Why do people like "exploration" or "maze" games?

I've been gaming for about 20 years, and if there's one aspect of gaming that I've always hated, is when in a game you are stuck in some maze or huge area and you need to explore your way out of it.
Many times I almost had great games ruined for me because they suddenly force you to go through a maze (Revenge of Shinobi, for example).

There seems to be a lot of people who enjoy this element in games, but I wonder why? Stuff like running into dead ends, backtracking, and not being able to progress just because they "missed" a small area that they forgot to explore...do they actually that enjoyable?

For me I'd rather get a root canal than have to play games where I am forced to explore and backtrack endlessly. It's brainless, it's work, and it's even worse when you have to endlessly flip back and forth to a "map" screen just to see where you're going.

It's kind of like in real life when you get lost in a bunch of little streets while driving and you have to keep backtracking to find your way. Maybe some people actually enjoy getting lost like that. Masochists, maybe?

What's the "fun" of exploring blank square rooms?

I think you need to refine your argument with some more concrete examples.

Uh...I'm talking in pretty general terms. I mean pretty much any gaming genre that involves "exploring" or "mazes"...ie survival horror, most RPGs, adventure games, 3D platformers, some 3D action games, Metroid-style games, ie basically any game that isn't just going straight from point A to point B.

Some people just like going on scavenger hunts.

Because exploration is fun for some people. Wowza!

To find stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy
Some people just like going on scavenger hunts.

---

This isn't about "Why do people like Rare's games?" Wrong thread.

So you dont like any game other that shmups and a few platformers? Oh, and I guess some racers too.

Z-roe

My favorite genres are: shooter, beat em up, platform-shooters (Metal Slug etc), strategy, puzzle, strategy-RPG, sports, and racers. None of these involve any sort of scavenger hunting.

Good one Rob, that would be Rare's 3D games. I, personally, don't mind SOME searching, as long as it has some purpose to it.

i know what you mean opa2. to me its an artificial way to extend a games length. the temples in ff10 immediately spring to mind.

Here are some quotes from a game designer that illustrate why some people, including myself, enjoy exploration in games.

"When I was a child, I went hiking and found a lake. It was quite a surprise for me to stumble upon it. When I traveled around the country without a map, trying to find my way, stumbling on amazing things as I went, I realized how it felt to go on an adventure like this."

"Perhaps it is a doorway to another place. If you choose to go inside you might find many unexpected things."

This is mainly why I'm not too big of a fan of the Metroids/Castlevanias.

If you like your gaming to be mindless, the, yes, I understand why you don't like exploration-based gaming.

I like Tomb Raider :)

Yes, forced back-tracking sucks. However, I like exploring when there's either some cool to see or something cool to obtain from it.

I'm with Chakan, forced backtracking (RARE) does indeed suck.

hunting down the enemy in the maze and then blast them to smitheriens with my super dupper mega blast cannon !!! :D


wii first post :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
If you like your gaming to be mindless, the, yes, I understand why you don't like exploration-based gaming.

---

See, I don't see how exploration has anything to do with intelligence or depth in gaming. It's not like the exploration in Metroid or one of Rare's games often requires any sort of deductive or analytical ability - the placement of the items you're searching for doesn't fit any sort of internal logic often enough for deductive ability to be useful. More often than not, you spend a lot of time moving back and forth (in my experience) until you stumble upon that last Golden Twinkie or Ice Ray upgrade or whatever.

Good graphical adventures (Day of the Tentacle or Sam and Max) are the only exploration-heavy games I can think of that maintain (and necessitate) enough of a sense of internal logic to NOT be mindless.

The quick thinking involved in reflex-based games, or the thinking involved in understanding a gameplay system, so on, seem to force a person to flex their intelligence more regularly than exploration-based gaming.

Actually, I'd argue that the reason people like exploration games is exactly because they're mindless. A game like Metroid gives you the excitement of seeing new things and enveloping yourself in a character without forcing you to have to deal with challenges like hard combat or difficult platforming. You can shut your brain off, and be sort of placated by easily destroyable enemies and easily makeable jumps, while you wander around an engrossing environment. It's a lot like a RPG, really, but the illusion of gameplay is stronger.

I dont mind exploring games as long as the stuff you find makes sense or is usefull. Kinda Like the Metroids.

The games I HATE are like Banjo and shit where you search all over the fucking place for gay little items that really dont impove your gameplay or fun.


Metroid games you get new weapons and shit all the time. Its great. And the occasional additional missile and life packs. That crap is good. Finding random fruit is GAY.

It really depends on the game, but games with fun exploration are often times fun in the same way that exploration in real life is fun. You never know what you are going to encounter and it's fun to figure out where to go sometimes. It can be exciting and rewarding.

As for the maze aspect... It's no different than solving any other kind of puzzle. It's fun to figure out. There is a reason why there are big books of mazes out there. Some people just like to solve this kind of puzzle.

It's hard to describe "why" because why does anyone like any kind of game? It just comes down to personal taste.

If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't. There's really no rhyme or reason for it. In some games, like Metroid and Castlevania, it is presented in a way in which I like it. In others, like Banjo-Tooie and DK 64, it's presented in a way I don't like it.

Would you guys agree that Exploration and RPG aspects of any particular game fulfill a different entertainment need than, say, Shooting/Platforming aspects do?

IE, could a pure RPG (Final Fantasy) entertain in the same way that a pure shooter-platformer (Contra SS) would?

I don't think so - I think they fulfill completely different needs. Exploration/RPG aspects provide the same sort of enjoyment that many TV shows and movies do - they're basically like good daydreams, right? You shut yourself off for a bit, live through some other perspective, and you feel refreshed once the daydream is over.

A game like Contra SS isn't refreshing to me - it's a test, more akin to practicing free throws, taking swings at a driving range, or hitting a squash ball alone. I get enjoyment out of those games when I feel like my skills are developing, like I'm getting better at something - even though the something is unimportant. Imagination really doesn't even come into it - the closest I get to involving myself in the character is thinking something like "Take that, you robotic son of a bitch" after beating a boss...and, really, I could think the same sort of thing about a golf ball if I was a little bit weirder.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy
If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't. There's really no rhyme or reason for it. In some games, like Metroid and Castlevania, it is presented in a way in which I like it. In others, like Banjo-Tooie and DK 64, it's presented in a way I don't like it.

---

I do think that we could, potentially, reason out why some people like exploration games.

Hey, if we weren't all so hardcore and we decided to embrace our inner casual gamers (for those of you that have them), we could ask:

Why do you like hard games?

I mean, it's a good question, isn't it? There are enough challenging things out there in the real world that there's no real reason you should be spending time challenging yourself in front of a television. If you want something challenging, why don't you go out and try to start a business, or sleep with more women, or develop your chip shot, or whatever? And, is it healthy to have your need for challenge fulfilled through video games when there are so many better ways to apply your natural abilities?

