Yep. Botw is really normal once you play the game and see everything ends with a shrine. Botw2 needs to figure out more palpable rewards.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why is Exploration in Open World Games so Hard to Nail?
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
Playing Watch Dogs Legion and can confirm. The map is just a mess and most of it is unnecessary and I had to force myself to stop collecting everything.
Ghost of Tsushima has a load of markers, but it never feels like a load of guff.
The best modern game to explore, probably. Morrowind did the exploration better than any game, IMO.
It's a design approach. Most open-worlds aren't designed for exploration but more as a sandbox that will host all of the game's side content and waste your time in riding or driving between main story objectives, I'm guessing it's just the way most designers feel comfortable making their game's runtime easily surpass the 30 hours mark and sell the illusion that it is a big AAA game where you could go anywhere while the main attraction is obviously the main story that is usually extremely linear and in no way benefits from the game's map being as open as it is.
I don't inherently have a problem with this approach as I do like open worlds that serve more as scenery rather than a sandbox, a good example would be LA Noire where the game world being open doesn't serve the gameplay in any way but it is still very important for the feel of the game and the atmosphere, it goes a long way in immersing the player in a way that would otherwise be much harder to achieve if the game didn't have an open world.
I don't inherently have a problem with this approach as I do like open worlds that serve more as scenery rather than a sandbox, a good example would be LA Noire where the game world being open doesn't serve the gameplay in any way but it is still very important for the feel of the game and the atmosphere, it goes a long way in immersing the player in a way that would otherwise be much harder to achieve if the game didn't have an open world.
Most open worlds feel the need to constantly bombard the player with shallow busywork and after a while it starts to feel repetitive with no end in sight. Games likes RDR2 and BotW nail exploration by actually delivering a believable and organic feeling world, instead of it being a mere backdrop.
To me the best open world games are designed to let the players discover things naturally, the lesser ones are designed to funnel players in the direction the devs want.
Too many games are set in "big" open worlds while too few companies are able to create a good level of detail on those giant maps.
That's why I love the Yakuza series so much. Those games are set in small walkable maps but every building, shop or POI has an insane level of detail and care.
I would like to see more of those worlds because a ton of big open world titles would work just as well without that big open world.
CP2077 is the latest example where a poor mans GTA was tacked on to a game that didn't need it.
CDPR could have just focused on Watson but with true verticality and enterable buildings etc.
The same goes for Watch Dogs.
That's why I love the Yakuza series so much. Those games are set in small walkable maps but every building, shop or POI has an insane level of detail and care.
I would like to see more of those worlds because a ton of big open world titles would work just as well without that big open world.
CP2077 is the latest example where a poor mans GTA was tacked on to a game that didn't need it.
CDPR could have just focused on Watson but with true verticality and enterable buildings etc.
The same goes for Watch Dogs.
I agree. Loved exploring Days Gone more than any other open world. Had to stop at every abandoned building i saw. Even if some where totaly empty i loved looking around in them. The bike was a great way to explore a big world with ease. No clunky cars or slow horses.
The bike actually made exploration worse for me because you were always tied to it. You could never stray too far because you have to literally walk back and babysit it all the time because there wasn't a "call bike" feature.
Red Dead and BotW are two fantastic examples because the tackle exploration in completely different ways.
Red Dead is way more focused on the atmospheric side of things. You wander around a forest and suddenly find a big cauldron with a strange liquid you can drink. Nothing lead you here, there is no quest related to this. You found it on your own because you decided to wander around. Really fucking cool. Do you get anything out of it? Mechanically speaking no, but (if this is the first thing you found offside the path) the knowledge that it might be worth exploring the world just to see what else you might find. The downside is that exploration often devolves into just that, running around a forest and looking if you missed some cool stuff.
