best/ favorite style of exploration (liner-sandbox spectrum)

[eli]

what is your favorite/ best way of exploration in your opinion in rpgs?

 

[Butter]

Whatever the opposite of Bethesda is. It's not exploration when your magic compass tells you where the next point of interest is, and it's conveniently never more than 30 seconds away, and getting to it never poses a challenge because the enemies all scale to your level.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Dungeon-crawling

Spoiler

Also, your examples in the fourth category are all Open World games, which you have listed as your third category, so it's terribly unclear as to what you meant by "setting/ world simulation and sandbox", which by its phrasing might perhaps refer to Kenshi. Similarly, your second category of "free roaming" has as examples the original two Fallout games and the first two Witcher games, although exploration in the latter is far more constrained than in the former.

 

[catfood]

Might & Magic style of exploration is the best. Nothing else comes close to it.

 

[octavius]

Best exploration for me is either open world like for example Might&Magic 6; unscaled, whole world accessible, but areas varying wildly in difficulty. Also, lots of things to discover.

Or dungeon exploration like in Dungeon Master, Chaos Strikes Back and Ultima Underworld.

TES games are promising in theory, but in practice you need tons of mods to get rid of the things that suck out fun, exploration and challenge from the game, namely level scaling and quest compasses.

 

[eli]

Whatever the opposite of Bethesda is. It's not exploration when your magic compass tells you where the next point of interest is, and it's conveniently never more than 30 seconds away, and getting to it never poses a challenge because the enemies all scale to your level.

so old Bethesda exploration is more to your taste then?

 

[Butter]

Whatever the opposite of Bethesda is. It's not exploration when your magic compass tells you where the next point of interest is, and it's conveniently never more than 30 seconds away, and getting to it never poses a challenge because the enemies all scale to your level.

so old Bethesda exploration is more to your taste then?

Morrowind exploration is better than Skyrim exploration, yes. Some other games with great exploration that nobody has mentioned are Underrail, Deus Ex, Grimoire, and Geneforge.

 

[Funposter]

I am a shameless hiking simulator fan.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

sandbox topview/isometric for overworld and FPP blob in dungeons

 

[MajorMace]

Baldur's Gate free roaming has been the single best exploration experience I had in my young years. It would have been good overall if it wasn't mostly filled with random trash encounters from pregen tables, but still, on principle it's the best way to do it.
For the same reason, close second to me are blobbers like Xeen.

 

[Saerain]

1 or 4 only. Extremes are cool, I live on the edge.

 

[Kliwer]

The perfect gameplay model for me is in BG1.

- We have a main story that drives our actions (although in some long stages it goes into the background);

- The game is not one big area to explore. But it gradually unlocks more micro-areas for us - each full of side quests and with free exploration. Between these micro-areas there may be more linear passages driving the plot. In BG1 it looks like this: first, we freely explore the entire Sword Coast. Then for a moment we fall into a linear structure (Cloakwood). Then the game opens again in Baldur's Gate.

I definitely prefer this model to a typical sandbox. First of all: the gradual unlocking of areas makes the difficulty level of the challenges adequate to our abilities. Second: in sandbox games, we all too often fall into a lack of any clear motivation to act; the existence of a plot (even very linear) allows us to push the game forward, when we get bored with doing side-quests.

It is also worth mentioning that the relatively "flat" character development makes free exploration more pleasant. The BG1 level range is 1-9. Let's take Durlag's Tower. Theoretically, this is the area for high-level characters (7-8). But we might as well go there at level 5; as long as we prepare ourselves well (if we buy the right equipment, e.g. potions and scrolls) and if we know tactics - we can deal with this location.

The opposite of this model are games where character development is "steep". If the numerical values increase too much - it is difficult to talk about free exploration. Recently, I've been playing Lords of Xulima a bit (nice game). This is one of those games where our parameters are set to 7-10 at the beginning and 100-120 at the end. With numbers inflated like this, no strategy will allow us to overcome fights far beyond our level. Let's compare it to the famous chapter 2 of BG2 - each quest available at this stage can be completed immediately or almost immediately (which does not mean that it is easy).

To summarize:
-I prefer games with a plot over sandboxes;
-from "great open worlds" I prefer the open structure of individual chapters;
-I prefer games with "flat", subdued character development than games with huge digit inflation. I prefer to advance from level 1 to level 8 over the course of the game than from level 1 to 50.

 

[Lilura]

The BG1 level range is 1-9. Let's take Durlag's Tower. Theoretically, this is the area for high-level characters (7-8). But we might as well go there at level 5; as long as we prepare ourselves well (if we buy the right equipment, e.g. potions and scrolls) and if we know tactics - we can deal with this location.