Maybe because they find it challenging, I can't say I like it a lot or hate it so I'm in between... now the real question is why people like those silly DDR games ;)

Well I guess people do have different tastes and one fun game to them might not be fun for you and the other way around too I would imagine... you get the idea :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
See, I don't see how exploration has anything to do with intelligence or depth in gaming. It's not like the exploration in Metroid or one of Rare's games often requires any sort of deductive or analytical ability - the placement of the items you're searching for doesn't fit any sort of internal logic often enough for deductive ability to be useful. More often than not, you spend a lot of time moving back and forth (in my experience) until you stumble upon that last Golden Twinkie or Ice Ray upgrade or whatever.

Good graphical adventures (Day of the Tentacle or Sam and Max) are the only exploration-heavy games I can think of that maintain (and necessitate) enough of a sense of internal logic to NOT be mindless.

The quick thinking involved in reflex-based games, or the thinking involved in understanding a gameplay system, so on, seem to force a person to flex their intelligence more regularly than exploration-based gaming.

Actually, I'd argue that the reason people like exploration games is exactly because they're mindless. A game like Metroid gives you the excitement of seeing new things and enveloping yourself in a character without forcing you to have to deal with challenges like hard combat or difficult platforming. You can shut your brain off, and be sort of placated by easily destroyable enemies and easily makeable jumps, while you wander around an engrossing environment. It's a lot like a RPG, really, but the illusion of gameplay is stronger.

---

Finding the "Ice Ray" isn't random at all. It requires realizing where you've been and what you can access now that you couldn't before. The flow of Metroid, especially, is generally a huge logic puzzle with enemies in the halls. It's all based on internal logic - you see a passage or door for which you see the Ice Beam to pass, so you search for the Ice Beam. Once you find it, you look for the next item, always realizing you can now access more than you could before.

I may have overstated by implying that reflex games are mindless. But they certainly don't require intelligence. Some might require strategy, but that's a different element altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Hey, if we weren't all so hardcore and we decided to embrace our inner casual gamers (for those of you that have them), we could ask:

Why do you like hard games?

I mean, it's a good question, isn't it? There are enough challenging things out there in the real world that there's no real reason you should be spending time challenging yourself in front of a television. If you want something challenging, why don't you go out and try to start a business, or sleep with more women, or develop your chip shot, or whatever? And, is it healthy to have your need for challenge fulfilled through video games when there are so many better ways to apply your natural abilities?

---

That is an interesting question...

I think the answer is simply that the more challenging a game is the more of a sense of accomplishment you get from it. This is actually not different than real life. If you were an athlete, for example, you'd rather play against and defeat stiffer competition than constantly beat up on an easy opponant.

Maybe there is not a "need" to play challenging videogames, but I think it's much more worthwhile than playing games that are pointlessly easy. If you are going to play something it may as well be challenging or what's the point?

I enjoy hard games because of the challenge they provide to me, as a gamer. I enjoy a nice, easy romp in the park games as well. Depends on the mood.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Would you guys agree that Exploration and RPG aspects of any particular game fulfill a different entertainment need than, say, Shooting/Platforming aspects do?

IE, could a pure RPG (Final Fantasy) entertain in the same way that a pure shooter-platformer (Contra SS) would?

I don't think so - I think they fulfill completely different needs. Exploration/RPG aspects provide the same sort of enjoyment that many TV shows and movies do - they're basically like good daydreams, right? You shut yourself off for a bit, live through some other perspective, and you feel refreshed once the daydream is over.

A game like Contra SS isn't refreshing to me - it's a test, more akin to practicing free throws, taking swings at a driving range, or hitting a squash ball alone. I get enjoyment out of those games when I feel like my skills are developing, like I'm getting better at something - even though the something is unimportant. Imagination really doesn't even come into it - the closest I get to involving myself in the character is thinking something like "Take that, you robotic son of a bitch" after beating a boss...and, really, I could think the same sort of thing about a golf ball if I was a little bit weirder.

---

I completely agree with you. I think this is the reason we'll never see a Final Fantasy with a complex, satisfying combat engine or a Contra with deep character development and plot twists. Role-playing fans would bitch that they have to actually play the game, and action fans would be pissed they'd have to sit through a story.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
Finding the "Ice Ray" isn't random at all. It requires realizing where you've been and what you can access now that you couldn't before. The flow of Metroid, especially, is generally a huge logic puzzle with enemies in the halls. It's all based on internal logic - you see a passage or door for which you see the Ice Beam to pass, so you search for the Ice Beam. Once you find it, you look for the next item, always realizing you can now access more than you could before.

---

I'm not suggesting that the Ice Ray placement is random - just suggesting that the deductive ability necessary to make a leap from "I need Ice Beam" to "let's start wandering around to look for the Ice Beam" is so minor (and that logic so simple) that it's hardly any deductive ability at all.

Real deductive challenge would involve something like what you found in Lucasarts' SCUMM games - you see some hair on the floor that you can't pick up with your fingers. So, you think for a while and start looking for something that could suck stuff up. You think, ahah, Vacuum, and given that you understand SCUMM logic, you think hm, if I combine the motor, that shopping bag, and a dustpan, (all in your inventory) maybe I could make a Vacuum. Still pretty stupid, but there's a more expansive (if more obtuse) logic involved with that than there would be in something like - "I guess I should go look around until I find the gun that shoots blue stuff to open the blue door".

Quote:

---

Hey, if we weren't all so hardcore and we decided to embrace our inner casual gamers (for those of you that have them), we could ask:

Why do you like hard games?

I mean, it's a good question, isn't it? There are enough challenging things out there in the real world that there's no real reason you should be spending time challenging yourself in front of a television. If you want something challenging, why don't you go out and try to start a business, or sleep with more women, or develop your chip shot, or whatever? And, is it healthy to have your need for challenge fulfilled through video games when there are so many better ways to apply your natural abilities?

---

I've been asking this question around here for months.

Stone, that same logic works in the RE games. To an extent.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Why do you like hard games?

I mean, it's a good question, isn't it? There are enough challenging things out there in the real world that there's no real reason you should be spending time challenging yourself in front of a television. If you want something challenging, why don't you go out and try to start a business, or sleep with more women, or develop your chip shot, or whatever? And, is it healthy to have your need for challenge fulfilled through video games when there are so many better ways to apply your natural abilities?

---

Ok, define hard then ;)

Much like everything else people range in thier abilities, like one person might be a natural basketball player and another may not, so something rather easy for one may not be as easy for the other... the same principal can be applied to any given activity, some are more talented toward certain things and pick things up fairly easy while another person may never accomplish the same things the other can even with twice the amount of training.

What I am trying to say is what might be hard for one person may not for another, so if harder games or levels didn't exist the ones that are really good with games would be easily bored much like sticking a advanced math student in a basic course ;)

I guess it wouldn't be as much fun playing a game that is too easy, if something doesn't challenge me I become bored with it because it becomes way to automatic much like redundent tasks at work... I like to face a challenge in uncertainty in video games because there is much less to lose then real life, not to say I don't take risks in real life just not nearly as many :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sggg
Maybe there is not a "need" to play challenging videogames, but I think it's much more worthwhile than playing games that are pointlessly easy. If you are going to play something it may as well be challenging or what's the point?