Breath of the Wild treats exploration much more like a gameplay mechanic. You have the shrines, obviously, and they point you into directions you could go. You earn a tangible ingame reward there and the game gives you some clear markers on where you haven't been and where you might want to go next. But the real exploration isn't the shrines, it's everything around them. BotW makes exploration "challenging" because unlike Red Dead you can't just walk around everywhere. Climbing up a mountain might be a challenge but it's not the only thing stopping you. Maybe it's too cold so you have to figure out how to keep Link warm while exploring. Maybe the enemies will just be too strong for you, so you either have to come back later or be really careful. So exploring in BotW is way more dangerous than in RDR2. The downside is that you will rarely find "stories" there, in the end mostly boils down to getting an orb or maybe a weapon that has a limited life span (but sometimes it ends in an absolutely breathtaking moment and those moments feel weightier because they are relatively rare)
I think the exploration in both these games is almost perfect despite being completely different from each other. They both approached it from a different perspective and they both nailed what they were going for.
Ubisoft's (and GoT's) approach is a different one. It's much more focused on giving players little things to do in the world, or filling out a checklist. That is, by the way, a completely valid approach. I don't think it is in any way better or worse than what RDR or BotW does. Maybe you don't like it as much, which is fine as well of course, but it's not a worse approach. It tries to do something different than those games. Filling checklists can be fun, and just running around a big good looking world while doing that can be fun and relaxing as well. In the end the only issue is that almost all open world games copy what Ubisoft does.
I'm not gonna get into budget because I'm not a developer and saying it all boils down to that, even tho it probably does, feels unhelpful and most of all not like an interesting discussion.
Red Dead is way more focused on the atmospheric side of things. You wander around a forest and suddenly find a big cauldron with a strange liquid you can drink. Nothing lead you here, there is no quest related to this. You found it on your own because you decided to wander around. Really fucking cool. Do you get anything out of it? Mechanically speaking no, but (if this is the first thing you found offside the path) the knowledge that it might be worth exploring the world just to see what else you might find. The downside is that exploration often devolves into just that, running around a forest and looking if you missed some cool stuff.
Breath of the Wild treats exploration much more like a gameplay mechanic. You have the shrines, obviously, and they point you into directions you could go. You earn a tangible ingame reward there and the game gives you some clear markers on where you haven't been and where you might want to go next. But the real exploration isn't the shrines, it's everything around them. BotW makes exploration "challenging" because unlike Red Dead you can't just walk around everywhere. Climbing up a mountain might be a challenge but it's not the only thing stopping you. Maybe it's too cold so you have to figure out how to keep Link warm while exploring. Maybe the enemies will just be too strong for you, so you either have to come back later or be really careful. So exploring in BotW is way more dangerous than in RDR2. The downside is that you will rarely find "stories" there, in the end mostly boils down to getting an orb or maybe a weapon that has a limited life span (but sometimes it ends in an absolutely breathtaking moment and those moments feel weightier because they are relatively rare)
I think the exploration in both these games is almost perfect despite being completely different from each other. They both approached it from a different perspective and they both nailed what they were going for.
Ubisoft's (and GoT's) approach is a different one. It's much more focused on giving players little things to do in the world, or filling out a checklist. That is, by the way, a completely valid approach. I don't think it is in any way better or worse than what RDR or BotW does. Maybe you don't like it as much, which is fine as well of course, but it's not a worse approach. It tries to do something different than those games. Filling checklists can be fun, and just running around a big good looking world while doing that can be fun and relaxing as well. In the end the only issue is that almost all open world games copy what Ubisoft does.
I'm not gonna get into budget because I'm not a developer and saying it all boils down to that, even tho it probably does, feels unhelpful and most of all not like an interesting discussion.
Last edited:
Thank you for this. This made me insanely hyped to eventually play BOTW (maybe on an emulator?). This looks fantastic.
RDR2 is pretty much the pinnacle of exploration because it teaches the player early on that almost every reward they will get for exploring is some unique and hand-crafted content that they won't see anywhere else. This basically means that anything can and will happen if the player just keeps looking for it. I can't think of many other games that manage this.
For me I think it's just a symptom of developers making the maps too large.
Segmented maps (i.e. dragon quest inquisition) or smaller denser single maps are better options.
Segmented maps (i.e. dragon quest inquisition) or smaller denser single maps are better options.
This is kinda a plus for me, it actually makes you care about it.