You can begin Durlag's Tower at 1st level. I didn't read the rest of your posts, but it's probably filled with other examples of a lack of knowledge.

 

[SoupNazi]

I vastly prefer the Gothic and D:OS2 model - stages that open up on advancement of the main story, so that it is present and drives actions, but the stages/areas are open and not level scaled, so that exploration is possible but some areas may be limited by enemies/skill requirements. But never a hard limit, a troll I can't sneak past or bypass (at the risk of getting oneshot if he sees me) is just about as bad as an invisible, or visible, wall.

I don't mind complete sandbox either, but then the game has to be built around it (i.e. Kenshi). Games with a sandbox world and a story don't work as well for me (KC: Deliverance is great, but towards the end all the open world did or me was annoy me when trying to travel between story missions, when the story picked up enough to get me to want to finish it).

 

[NewGuy]

Isometric games - free roaming (like original fallouts)
First person games - hub based exploration (like bloodlines)
Open world first person games usually turn into a walking simulator really fast...

 

[V_K]

I'm really not sure what the difference between the last three options is. Doesn't help that most examples illustrating it are popamole as fuck, so I haven't played them.

For me, the ideal explorations is metroid-style - an open world that grows outwards as you gain upgrades that allow you to overcome more and more kinds of barriers - learn new skills or spells, find items for inventory-based puzzles, or gain new means of transportation. The nature of the gameworld doesn't matter - could be a dungeon, like in The Summoning; could be a small overworld area with some dungeons like in Grimrock 2; could be a two-scale open world like in Amberstar.

whole world accessible, but areas varying wildly in difficulty

I like this structure the least because it means that the game is essentially linear, and you're just punished for curiosity and veering off the prescribed path.

 

[SoupNazi]

I like this structure the least because it means that the game is essentially linear, and you're just punished for curiosity and veering off the prescribed path.

How is that different from what you describe you like? Open world that's unlocked by skills/spells/items/transportation is also essentially linear, except instead of getting punished for going to place X by a high level enemy (or something), you're blocked off from that by something else.

I'm not trying to hate or anything, just interested in how you would narrow down the difference between the two options.

 

[octavius]

I like this structure the least because it means that the game is essentially linear, and you're just punished for curiosity and veering off the prescribed path.

I prefer to think of it as being awarded for curiosity and veering off the prescribed path.

 

[fork]

Dark Souls

 

[V_K]

How is that different from what you describe you like? Open world that's unlocked by skills/spells/items/transportation is also essentially linear

Unlocks can be acquired in a non-linear manner, or you can have several areas that require the same type of unlock (or both). You can't do that with enemies - either you're high level enough to defeat them or you're not.

except instead of getting punished for going to place X by a high level enemy (or something), you're blocked off from that by something else.

The difference is there's no trial-and-error involved. If you're blocked from somewhere, you know that in advance. You don't have to enter combat, die and lose progress just to learn that you're not supposed to be in that area yet.

I prefer to thinki of it as being awarded for curiosity and veering off the prescribed path.

Thinking of getting a game over screen as a reward? That takes a special kind of masochism.

 

[octavius]

In most games you will be able to retreat once you've gained a few levels, but if you're clever you can still reap the awards in the form of measureless booty.

 

[Falksi]

I think all can be great if done well, but I also think that Open World exploration has rarely been done well since Morrowind, and drags way more games down than it does improve them. Whereas linear & free roaming games seem to fuck up less.

 

[SoupNazi]

How is that different from what you describe you like? Open world that's unlocked by skills/spells/items/transportation is also essentially linear

Unlocks can be acquired in a non-linear manner, or you can have several areas that require the same type of unlock (or both). You can't do that with enemies - either you're high level enough to defeat them or you're not.

except instead of getting punished for going to place X by a high level enemy (or something), you're blocked off from that by something else.

The difference is there's no trial-and-error involved. If you're blocked from somewhere, you know that in advance. You don't have to enter combat, die and lose progress just to learn that you're not supposed to be in that area yet.

Can you not sneak past enemies? Or use your acrobatics skill to climb some mountain to bypass them? Summon a minion to distract them while you get past them? Etc

I mean, I get that in many games you can't, but I think you're dismissing the "enemy" way a little too easily, because in a well designed game that can work.

 

[Tihskael]

Ideally something like New Vegas is fine just without the invisible walls. You can go anywhere from the start but the game forces you to a path where all the good stuff is and everything along the way has something to say about the world/main conflict as opposed to Bethesda's self contained set pieces approach (even though done well some of the times).

 

[luj1]

Free-form exploration. Morrowind, Outcast, Stalker to a degree.