---

Oh, exactly - that's basicaly my argument for why I dislike RPGs, exploration games, and anything of another genre that's too easy. I just like the idea that there are probably hordes of chicks out there playing the Sims that would raise this question if they thought about the situation enough or had an inclination to participate in gaming discussion like this.

And, I guess I like hard video games because the golfing range shuts down for winter (which lasts about half of the year here), the Squash courts are a 20-minutes-in-freezing-weather walk away, and I don't always have a person to play against. Real life's challenges aren't consistent and it's hard to have them appear when you want them to. Video games are fun because they offer challenge-on-demand...if I didn't have them I'd probably, I dunno, be better at sports?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sggg
If you are going to play something it may as well be challenging or what's the point?

---

Challenge can be something other than pressing the right buttons at precisely the right time. And games can be fun and entertaining even if they're not challenging.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
I'm not suggesting that the Ice Ray placement is random - just suggesting that the deductive ability necessary to make a leap from "I need Ice Beam" to "let's start wandering around to look for the Ice Beam" is so minor (and that logic so simple) that it's hardly any deductive ability at all.

Real deductive challenge would involve something like what you found in Lucasarts' SCUMM games - you see some hair on the floor that you can't pick up with your fingers. So, you think for a while and start looking for something that could suck stuff up. You think, ahah, Vacuum, and given that you understand SCUMM logic, you think hm, if I combine the motor, that shopping bag, and a dustpan, (all in your inventory) maybe I could make a Vacuum. Still pretty stupid, but there's a more expansive (if more obtuse) logic involved with that than there would be in something like - "I guess I should go look around until I find the gun that shoots blue stuff to open the blue door".

---

I think Stone makes an excellent point. That's not to say that "finding the gun that shoots blue stuff" can't be fun.. but it isn't exactly sophisticated logic either. ;)


Also, his example reminds me of MDK2 - which I just bought. Now that's a fun game. :)

The ease or difficulty rarely factors into my enjoyment of the game. Unless a game is unfairly hard (IE- unavoidable damage) or inexcusably easy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
Challenge can be something other than pressing the right buttons at precisely the right time. And games can be fun and entertaining even if they're not challenging.

---

There has to be some kind of challenge though. Something to hold your interest. The challenging aspect does not need to be reflex/twitch based. The challenge can be puzzle-based, logic-based, or anything other kind of challenge. It also does not need to be super-hard or anything. The emphasis can be on fun over difficulty, but there needs to be some challenge, or I really don't see the point.

After all, if there is not a challenge can it even be called a "game"?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sggg
There has to be some kind of challenge though. Something to hold your interest. The challenging aspect does not need to be reflex/twitch based. The challenge can be puzzle-based, logic-based, or anything other kind of challenge. It also does not need to be super-hard or anything. The emphasis can be on fun over difficulty, but there needs to be some challenge, or I really don't see the point.

After all, if there is not a challenge can it even be called a "game"?

---

Ahah! Exactly. This is why I think "game" is the wrong word for Final Fantasy, and at times even for something like Metroid - the word "experience" makes more sense when you're trying to define them.

Final Fantasy does have gameplay, of a sort (equip better weapons, use Water on Fire monster, hit these buttons in these sequences, heal if you're hurt, manage your limit breaks or whatever they're called), but it's not difficult, and as such I don't really even think that it ought to be called gameplay.

Difficulty is the POINT of a game - it's why games exist, to provide difficulty. Providing a daydream (like many movies/TV shows) is the point of an RPG/exploration experience.

Another question then comes up - "What about games that are too hard? Should Battletoads be one of the best games ever simply because it's so hard, and if so, how can it be great when most people never got past the first hoverboard sequence?"

I guess what I would say is that if a game's challenge barrier is too high, then a player isn't ever going to be able to experience the skill-development that is what makes games like that enjoyable. I guess you want an initially accessible level of difficulty that somehow ramps upward towards being impossible as a player gets better.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Oh, exactly - that's basicaly my argument for why I dislike RPGs, exploration games, and anything of another genre that's too easy.

---

Well, this is where I disagree a bit. Many RPGs are really easy, but they can still be challenging. Many of them have really challenging puzzle aspects, for example. I can understand if someone does not like puzzles where you need to move boxes and flip switches, but you can't say that some of the puzzle aspects found in RPGs are not challenging.

Also, many RPGs have challenging combat systems. Yes, they can often be overcome by levelling up. But there can still be a lot of strategy and planning involved.

That's not even mentioning action-RPG or strategy-RPG sub-genres.

If all RPGs were not challenging they'd just be movies. If they were not challenging there would not be a bunch of RPGs I never finished when I was little because I simply got stuck.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Difficulty is the POINT of a game - it's why games exist, to provide difficulty. Providing a daydream (like many movies/TV shows) is the point of an RPG/exploration experience.

---

I think it depends on the RPG and the kind of RPG because some of the games have challenging puzzle and combat. It's not the same kind of difficulty you may find in other genres, but RPGs can be difficult (especially if you count aRPG and sRPG games).

So, I kinda agree. Many RPGs are too easy and it can sometimes ruin the fun of the game... but many are challenging enough to be more than an "experience" IMO.

:)

Opa: Wait a minute....how is what you said any different from, say, Phantasy Star, which you say you like?

I agree with you sggg - you can definitely make games that fulfill both desires, a desire for challenge and a desire for a daydream.

I should have said "why I /generally/ dislike RPG and exploration /aspects/". I've had a great time with games like Chaos Seed or Dragon Force that cover up their RPG-side with real gameplay.

The mix is difficult, though - Shenmue was planned, I think, to be a mix of RPG/Exploration elements and Fighting-game skill, but, the balance was thrown out of whack: too much exploration and overly easy fighting. Balancing game and experience is generally pretty difficult, if you're trying to appeal to a lot of people.

Have you played Shenmue II yet, Stone? It seems like they tipped the scales entirely to the other extreme.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Why do you like hard games?

I mean, it's a good question, isn't it? There are enough challenging things out there in the real world that there's no real reason you should be spending time challenging yourself in front of a television. If you want something challenging, why don't you go out and try to start a business, or sleep with more women, or develop your chip shot, or whatever? And, is it healthy to have your need for challenge fulfilled through video games when there are so many better ways to apply your natural abilities?

---

Because when it comes right down to it, a lot of us are lazy asses.

Seriously, videogames are more enjoyable for most people than starting a business. It takes much less actual effort and risk.

Stone- I think there is a clear difference between an easy game and a TV show or a movie. When you're playing a game, you're controlling what's happening on the screen (turn-based RPGs aside :D ) instead of watching it passively. A game like Metroid Prime may not be as challenging as a game like Contra:SS, but that doesn't mean that there's only an "illusion" of gameplay. Yet you say a game is only a game if it's challenging. I don't agree with that. A game like Metroid Prime is extremely challenging to someone who's never touched a game before, and it's easier for a skilled gamer. Does that mean that Metroid Prime is a game to the new gamer and an experience to the skilled gamer? And I don't know if you've played Prime, but it's definitely not a walk in the park all the way through. A game can be fun and challenging without being hard as fuck.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler_Durden
Does that mean that Metroid Prime is a game to the new gamer and an experience to the skilled gamer? And I don't know if you've played Prime, but it's definitely not a walk in the park all the way through. A game can be fun and challenging without being hard as fuck.