It's morrowind and BOTW where exploration actually matters. Red Dead gets mentioned a lot here. RDR2's open-world is great, yet pointless from a gameplay standpoint. It serves as a tone piece, communicating the melancholic tone and theme's. It serves no cohesion within the gameplay loop or narrative.
I think they should've linked exploration and the camp system more together. That way you create more incentive to explore and bring back items that helps the camp and also is reflected in the narrative.
Edit: personally, i like smaller hub maps with way more density. Like Deus Ex or Hitman where exploration actually has benefits in knowing the layout of the world and tactically approach situations based on evolved circumstances.
I think they should've linked exploration and the camp system more together. That way you create more incentive to explore and bring back items that helps the camp and also is reflected in the narrative.
Edit: personally, i like smaller hub maps with way more density. Like Deus Ex or Hitman where exploration actually has benefits in knowing the layout of the world and tactically approach situations based on evolved circumstances.
Exploration matters in RDR 2 because it's something that most players naturally end up doing because the world is interesting enough. There doesn't need to be a mechanical demand for it, if it comes naturally. The fac tthat RDR 2 gets mentioned a lot despite not forcing exploration at any point is what makes it stand out so much IMO.
Besides, it still has a lot of the rewarding aspects like hunting for special outfits or getting cash for treasure chests you find through map puzzles.
I still don't get what the "no gameplay motivation" comes from or even means. Are people talking about the rewards nit levelling up your character? Naturally waking around for no reason just to explore and discover the secerets is the gameplay loop in RDR 2 outside of the main missions. Not to mention the hunting mechanic which is ludicrously detailed and tied to camp/gear upgrades. The game would be worth $60 as a hunting simulator along as is.
Pretty much. I always roll my eyes when people just bring that up without actually adding anything. Exploration in BOTW is incredibly boring to me, and I do love the game too.
Yea I agree. Going the route of "exploration MUST provide tangible gameplay rewards" is how you end up with a 2014-tier ubisoft open world where every inch of the map has a chest or collectible. Sometimes a cool vista or interesting looking location is enough reward.
Sure. I like the world and it's tone. I loved they created consistency with it's theme's. But all the treasure maps, hunting etc, it's still all meaningless filler that serves no purpose other than adding aesthetic trinkets to your camp or clothing. Stuff that isn't even reactive to the world they try so hard to make aesthetically believable. They feel like separate parts, which is all fine, but i prefer more incentivized systems and goals. Make the narrative react to my playstyle or past achievements.
Stuff like inconsequential bounty systems and archaic systems like the police and corpses despawning when the player is out if the stream bubble doesn't help with the 'living, breathing world' aspect, but that's a bit of a side track. ;)
Don't get me wrong, loved RDR2 (put like 200 hours into it) but i can still love something and be critical of it's flawed approach to open-world design.
OP
OP
Yeah i am also not fan of the idea that all rewards for exploration should contribute to XP or inventory. I love small stories environmental or not as rewards too. That is why i liked RDR2 so much. Hell even Mad Max that is at it's core another checklist game had moments like seeing small building in the sand that ended up being church tower and entire church was underground.
I'm the same way. Playing RDR2 and stumbling upon the ruins of an old cemetery in the middle of nowhere and reading the tombstones, or finding the remains of a family who died trying to keep each other warm in the in the snow is 1000x more rewarding than a million Fox Dens or Shrines or upgrade mats in Ghost of Tsushima.
BotW has the best exploration of any open world game I've ever played. Not sure how you can write it off based on videos. It's very much what you've described what you're looking for in your posts.
Yeah. BotW is made by geniuses in game design, not every game will can be as good.
I really can't think of any Open World game where i didn't enjoy exploring. It usually is my favorite thing in these games besides the story.
This is sort of a controversial post... but I agree with you. The feeling of genuine danger and the fragility of your character is what makes those games so darn satisfying to explore.
What a beautiful thread backfire.
"Hey guys, why giving player full freedom and being interesting all the time is so hard?"
"Hey guys, why giving player full freedom and being interesting all the time is so hard?"
