at all. I'd much rather play an excellent 20 hour game with no filler than a 100 hour game with 20 hours of great stuff in there you have to find. I know thats something thats important to a lot of people but I'd selfishly rather they toned stuff down and made tighter experiences. I love AAA/high fidelity single player action games and I'd like to be able to play more of them that werent open world, or at least a bit smaller. It would probably be more sustainable too in the long run.

These days there's a lot of choice and, perhaps, playing with these innate behavioural mechanisms is a cost-effective way some developers have found to make their games more compelling without making them necessarily better.
I guess the endgoal would be a game that could be explored forever, and played forever. That would be dangerous in a singleplayer game with one time single purchase sales. But on subscription services that's quite appealing. And, for the player, it would bring about a reasonable cost per minute played, all things considered... (not as good as a one-time single purchase, of course).

That sounds like what some of the big companies have been chasing with live service games, hasnt really worked out for the majority of them recently.

 

[isleepinabed]

Absolutely.

Agree with @Pifanjr here, I like to try for some achievements but I havent 100% anything on purpose. I play until I'm finished with a game, that might be when I've beaten the campaign or it might be when I get bored and move on.

It might be because it's only written word, because I'm new in the forums and we don't know each other well, or because English is not my native language, but it wasn't apparent that I was being sarcastic...

Out of the series I regularly play I'd say Yakuza/Like a Dragon is the one that is so packed with systems and subsystems that any of the most recent games (from Zero onwards, including the Kiwamis and Judgment side-series) are potential "desert island" games.

There's the main storyline, there are subquests that take longer to do than the main storyline, there are sidequests that involve complex and deep game subsystems, and there are achievements.
As you, I tend to disregard achievements - they feel somewhat artificial. However, the games also include a "completion list".
This, and the achievements, I think tug at our obsessive-compulsive side. I would not be surprised if hardcore gamers have, on average, more obsessive-compulsive traits than non-hardcore gamers.
The fact that completing that list usually involves being adept at various subgames makes it extra-challenging.

In addition to that former work colleague, I also have a friend I met at another forum that would always 100% every game he played, often to the detriment of playing a newer version that he would otherwise be excited for.
I particularly remember the case of Way of the Samurai, which is a series that is built on playing multiple times to see the whole story and everytime it unlocks more. I remember that he played the main story something like 60 times to "complete it".

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

It might be because it's only written word, because I'm new in the forums and we don't know each other well, or because English is not my native language, but it wasn't apparent that I was being sarcastic...

Ah, well sorry about that. I do think it was a good point about achievements being a kind of voluntary padding, or way of giving people a reason to play games slightly differently than they would naturally.

Out of the series I regularly play I'd say Yakuza/Like a Dragon is the one that is so packed with systems and subsystems that any of the most recent games (from Zero onwards, including the Kiwamis and Judgment side-series) are potential "desert island" games.

There's the main storyline, there are subquests that take longer to do than the main storyline, there are sidequests that involve complex and deep game subsystems, and there are achievements.
As you, I tend to disregard achievements - they feel somewhat artificial. However, the games also include a "completion list".
This, and the achievements, I think tug at our obsessive-compulsive side. I would not be surprised if hardcore gamers have, on average, more obsessive-compulsive traits than non-hardcore gamers.
The fact that completing that list usually involves being adept at various subgames makes it extra-challenging.

I own Yakuza 0, played a bit of it on Gamepass and thought it was fun but I never went back to it. Feels like a kind of arcade toybox, everything controls a bit loosey goosey but its also just quite mad.

In addition to that former work colleague, I also have a friend I met at another forum that would always 100% every game he played, often to the detriment of playing a newer version that he would otherwise be excited for.
I particularly remember the case of Way of the Samurai, which is a series that is built on playing multiple times to see the whole story and everytime it unlocks more. I remember that he played the main story something like 60 times to "complete it".

I think lots of people try to 100% games they really like, sounds like work to me but more power to them.

 

[Pifanjr]

It might be because it's only written word, because I'm new in the forums and we don't know each other well, or because English is not my native language, but it wasn't apparent that I was being sarcastic...

I didn't catch that. I've seen too many people saying that they need to complete all of the achievements to feel like they're done with a game.

 

[ZedClampet]

I like reading the achievements and seeing what percentage of players have done what, but I don't actually go after achievements unless I know there's only one or two left and they aren't ridiculously time-consuming. Like in Planet Crafter. All I had to do to get 100 percent was jump in some lava.

 

[Zloth]

All I had to do to get 100 percent was jump in some lava.

As a gamer, I get it - but I still did a double-take!