---

Yup, pretty much - I think a game can become an experience depending on what sort of gamer you are.

Also, some games become experiences depending on how you play them - think about what happens to a shmup when you play with infinite continues.

Wow, I think I agree with everything Stone has said, and disagree with everything burgundy said.

Yamcha:
I sorta liked Phanatsy Star, but I never finished it, because the mazes were frustrating and too much work. I beat PS2, but only because I had a hint book which told you exactly where to go.

When exploaration means exploring all the wee little branches of a maze it sucks.

When exploration means experimentation, finding hidden puzzles and crative thinking, it's a great thing.

I love being able to use creative thinking in a game. Normally, that's only possible when the player is given freedom to explore the game at their liesure.

What are these games that encourage "creative thinking"? I'd like to hear your examples.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Ahah! Exactly. This is why I think "game" is the wrong word for Final Fantasy, and at times even for something like Metroid - the word "experience" makes more sense when you're trying to define them.

Final Fantasy does have gameplay, of a sort (equip better weapons, use Water on Fire monster, hit these buttons in these sequences, heal if you're hurt, manage your limit breaks or whatever they're called), but it's not difficult, and as such I don't really even think that it ought to be called gameplay.

Difficulty is the POINT of a game - it's why games exist, to provide difficulty. Providing a daydream (like many movies/TV shows) is the point of an RPG/exploration experience.

Another question then comes up - "What about games that are too hard? Should Battletoads be one of the best games ever simply because it's so hard, and if so, how can it be great when most people never got past the first hoverboard sequence?"

I guess what I would say is that if a game's challenge barrier is too high, then a player isn't ever going to be able to experience the skill-development that is what makes games like that enjoyable. I guess you want an initially accessible level of difficulty that somehow ramps upward towards being impossible as a player gets better.

---

A fair point, though I disagree with your specific choice of Metroid. Although exploration can provide plenty of difficulty - just not the type you value.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by opa-opa
What are these games that encourage "creative thinking"? I'd like to hear your examples.

---

Grand Theft Auto would be my obvious choice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
The mix is difficult, though - Shenmue was planned, I think, to be a mix of RPG/Exploration elements and Fighting-game skill, but, the balance was thrown out of whack: too much exploration and overly easy fighting. Balancing game and experience is generally pretty difficult, if you're trying to appeal to a lot of people.

---

Impossible, I'd say. Although I bet I'd love that perfect game.

I'd say Metal Gear Solid (the first, not the inferior part 2), comes about as close to the perfect mix of "experience" and challenge that I've seen.

There's some exploration, but it's not excessive. You can backtrack and go visit all the places you've already been too, but there is no real need to. The game is overall pretty linear, but still succeeds in providing an incredibly immersive "experience", while encouraging creative thinking at the same time. And the boss battles provide quite a bit of challenge. It's simply a masterpiece of game design.

I hope you're kidding, opa-opa. MGS wasn't very challenging at all, and featured forced back-tracking that at least annoyed me somewhat.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chakan
I hope you're kidding, opa-opa. MGS wasn't very challenging at all, and featured forced back-tracking that at least annoyed me somewhat.

---

MDK 2 is far closer to an ideal mix of action, story, and exploration than any other game I can think of or that I have played - and I mean leagues closer.

Every time I go back and play a bit of MDK2, I become more in awe of the game - it's near-perfect, IMO.

Yeah it wasn't too challenging overall as games go, but there were isolated parts of the game that required a fair amount of skill, such as the boss fights. And that's what I prefer...I want the "challenge" of the game to be in the action/fighting aspect, not in the exploration/item collecting aspect....if I have to be stuck/frustrated by a game's challeng, I'd rather it be because I could not beat a boss, rather than not being able to find an item because I missed exploring some spot....

And I don't remember that much backtracking. You had to maybe go back 2 or 3 screens a few times to pick up items, but it was never to the extent of something like Metroid or SOTN.

opa-opa, here are a few examples in which creative thinking can be used in the game.
WWF No Mercy
Grand Theft Auto III
GTA: VC
Super Mario Bros.

Indeed, Metal Gear Solid is a perfect example. Other games like Super Metroid, Panzer Dragoon Zwi, Half Life, and Deus Ex are great expamples. They are challenging games, but they provide a wonderous experience because the worlds they belong in are such finely crafted, believable places. (I'll secretly add Halo to that list).

Oh and for creative thinking, look no further than Deus Ex (or most Warren Spectre games for that matter).

I think a lot of you overrate the challenge of a game like Super Metroid or Metal Gear Solid - did your inability to get through a part for lack of gaming skill ever really frustrate you while you were playing those games? I breezed through both, and never felt like I really encountered any sort of gaming challenge - it was difficult to stay interested in the game, but that's about it...just too simplistic. That scene where you jam on a button to deal with torture always stands out in my mind as being representative of the game when I think back on MGS1.

Half-Life and Deus Ex aren't "exploration" games, but, yeah, I guess they're effective combinations - effective because both games could be quite challenging at times.

I found that Draygon and Ridley were tough in Super Metroid - the former only before I knew of the grapple beam trick.

MGS has variable difficulty, so unless you've beaten it on its hardest setting (and it doesn't sound like you would have bothered), I don't see why you're complaining.

Well, I haven't found a really "challenging" console game since probably Ghouls and Ghosts on the Genesis(not counting 2D shooters like Mars Matrix).... so I think MGS is about "average" as far as relative difficulty goes these days....

Wow, I'm amazed that nobody's mentioned ICO yet. That game is incredible. It's all about exploring, but there's nothing to collect, no life bar, no inventory, and you can't even really die.

The really great thing about this game, though, it that all the puzzles MAKE SENSE. They all fit the environment and gameplay perfectly, and I never questioned why I was flipping a lever or pushing a block, because everything just felt natural. It really felt good completing puzzles in this game, because I always knew they were being solved through my intellect and reasoning, rahter than some seemingly random solution.

I realized this game was something special because it's one of the most immersive games I've ever played, and I don't even like these kinds of games. So I guess I'm just trying to say that even people who don't like exploration heavy games should try it out. It should be pretty cheap, too.

---

I don't understand all this backtracking bashing. If you games to reflect reality in even the slightest way, it's necessary. When you guys walk through your house, do you say "Yup, been there, done that, never doing that again?"

Some people use guides so that they're never stuck. However that takes away the fun of actually figuring things out for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by opa-opa
My favorite genres are: shooter, beat em up, platform-shooters (Metal Slug etc), strategy, puzzle, strategy-RPG, sports, and racers. None of these involve any sort of scavenger hunting.