OP nails a lot of what I hate about Ubisoft open world games. Recently I was gifted Immortals and it's ridiculous how bloated that little island is. Every four feet you're tripping over a chest or a vault or a puzzle or something. Mix that with the farsight ability that lets you mark collectibles from miles away, and it takes any incentive to actually explore and throws it out the window. Very few games manage to scratch that Outer Wilds / Morrowind / Breath of the Wild feel of looking off into the distance and saying "I wonder what's there". Rather they say, "look over there, there's something there, go find it".
I can 100% tell you that you're absolutely wrong. Especially when there are lots of games that have no combat or easy combat but no are heavy on puzzles and other elements. Making sweeping generalizations about groups of people is silly. There are people who have disabilities, there are people who just aren't good at combat, and all kinds of people who would like to play From Software games for all the other elements of the game, but they're unable to because of the one difficulty option.
Putting everyone into one box is an easy way to dismiss their criticisms because you can now just say "you want to take all the other things about From Software games away, why not just play a different game!" instead of listening to peoples actual wants and criticisms.
Great post!
I really have to try Death Stranding. Sounds like it could be up my alley if it's being favorably compared to the traversal in BotW.
Because different people want different things from an open world:
Some like checklists of things to do in an open space.
Some like to explore without chevrons all over.
Some people want to make it feel like you're actually traveling no matter how open and otherwise empty the spaces in between are.
Some people want it to be just open as in you can do whatever but it's still got something of a plot to follow.
Some like checklists of things to do in an open space.
Some like to explore without chevrons all over.
Some people want to make it feel like you're actually traveling no matter how open and otherwise empty the spaces in between are.
Some people want it to be just open as in you can do whatever but it's still got something of a plot to follow.
OP
OP
That is actually the worst thing regarding exploration in new AC games for me. It adds nothing to the game in my opinion. Its like planet scanning in Mass Effect 2.
BOTW has the best exploration of any game I've played in the last generation. It blows every other open world game out of the water. You should definitley give it a shot if you ever get a Switch. Its a must play especially if you love to explore. Exploring is what it does best.
I loved Death Stranding, but it's not really much of an "exploration" game. Other than some optional preppers, there isn't really anything to find. You're there to make deliveries, not wander around aimlessly.
How van you not love [ bzzzz ] P r o b e L a u n c e d. And seeing the numbers go up.
The dungeons gave you Epic or legendary Gear and a free skill point and experience.
Scanning got you the stuff for upgrading your ship. The the means was a bit out of the game and tedious though.
I mean, the short answer is: Because people don't like feeling frustrated when the work to decipher a location is more than what they'd expect.
I totally understand why the methodology for quests, markers and waypoints changed between morrowind to oblivion and then again in oblivion to skyrim. Not everyone wants to spend a ton of time pouring over maps to figure out where to go next, especially when the reward for doing so is usually just another trinket or bobble. People looking for a passive experience when they're gaming can't be bothered to do that and would sooner drop the game and have a negative opinion of it for it "being too much", opposed to...well, having skyrim's whirlwind success, despite it being a more shallow open world experience.
It reminds me of people talking about Fez and being like "I don't understand why people love this game so much, I got 16 cubes and then put it down because that's credits". Fez is a game that is so amazing because the most engaging puzzles are the ones where you have to toil in order to figure them out. Doing actual research, figuring out clues, taking those clues outside of the game in order glean hints on what to do next. Hell, I don't think people ever figured out the final puzzle in the game, they solved it through sheer brute force. I took notes in that game as I played and it made that experience all the richer as I finally got all 32 cubes (though I obviously had to look up the solution to the final puzzle). But I don't expect everyone to be down for that sort of experience, and as open world games become more and more mainstream, I'd expect the depth of open world games to become thinner and thinner, because people just can't be bothered.
Hell, I just finished Control and my number 1 peeve about that game is how bad the map is and how there just aren't waypoints, even though the benefits of pure exploration don't factor into the various side missions. Often times, "go to central research" isn't nearly enough information and most of the side missions don't have visual queues, like the mold missions, for you to follow, which just leads to a lot of wandering and backtracking and frustration.
