A lot of people like exploring in their games. Elite: Dangerous. No Man's Sky. Any number of survival sims which tout 'exploration' as a feature in at least as large font as they tout 'zombies' or 'pvp freeform random violence'. Heck, there's even been RPS articles about the joys of exploring warcraft. Crafting oriented games like minecraft, or terraria, or the space one where you can be an angry plant. This is a list to illustrate my point that there's many of these games in evidence. Point illustrated, I've always wondered why the idea of exploring a new world in say, No Man's Sky felt pointless to me, but elicited such joy from others. It never quite felt to me like it just wasn't 'my sort of game'. I love finding secrets in games. I love navigating and discovering. But the idea of wandering around - as I've heard it phrased - someone's noise algorithm never worked for me. Even if you can starve, or make a house, or whatever. It never worked.
I was thinking earlier about why that might be, and I think I've started to have some answers.
It all, predictably, comes down to meaning. Not necessarily material meaning - explorers went to the north and south pole and they weren't expecting a pot of gold at the end of it (save, I suppose, what the press might afford them for their story) but it was not the path to riches on a scale to the effort went to - not least for those who died. But these explorers went for the accomplishment. To go somewhere nobody has ever been, and to test themselves against that environment.
When I hold W (and occasionally space) to ascend a summit, I haven't been tested. So this makes me wonder. Why haven't more games that feature exploration so proudly not have any exploration mechanics? Why is exploration just a matter of holding W until you arrive at your destination? Where are my ropes, pitons, grapples, the tentative struggling with an overhang just to make a toe's worth of progress? Supplies, injuries. Y'know, drama. Survival elements can play a role in this, but so often they're left to support the entire notion of exploration on their own. More and more I think there doesn't need to be a tangible reward. The idea that a journey, even, can be its own reward is a well known cultural idea. But right now, the journey is of no consequence, and I think it robs the arrival of any magic.
I'd be interested to know what people here think, so long as it explicitly and exclusively agrees with my thoughts on the matter.
I was thinking earlier about why that might be, and I think I've started to have some answers.
It all, predictably, comes down to meaning. Not necessarily material meaning - explorers went to the north and south pole and they weren't expecting a pot of gold at the end of it (save, I suppose, what the press might afford them for their story) but it was not the path to riches on a scale to the effort went to - not least for those who died. But these explorers went for the accomplishment. To go somewhere nobody has ever been, and to test themselves against that environment.
When I hold W (and occasionally space) to ascend a summit, I haven't been tested. So this makes me wonder. Why haven't more games that feature exploration so proudly not have any exploration mechanics? Why is exploration just a matter of holding W until you arrive at your destination? Where are my ropes, pitons, grapples, the tentative struggling with an overhang just to make a toe's worth of progress? Supplies, injuries. Y'know, drama. Survival elements can play a role in this, but so often they're left to support the entire notion of exploration on their own. More and more I think there doesn't need to be a tangible reward. The idea that a journey, even, can be its own reward is a well known cultural idea. But right now, the journey is of no consequence, and I think it robs the arrival of any magic.
I'd be interested to know what people here think, so long as it explicitly and exclusively agrees with my thoughts on the matter.