---

I can pose questions for your favorite genres:

For beat 'em ups: why play a game where every punch is executed by one button? All you do is walk up to some CPU controlled character and mash the same buttons.

Or RPG's: why play a game that requires no reflexes and all you do is go back and forth with an enemy exchanging blows until one of you falls dead?

Sports: why play a sports game if you can't feel the same excitement as scoring that goal in real life?

I like exploration games when a certain amount of thinking is required to solve a certain puzzle to access a new area. That means I need to memorize all the locations I've been through, and perhaps I need to have an eye for detail for my surroundings. I love it when something clicks and I look at a spot I've never noticed before or tried an item to open a certain door... and it works. The mark of a good game is by giving just enough clues to let the player figure things out without handing all the information to them.

Developers can throw in as much backtracking as they want, as long as it makes some sense in either the real world, or the world that the developers have created.

Quote:

---

I like exploration games when a certain amount of thinking is required to solve a certain puzzle to access a new area. That means I need to memorize all the locations I've been through, and perhaps I need to have an eye for detail for my surroundings. I love it when something clicks and I look at a spot I've never noticed before or tried an item to open a certain door... and it works. The mark of a good game is by giving just enough clues to let the player figure things out without handing all the information to them.

---

What is an example of a game that does this? Of all the "exploration" type games I've played, like Metroid, there is only one way to open a door, one way to get through an obstacle, etc. To open the red door you need the red gem. To destroy the blue wall you need the blue gun, etc. There is no flexibility, like offering you multiple ways to pass an obstacle or reach a destination. It's all just trial and error and going through the motions, ie try every key you have until you find one that works, or shooting every block in the wall until you find one that breaks open. How does that require any real "thinking"?

Quote:

---

I don't understand all this backtracking bashing. If you games to reflect reality in even the slightest way, it's necessary. When you guys walk through your house, do you say "Yup, been there, done that, never doing that again?"

---

Is it "realistic" in Resident Evil that you can only carry 8 items, no matter how big they are?

Is it "realistic" in Metroid that all doors in the universe are created so that they are destructible by only certain weapons?

There is nothing "realistic" about most exploration games, so I dunno why you are even bringing this up at all.

I've been thinking about many of these issues over the past week while playing Splinter Cell.

It's a much more difficult game than MGS or its sequel, and requires you to develop many more skills to a more heightened degree -- silent, efficient killing is essential, and you absolutely must learn to walk silently, stay in the shadows, and use all the techniques available to you (split jump, climbing/shimmying, rolling, diversion techniques, etc.). It's heavily story-based, and the environments are pretty linear. But I think it does a much better job than MGS of providing a real gameplay challenge while still remaining an immersive experience.

Fans of skill-based games rather than "exploration" games ought to check it out.

BTW, I never played ICO, but from the descriptions of it, is it like a 3D version of Solomon's Key, that old 8bit game?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by opa-opa
What is an example of a game that does this? Of all the "exploration" type games I've played, like Metroid, there is only one way to open a door, one way to get through an obstacle, etc. To open the red door you need the red gem. To destroy the blue wall you need the blue gun, etc. There is no flexibility, like offering you multiple ways to pass an obstacle or reach a destination. It's all just trial and error and going through the motions, ie try every key you have until you find one that works, or shooting every block in the wall until you find one that breaks open. How does that require any real "thinking"?

---

Clearly you have not played these games that much.

Zelda: Ocarina of Time's puzzles are a classic example puzzle solving (Forest Temple was really cool). Majora's Mask's Ice Tower is also a mark of true ingenuity.

I never said there were multiple ways to open these levels. Very rarely are games THAT linear. Have you ever tried to make a simple branching path game? It's annoying as hell to keep track of everything if you only delve about 2 levels deep.

And ICO is an amazing game. It represents some great puzzle challenges though the action scenes are too simplistic. The final boss fight is also incredible.

I happen to enjoy backtracking when it's done well... For example, it was really neat towards the end of Skies of Arcadia when you ended up, err, back in a place you saw much earlier in the game (I said it like that to keep it spoiler free)....

OoT's puzzles were quite enjoyable due to the fact they required you to use logic, and creative thinking to solve them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy
OoT's puzzles were quite enjoyable due to the fact they required you to use logic, and creative thinking to solve them.

---

Yep, it involved a lot more than "red key goes to red door" and "blue card releases blue cat".

Yes the Zelda games are a great example of creative puzzles mixed with exploration, but is there a need for the "obviously you haven't played many games" putdowns?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
Here are some quotes from a game designer that illustrate why some people, including myself, enjoy exploration in games.

"When I was a child, I went hiking and found a lake. It was quite a surprise for me to stumble upon it. When I traveled around the country without a map, trying to find my way, stumbling on amazing things as I went, I realized how it felt to go on an adventure like this."

"Perhaps it is a doorway to another place. If you choose to go inside you might find many unexpected things."

---

Nice Shigeru Miyamoto quote.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
Here are some quotes from a game designer that illustrate why some people, including myself, enjoy exploration in games.

"When I was a child, I went hiking and found a lake. It was quite a surprise for me to stumble upon it. When I traveled around the country without a map, trying to find my way, stumbling on amazing things as I went, I realized how it felt to go on an adventure like this."

"Perhaps it is a doorway to another place. If you choose to go inside you might find many unexpected things."

---

my thoughts exactly too

when i was a kid i grew up in an area with alot of woods and i spent alot of time finding paths through them and stuff or just exploring the neighborhood on my bike

for me its about the "adventures" i had in my head as a kid exploring the forests or streets of my town being played out in a game

and if you HATE explorative games why in the hell did you buy metroid prime

I dunno, maybe it's just that exploration has become an increasingly bigger and bigger element in games these past few years.

Also in many "remakes" of old franchise games, exploration has been added to them, even though the original games themselves have no exploration. For example Castlevania, Sonic, etc. I just find this trend disturbing, because to me exploration is just a lame way to increase game length.

BTW I didn't buy Metroid Prime, it was just a rental, and I'm sure glad for that....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by opa-opa
I dunno, maybe it's just that exploration has become an increasingly bigger and bigger element in games these past few years.

---

well not for metroid games

Like i said in the other thread even according to the DEVELOPERS exploration has always been the focus of metroid

Exploration can be great when it is done logically. I hate puzzles that just require you to do the most random action in order to succeed. I want a puzzle where they give you the necessary clues to figure out the answer.

Like in Eternal Darkness, and other horror games of it's ilk, in order to get ahead a lot of the time you have to pick up the most random item which sometimes is out of sight or blends into the bckground. So you have to walk into all the walls and furniture in the room, hitting the action button constantly, in order to see if you missed something. Useless, illogical actions like these dumbs down games, and frustrates more than it should. This is the only situation I can think of at the time, but there are plenty more that are even more frustrating.

Logic is the key to any good puzzle. After all, many of them are solved LOGICALLY.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SonofdonCD
Exploration can be great when it is done logically. I hate puzzles that just require you to do the most random action in order to succeed. I want a puzzle where they give you the necessary clues to figure out the answer.