I totally understand why the methodology for quests, markers and waypoints changed between morrowind to oblivion and then again in oblivion to skyrim. Not everyone wants to spend a ton of time pouring over maps to figure out where to go next, especially when the reward for doing so is usually just another trinket or bobble. People looking for a passive experience when they're gaming can't be bothered to do that and would sooner drop the game and have a negative opinion of it for it "being too much", opposed to...well, having skyrim's whirlwind success, despite it being a more shallow open world experience.
It reminds me of people talking about Fez and being like "I don't understand why people love this game so much, I got 16 cubes and then put it down because that's credits". Fez is a game that is so amazing because the most engaging puzzles are the ones where you have to toil in order to figure them out. Doing actual research, figuring out clues, taking those clues outside of the game in order glean hints on what to do next. Hell, I don't think people ever figured out the final puzzle in the game, they solved it through sheer brute force. I took notes in that game as I played and it made that experience all the richer as I finally got all 32 cubes (though I obviously had to look up the solution to the final puzzle). But I don't expect everyone to be down for that sort of experience, and as open world games become more and more mainstream, I'd expect the depth of open world games to become thinner and thinner, because people just can't be bothered.
Hell, I just finished Control and my number 1 peeve about that game is how bad the map is and how there just aren't waypoints, even though the benefits of pure exploration don't factor into the various side missions. Often times, "go to central research" isn't nearly enough information and most of the side missions don't have visual queues, like the mold missions, for you to follow, which just leads to a lot of wandering and backtracking and frustration.
I never once mentioned combat or even any sort of dexterity-related game mechanics. I mention From for their mindset in game design, not mechanics. You cannot promote exploration while also have game mechanics that actively and directly points out POI on the map. You have to get rid of those hand-holds and leave open the possibility that players miss content.
People who generally want an easier mode for Souls games don't want map markers or other things like that. They want the combat to be easier or less punishing. It's rare for anyone asking for an easy mode in Souls to also want waypoints or other things like that. Of course there are individuals like that that exist but there are also people who enjoy the games for the combat who want that to exist.
But the vast majority of people who want an easy mode in Souls don't want anything changed at all but the combat.
BOTW is just "hey take a look at that next point of interest" while OP was probably referring to actual exploration.
This is a well made post. Exploration is best when the player is willing to go the extra mile, though there are games like BotW that manage to create that feeling even in large amounts of players, but I think thats due to them designing the open world with different skill levels in mind. There are loads of different landmarks and points of interest in the horizon, some safer and easier than others.
If you take an ounce of gold you can hammer it out into an impressively large sheet. More surface area, same amount of base material.
Great post. Haven't played Control but I agree about Morriwind and FEZ. They're two of my favorite games of all time.
That's just not how development works. You can't just scale down numbers and have everything else scale down at the same rate.
I think there is an equal part of BOTW that nails the sense of time and place. A lot of open-worlders don't take the time to get all the little things right. The way every blade of grass shimmers in the sun and reacts to you running through them, birds flying off into the sunset, the way the lighting subtly changes, the way clouds move, the ambient sounds at different times of day, etc. It really makes it feel like you are out exploring and being part of nature vs. it just being set dressing, going from waypoint to waypoint, clipping through everything with a bunch of markers/pathing trails telling you where to go.
Days Gone did, HZD didn't and GoT does Ubisoft one better by being even more mindlessly repetitive in its side content.
I think a problem for modern exploration is the quantity of things to do, which may seem counter-intuitive. Just like in movies you need to allow breathing room some times so that the effect of something can be pondered or experienced. Too many games bombard you with literal shit to do so you're bouncing off one quest to go find 5 beans for an ailing family. And there is so much shit to do that fast travel is basically mandatory because no one wants to walk 10 mins each to do 15 fetch quests in the same village center, and now you're not experiencing any exploration at all because you're magically transported where you want to go.
Because of all these things adding up the "open worlds" have become small. To have exploration you need cool places to go, a need to find things or experience things, and to do that you need the players to be at least a little bored! You can't pre-occupy them with meaningless drivel for 5 gold pieces so they never look beyond their map screen.
Because of all these things adding up the "open worlds" have become small. To have exploration you need cool places to go, a need to find things or experience things, and to do that you need the players to be at least a little bored! You can't pre-occupy them with meaningless drivel for 5 gold pieces so they never look beyond their map screen.