Exploration in RPGs

[metadigital]

It's called "secret areas". Most good games have them: the early Tomb Raiders, the Dooms, etcetra.

 

Not every corner has a secret area, but the secret areas are worth exploring for, because they have advanced weaponary / strategic value out of proportion to the cost of finding them, which is what keeps the gamer searching in the most unusual places, instead of running headlong through the game.

 

[Azure79]

I'm fairly anti-exploration in RPGs.

 

Exploring isn't interesting unless there is something there worth finding.  I don't  just mean treasure or experience; rather, some interesting gameplay.  I found the BG1 exploration really boring.  I would dutifully clean all the 'black' off of the map, kill a few dozen xvarts, and grumble about what a complete waste of time that was.  But the uncertainty kept me hooked-- I had to keep exploring everywhere, because there might be something good out there!  I'd get frustrated for all the wasted time and angry at myself for meta-gaming, which made the game a lot less fun. 

 

I think that developers have a conundrum.  They either go all out for free exploration, and end up with Morrowind, or they design interesting areas in out-of-the-way corners that most players are going to miss (e.g., the Modron Cube in PS:T).  I'd rather see all the best design on the main track of the story than have it hidden where I'll never find it, and why put an area in if you're not going to design it well?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I feel exactly the opposite on the exploration in BG. For me it was a thrill to 'expose the black' of the map because you didn't know what was up ahead. Whether it be just a few Xvarts or a mad wizard controlling a few basilisks or bounty hunters. It went past the need to find new loot and just seemed like my party was off adventuring, trying to do good deeds(or evil).

 

I guess it's how you look at it.