Like in Eternal Darkness, and other horror games of it's ilk, in order to get ahead a lot of the time you have to pick up the most random item which sometimes is out of sight or blends into the bckground. So you have to walk into all the walls and furniture in the room, hitting the action button constantly, in order to see if you missed something. Useless, illogical actions like these dumbs down games, and frustrates more than it should. This is the only situation I can think of at the time, but there are plenty more that are even more frustrating.

---

I agree with you in general, but I didn't find that this plagued ED. I thought the puzzles there were perfectly logical.

Morrowind is a good example of why I like exploration. The world allows you to jump into this giant playground and manipulate objects and immerse yourself into a virtual world. Challenges are still there but the emphasis and reason to play lies in the joy to explore a huge world with many other 'living' things in it to interact with and to escape into its world.

The possiblities of your adventure are exponentially more free once you can choose your path (not just your physical path, but your class and style of playing) and make real world survival decisions. Stopping off at that little dungeoun or going off on that rare monster hunt to get that uber-powerful item may change the fate of the world (even if you had not intended or realised where it would take you) and the reactions of those who respect or once hated you. And it may boost your chances in future battles.

That's the joy of it. Taking chances and risks to reap rewards. It's not so much a skill, as it is a self rewarding method of making the player feel like they are in control of events around them or ones they've made for themselves using existing knowledge and growing upon it to overcome even more complex conditions. The lessons are learned along the way by what you put into the game as much as what is put out and given to you.

A good example of why exploration is appealing to me is because it is like your are a wizard that must go on a journey to power yourself up but do not yet understand the mysteries of where that power lies and must figure it all out yourself. (I say wizards because they tend to become powerful towards the end of games through the build-up of knowledge over the course of the trip. Accumulating knowledge and experience from hardships and challenges and experiments reaps 'wisdom' to those daring enough to make the long path to enlightenment and higher knowledge of the world.) The puzzle element comes in planning how you will harness that power through the decisions you make along the journey. You start with nothing and earn your way up to make yourself a legend.

You could say that real life is like this because you never know for sure where you'll be and are faced with decisions everyday. This is what the joy a living world adventure or persistant rpg who's emphasis is on exploration, can provide. It's not a maze (because it never boxes you into a dead end or lets you merely branch off) so much as a camping trip through dangerous open territory. You adapt to the needs as the environment demands them at that point and are forced to react to uncertain threats or learn from experiments.

So the adventure can be told from many perspecitves: that of a brave warrior whose concerned with beefing up strengths in combat, treasure seeking thief who's cunning and 'need to take risks' keeps them coming back, or an ambitious wizard trying to prove his power to the rival guild members in order to gain more control.

It's the journey that was important and not what was at the end. You may realise that power was important when you first set out on your adventure and were weak, but the help you got along the way and friends made, interesting people, and natural lore of the world were what made all the effort worth it. It's still just a game because you need to pay attention to what's happening and are always at the wheel and must react to various situations, (like every other game type) but the emphasis is on letting you apply creativity to overcome challenges and broaden rather than deepen your skills. Gaming is as much using your creative side as it does the logical side. (you must invent your own spells using existing things)

When you were a little kid you loved to explore when you first learned to walk and it was a challege just to climb and jump great heights that adults could easily overcome. You were forbidden from accessing certain sections of your environment until you were independant enough to take on the environmental challenges. Then, when you became a toddler, part of the thrill of going on a playground slide was the fear that you might fall off. Again another challenge that begs to be taken which tests courage and daring. Another challenge may be to build lego blocks together to create something, or create a sandcastle. This would stimulate your imaginative side... So there were a variety of skills being tested and challenges offered if you were daring, smart, courageous enough to take them on. The accomplishment you feel may not be that it was a big challenge or hard puzzle, rather that it was just fun to do because you partly knew you could overcome it in the first place.

..Oh and real 'maze games' like pacman are really fun. There is skill in luring those suckers close to you and eating the tablet right at the moment they are all closing in on you for the ultimate counter attack. The exploration just has a more obvious purpose and isn't so mysterious that's all. (eat dots, go to another level) So it's not an adventure with exploration, but it is a maze game with challenge and skill. Games that leave a little to chance (where you can't predict something ahead of time) are the most stimulating because you'll never know for sure how things will turn out (just like the big exploration element of Morrowind) and must react on the fly. (just like how you must accept 'uncertain threats' along the journey in morrowind only half-prepared, - though relieved and excited it happened to you afterall and you managed to survive it)

Whereas in other games, if you know everything about everything before getting to a point (say a boss whose pattern never strays, or the exact point on a course of a racing game that determines na ideal braking point) there is no feeling of an interactive challenge that must be overcome on the fly anymore. You've adapted to a static challenge after refining and deepening your skill and knowledge about it, rather than accepted that there are elements in life (surprise challenges presented to you unexpectedly) that can't be directly controlled which; in game terms, can add interesting elements to the gameplay. Interesting elements that cause you to come back mainly because of the excitement that the uncertainty/risk/adventurous-nature of the threats and challenges can bring, which are unique to exploration-type games. (eg randomly-created dungeoun-crawling rpgs with little to no story but a great sense of 'humbly building up from nothing' and taking advantage of varying conditions of the unique environment and unique situations to stay alive)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SearchManX
Clearly you have not played these games that much.

Zelda: Ocarina of Time's puzzles are a classic example puzzle solving (Forest Temple was really cool). Majora's Mask's Ice Tower is also a mark of true ingenuity.

I never said there were multiple ways to open these levels. Very rarely are games THAT linear. Have you ever tried to make a simple branching path game? It's annoying as hell to keep track of everything if you only delve about 2 levels deep.

And ICO is an amazing game. It represents some great puzzle challenges though the action scenes are too simplistic. The final boss fight is also incredible.

---

That would be NON linear and if you were to make a game like that, you wouldn't make in the same way you'd make a Mega Man game. It'd be made by first creating a database, a set of values on all objects and areas and eastablish rules for areas, objects and players/NPCs/"monsters". This - as it would happen - is not the way Metal Gear's or Resident Evil games are made. Those are choreographed and built to be experienced a certian way. A game like Neverwinter Nights, The Sims or Morrowind is made the way I decribed and the results are that the PLAYER as direct bearing on how the game unfolds. It's actually just as easy to make that kind of game when you take that apporach. Non-Linear games still take a long time to make usually because of the sheer amount of stuff one finds in that sort of game. Those, BTW, are the best games for exploration and experimentation and they are nearly all logical.

ºTracer

I think there is quite a lot of difference between the "exploration" in games like Morrowind and the "exploration" in games like Metroid.

I think in Morrowind, it's more like "non-linear exploration". Which means the game itself is non-linear, and you can go anywhere you want, do anything, and you can still progress in the game.

On the other hand, the exploration in games like Metroid is linear. You cannot go to point B unless you have gone to point A first to find item X. They are more like treasure hunts.

I don't mind exploration if its of the former type. What I can't stand is the "fake" exploration in games like Metroid or Resident Evil. It may "feel" like you're exploring, but in reality all you're doing is following a strict path the game designer has preset for you. Unless you follow it, you cannot progress in the game. There is no true freedom, so there is no true exploration.

I mean let's say I'm a game designer, and I put a door in the game which requires a key to open. If I decided to put the key in a room far away so that you are forced to "explore" to find it, instead of putting it in the same room so that you can find it faster and easier, have I actually made the game "better"?

That's not quite true. Yes, you have to accomplish certain tasks to progress, but uh, that's true in Morrowind also if you want to finish the main story (or any quest). You must accomplish the tasks the game designer preset for you. No difference. If you just want to walk around and do nothing, you can do that just as well in Metroid or Morrowind.

The biggest difference is size. You can do a lot more pointless wandering in Morrowind than you can in Metroid. There's plenty of goodies you can acquire in Metroid that are not even slightly required to finish the game, just as there are in Morrowind.

Resident Evil is a lot more strict in its progression, but it was never billed as, or designed as a purely explorative game. You 'explore' in the sense that, at first, everything is new (and theoretically scary), but eventually you wind up backtracking with the blue widget to put in the blue keyhole to unlock the secret biolab containing the cliched plot, etc.

edit: as for the key example, if getting to that room to get the key was fun and interesting, then yes, you've made it better. if not, no, you've made it annoying. just depends on the game.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
I agree with you in general, but I didn't find that this plagued ED. I thought the puzzles there were perfectly logical.

---

I didn't say it plagued the game, but this did happen to me and a few friends in a few different points of the game. I hate getting stuck on a section or level because doing some insignifigant task which seems totally random is the trigger to continue. it doesn't make me hate the game outright, but it makes exploration games more of a chore if it happens too often.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Victrix
That's not quite true. Yes, you have to accomplish certain tasks to progress, but uh, that's true in Morrowind also if you want to finish the main story (or any quest). You must accomplish the tasks the game designer preset for you. No difference. If you just want to walk around and do nothing, you can do that just as well in Metroid or Morrowind.

The biggest difference is size. You can do a lot more pointless wandering in Morrowind than you can in Metroid. There's plenty of goodies you can acquire in Metroid that are not even slightly required to finish the game, just as there are in Morrowind.

Resident Evil is a lot more strict in its progression, but it was never billed as, or designed as a purely explorative game. You 'explore' in the sense that, at first, everything is new (and theoretically scary), but eventually you wind up backtracking with the blue widget to put in the blue keyhole to unlock the secret biolab containing the cliched plot, etc.

edit: as for the key example, if getting to that room to get the key was fun and interesting, then yes, you've made it better. if not, no, you've made it annoying. just depends on the game.

---

Not so - In Resident Evil you have to complete something one way and only one way - often illogically which is what gets my perverbial goat. In Morrowind you can choose how you want to get something done.

Case and Point: Onimusha 2 (Capcom sucks in my mind because of all of these kind of games they make. Not one is good. Not one.) I need a scroll to get past a guard to get in a door.

In Morrowind - a Guard may be guarding a locked door. I could bribe the guard (depending on my speechcraft and I suppose mechantile skills) to get through, I could present him with authorization to get in and a key, I could sneak by him and pick the lock without notice (if I were a sneaky sort) or I could just kill him discretely and pick the lock and get in and do my thing. If I need to pick flowers for the Mages guild, I don't have to go to a special place to get them. Flowers grow everywhere mostly. OR... or I could not do those quests at all and just free-form it. It IS very diffrent in Morrowind.

opa opa: You sound like the type of guy who would perfer (traditionally) most western made games which non-linearity is common whereas the RE, MGS and FF style is of course largely Japanese. There are exceptions, but RPG's in Japan have progressed little from what they originally were.

There are two entirely different ways of finishing the main quest in Morrowind as well, so it's a bad example. At no point in the game are you really stuck on a fixed path. You may think you are at times, but that's your own mental problems.

Perhaps a better example would be Hitman 2, where you have set objectives that you must accomplish, but there's usually a number of ways of actually doing them. However you do it though, you must complete your objectives to advance the game.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TracerBullet
That would be NON linear and if you were to make a game like that, you wouldn't make in the same way you'd make a Mega Man game.

---

You're right, I meant NON linear. :sweat:

Although they're made differently, a game that requires so many variables of possibilities is still tougher to create than a linear game like Mega Man because you need to track every possible outcome that the player may or may not try. RE0 is one example of this, because the main characters, Billy and Rebecca, each have their own special skill, Billy can move heavy objects, and Rebecca can mix chemicals. There are times where their path splits, and it would be easy for you to go down one path with the wrong character, unable to backtrack and unable to proceed any further because of your character's lack of that special skill needed. However, Capcom did a good job of tying all the loose ends so that you wouldn't get stuck.

And I don't know about you, but RE's puzzles have never "not" made any sense...

The answer is simple. The freedom to explore a world is very engrossing. It's easier to get sucked into games that give you that sort of freedom. Some people have no patience for this sort of thing, and strangely enough, they all seem to end up reviewing Shenmue for gaming magazines.

um, what are you addressing Tracer? I was talking about the exploration and linearity of those games, not the puzzles.

Good point Strider. Those with little to no tolerance for exploration, rather, a type of exploration they don't like, would be better served to get games that, you know, they might actually LIKE.

sorry, I too am with Opa Opa on this one...I HATE enjoying a game and then get to some stupid maze or puzzle that does nothing but upset me and give me a headache until I take it no more and have to run upstairs to hit up gamefaqs...I just wanna get back to the action or story or whatever! :P

what does a stupid puzzle have to do with exploration? the two aren't inseparably linked

is it just me or is opa-opa suffering a Prime relapse? It's as if the one game has caused agnst against an entire genre...

To answer the original question, the fun from these types of games comes in exploring an interesting world that's presented in an interesting way.

You can boil it down to "go here, get this piece of equipment/key/item so that you can progress to this area/boss/etc" but you can do that with any game if you really wanted to. I could boil Street Fighter down to "Hit the other guy until his life goes away" or any shooter down to "press this button repeatedly and dodge bullets" Does that accurately describe the experience of playing Super Turbo, CvS2, Ikaruga, Space Megaforce, etc etc? To people who don't like those games or those generes I'm sure it does.

What matters, for anything you play really, is what you get out of it when you are playing. If you're not getting anything out of it, then don't play it.

DHG: Keep in mind that what's being talked about is general "exploration" type games, not necessarily about a game that plunks a puzzle or a key hunt in the middle of another game. Nobody likes pointless puzzles, unless of course you're this guy.

:lol: I like how those blocks are helpfully labeled. :lol:

Resident Evil and Soul Reaver are two games that immediately come to mind... though both are games I like too...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SearchManX
You're right, I meant NON linear. :sweat:

Although they're made differently, a game that requires so many variables of possibilities is still tougher to create than a linear game like Mega Man because you need to track every possible outcome that the player may or may not try. RE0 is one example of this, because the main characters, Billy and Rebecca, each have their own special skill, Billy can move heavy objects, and Rebecca can mix chemicals. There are times where their path splits, and it would be easy for you to go down one path with the wrong character, unable to backtrack and unable to proceed any further because of your character's lack of that special skill needed. However, Capcom did a good job of tying all the loose ends so that you wouldn't get stuck.

And I don't know about you, but RE's puzzles have never "not" made any sense...

---

Nonono you see you don't have to account for the player... Will Wright said when he made games, he made a world that the players can interact with as they choose. 'It comes with rules that we define but what the player does within those rules and boundaries is entirely up to them.' Hence the whole database thing. I find it more difficult to lay-out the actions and events exactly as you (the developer) would have it and yes - when using the same approach as Capcom did with RE is would be a hurculean task - oh wait - I think they call that Shenmue.

The long and short of it is: games like The Sims and Morrowind are not at all made like Shenmue and definitly not Resident Evil (not compareing the games, just they way they are made and the ideas behind making them work). They designed a world, a graphics engine, and created a HUGE (massive beyond beleif) database of items, semi-fixed objects (like doors), materials, characters and a variable.. the variable is filled in by you. What happens in the game is entirely dependant on you so making a non-linear game is diffrent. Not easy but certainly no harder than the games Capcom or Sega or Nintendo makes (though Nintendo's Animal Crossing is uncharacteristicly open-ended for a Eastern game).

As to the puzzles not making sence:

"Even a mad man seems resonable once you accept his terms"

--I forgot who had said that.

All I know is that turning a telescope, no matter where it's at, is not usually prone to opening doors.

ºTracer
..wait.. that was Eternal Darkness, but there are other examples.. like playing a tune on a piano or adjusting a clock or moving shit off of walls.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Victrix
um, what are you addressing Tracer? I was talking about the exploration and linearity of those games, not the puzzles.

---

It was a tangent, not directly refering to exploration on the whole. But often puzzles mandate exploration (though not the other way around). When someone tells me that there's puzzles in the game I instantly get turned off because frequently they are illogical and/or inane. I enjoy figureing things out, but only when it's left up to me to resolve a way to get from where I am to where I want or need to be. I do not enjoy trying to figure out what specific task the developer wants me to do.

I want the spell of Summon Golden Saint - ut by golly it wasn't like I could waltz into a store and buy it. I had to talk around, hit up the hated Telavanni and make fast friends with someone who could tell me where to go and then I had to, on my own, figure out how to get there (which was simply a matter of learning out to levitate). As an example.

To get off the tangent - Linearity and Exploration do not mix IMO. If you want to it's fine, but it shouldn't be requisite. These games are linear for a reason yes?

ºTracer

LEGEND OF ZELDA-Every game is worth every minute of exploration (except maybe majora's mask), and it's freaking fun, especially when ocarina came out, who DIDN'T want to explore that gorgeous place? And Mario 64! I ran/run around in those games (Sunshine, too, even though it's not that great a game) Just because it is pretty, and I like to see what I can do and I can see. It's an epic feeling climbing to the top of that volcano, i forget what it's called now, crap. It's marvellous in the first game to go all the way to that one section to the extreme right of the map and find that old dude in the mountain, and get that cool reward. Majora's mask was too much though...all this running around. If designed cleverly, the exploration shouldn't be too tedious, because you will either pass through new areas, discover new things when returning to old ones, solve mysteries and answer questions you had when passing through levels before, and it shouldn't take an INSANE amount of time. You just have to balance it all out. The only temple I didn't love in Ocarina was the water temple. That was a pain in the ass, but then again I guess one really hard temple was necessary...

Oh and speaking of puzzles and how they're mostly inane...Think of the design team of Ocarina producing a GOOD Indiana Jones game with simlar gameplay, and options to explore worldwide archealogical sites to try to get certain kickass artifacts...If they designed the temples well, the puzzles could very well be some of the best, the action exciting and mysterious, you know the same elements that make the movies so great, and the environments fantastic. These are my gaming dreams, instead we get the actual indiana jones games...My how I'd love to be Dr. Jones.

And BTW, Res. Evil's Puzzles make me want to eat my controller.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TracerBullet
To get off the tangent - Linearity and Exploration do not mix IMO. If you want to it's fine, but it shouldn't be requisite. These games are linear for a reason yes?
ºTracer

---

Generally, yup. Personally, I'm fond of both types, linear, non linear, big or small. I'm not especially fond of Stupid Puzzles (which is why I don't buy RE games, I rent them, play them once, and I'm done).

I will say that non-linear games are generally the pervue of PC titles, and they often have serious, serious balance issues (Morrowind again, has many, many terribly exploitable loopholes in the game). This isn't always the case, but there are usually problems with them (eg, Deus Ex is a linear game with somewhat non linear puzzles - but it's usually easiest just to blast your way through everything, which is unfortunate).

On the other hand, amusing (to me) is the fact that the few non-linear games on the consoles get blasted by most fans (see Saga Frontier 1, Legend of Mana). I like those as well ;)

You can stick me in the 'I like games' camp. Why do I like exploration games? They're fun. I like exploring. Exploring is only one aspect of them anyway, I can't name a 'pure' exploration game offhand.

Why do I like maze games? uh, what's a maze game? :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Victrix
Generally, yup. Personally, I'm fond of both types, linear, non linear, big or small. I'm not especially fond of Stupid Puzzles (which is why I don't buy RE games, I rent them, play them once, and I'm done).

I will say that non-linear games are generally the pervue of PC titles, and they often have serious, serious balance issues (Morrowind again, has many, many terribly exploitable loopholes in the game). This isn't always the case, but there are usually problems with them (eg, Deus Ex is a linear game with somewhat non linear puzzles - but it's usually easiest just to blast your way through everything, which is unfortunate).

On the other hand, amusing (to me) is the fact that the few non-linear games on the consoles get blasted by most fans (see Saga Frontier 1, Legend of Mana). I like those as well ;)

You can stick me in the 'I like games' camp. Why do I like exploration games? They're fun. I like exploring. Exploring is only one aspect of them anyway, I can't name a 'pure' exploration game offhand.

Why do I like maze games? uh, what's a maze game? :P

---

There absolutely is balace issues in Morrowind (and some other PC games) but it's forgiveable since it's a single player game and you won't likely find the loopholes till your 2nd or 3rd time though.

I never played Saga Frontier though :/ I'll bet 'geting blasted' has a lot to do with it being from Squaresoft. Star Ocean had a somewhat non-linear design, being that what you saw in the game would be distincly diffrent from what someone else saw in the game (i.e. Personal Events and Actions and Items Creation). Although the endings are interchaneable I do like the fact that I am in some contol over what happens in the end (which is why I don't normally like Japanese RPGs).

I like games too :) I like them as entertainment, a competition, to serve my imagination and to help me gain more insight on just how more and more games get made (curiousity).

I dunno, I think people bought SaGa Frontier because it was Squaresoft, then blasted it because it wasn't Final Fantasy.

saga frontier sucked....my gawd.