Castle Paradox

[Iblis]

I was playing The Legend of Zelda (the original) and thinking about how you can basically go anywhere even at the beginning of the game, and there's absolutely no direction. I really like this, just being able to wander around and do stuff before going into the dungeons (and of course by "do stuff" I mean get the white sword and other stuff I shouldn't have). I like the element of exploration this game has, and it's still fun even though I know where everything is now.

Then I remembered a game Legacy of the Wizard, also for the NES, which I have complained about having no direction and being really difficult to get into because of that. For some reason I don't feel the fun of exploring in this game, despite the fact that I don't know where anything is and so it's actually exploring unlike with Zelda.

So I'm trying to find out why. The most obvious answer is that it's nostalgia and I like Zelda better cause I had more experience with it as a child. Because I know where everything is now the lack of direction has no effect on me. However, I do remember being put off by not knowing what to do in LotW in the few times I played it as a kid, and I don't think I ever felt that way with Zelda. But I don't think I'd ever seen LotW's instruction manual, since I didn't own it, and I did have Zelda's. So I'm uncertain.

So here are my questions:
Under what circumstances is a lack of direction okay?
What types of direction least interfere with exploration?
What makes exploration fun to do?

And here are some preliminary attempts at answers:

[Newbie_Power]

Exploration worked in Zelda because people had the endurance to go look for everything, and when you did find something, the memory of the map block you found it on sticks in your head.

I have been playing DOOM, and I noticed that the maps were very non-linear. It had a "start in a place and work your way outward" instead of "start in a place and get to the next room, then the next..." Usually you have a defined area you can explore in order to find the first key, you then backtrack to get to the room that you can unlock, looking around the area you already explored for any left over ammo or health or even secrets that would allow you to take on the new part of the level that's behind the locked ddoor.

Ironically enough, Metroid Prime follows this example a lot better than most modern FPS games do in terms of actual exploration, except that it gives a "go to this extremely specific room to do stuff" indicator instead of "Hey. Something's wrong here, but we don't know what it is. Maybe there's some new hints as to where the new room is."

Actually, I can't say I am a level design expert, because I haven't designed very many levels in my whole life, and those that I did design are horrible.

[msw188]

Funny, I was thinking about starting a thread about a similar kind of thing, but I'll wait on it a bit to think about this.

I believe that another form of direction that is often used in RPGs is what I would call 'event-based'. You cannot go across the bridge until you convince whoever to repair it, you cannot leave a certain area until you clear your name of some accused crime, etc. This kind of direction can help in making the world grow as you progress. A subset of this might be the finding of a vehicle; I guess this could also be called 'ability-based', but the names aren't what's important. What's important is how awesome the feeling is of finding a new vehicle in an RPG and realizing how many new places you can explore. This is something that I feel that every Dragon Warrior game from II on gets right.

When you ask about a lack of direction, I think an important factor is the following: Is the exploration necessary to the game? I think that its reasonable to allow less direction for 'bonus' style exploration, while if the exploration is necessary ("Go find X Y and Z in order to progress!") there should some amount of textual direction.

The best thing would be to try to have direction feel as if it was imparted to the player indirectly. For example, early in the game the player meets person A who once worked at the castle kitchen. A little later, someone needs an expert cook. A hint may be dropped that the castle had the all the best cooks, but none of them working there now would give the player the time of day. This ought to be enough for the player to 'figure out' that they need to go and talk to person A. This seems better to me than the someone asking for person A directly.

I think that the difficulty balancing is the trickiest thing for exploring. Legend of Zelda was well balanced I think, but I can't quite figure out how. For RPGs, I think that areas to be explored should be easy to escape from, so that death is not usually an issue, even though the finding of rewards may still be difficult. This is what makes Outside and Return so key in Dragon Warrior, and why I included items in my game to mimic their effects (transporting out of dungeons and warping back to towns, respectively).
_________________
My first completed OHR game, Tales of the New World:
http://castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=161

This website link is for my funk/rock band, Euphonic Brew:
www.euphonicbrew.com

[J.A.R.S.]

For some reason, I think exploration is at the source of a lot of confusion in games... I don't think exploration is that much of an asset as far as rpgs are concerned... the counterpart is not to fall in linear storyline, but linear gameplay, but I guess I'm ok with linear gameplay since I particularly games such as MMORPGs because they offer too many options and end up as flavorless in my opinion...
Let me take Zelda: A Link to the past as a reference (which is not the one you picked, I am fully aware of that). In that game, most of the normal world is accessible upfront and the game resolves around the whole idea of exploration, which in turn, leaves dramatically little room for storyline, which actually leads to an action rpg with a simple story. I'm more of the story fan, and if you could be nearly everywhere at first, I believe it sorta screws storyline options to a certain extent, so to me, exploration is good when it doesnt restrict the capability to come up with a good plot. That's a strange axis, I agree, but that's how I feel about it.
I agree also with msw188 there, it usually leads to task-based exploration, in a link to the past, you need the gloves to take out the big rocks, or the hammer to strike the wood or iron pillars down... there are virtually no reason for this to happen, it feels very synthetic... so when you choose to incorporate exploration, limitating it becomes quite a hassle to legitimate... Fixing bridges is, actually, overused. I've seen it in way more games than I had expected to, including lufia which is not event-driven, but managed to include this big quest where you need to do the same dungeon twice just to overseer progress on a bridge repair... But of course, that's how lame non-exploratory games go.
I think the best exploratory rpgs are the dragon warriors. For quite some time, its pretty linear, and THEN you get the boat! The boat is an icon of an age of exploration (heavily influenced by the 16th century) and the exploration serves a major purpose in the lore of the game (although there is usually few to reall explore). The same happens in most FFs. I think the idea of allowing exploration only at a certain moment of the game changes the rythm and pace of that game and gives it a new shine, but arguably, I pretty much prefer games that leads you where you need to be. With that said however, the freedom to switch back and forth between the current dungeon, its attached ally location (village+inn or the likes) and a few more extra places is a standard but good take on what I favor in rpgs, which, indeed, limits exploration to a few sidequests.

[Newbie_Power]

In the case of an overworld map, it will probably end up starting linear at first just to prevent players from getting powerful weapons from later towns or getting pwned, the later on you are traveling up, down, left, right, under, and over everything to find out where you need to go as you get new means of transportation to do so. Usually in games I have played, by the time you get the airship, none of the enemies on the world map will be able to take you on anyway, meaning that your next challenge lies in dungeons.

The thing I just stress is: Make it semi-non-linear (I don't think it's impossible to be completely non-linear) in terms of finding out where B from A is. Don't worry about whether the player will find something or not as long as you make the actual landmark noticeable that way he or she won't feel cheated.

When you're making limitations on where the player needs to go, you can place "guiding areas" that the player finds as he travels the world map. Say the player is wandering a large area, looking for a tower. The player brushes around the edge of the map to find a path between two mountain ranges. The player registers this as an indication of where to go after he finds the indication in the first place.

[Iblis]

On the subject of overworld maps, I really don't think they allow for much exploration. I do get that feeling of excitement when I first get a boat, but that's it. I think it works better in a game where the world is more zoomed in. Part of this is because it allows for more variety and visual interest, but it's also because generally overworlds in an RPG allow for no interaction with the world at all. You could probably make an overworld that you interacted with, but I don't know that it's ever been done before. Even then, I don't think it'd have the visual interest of a world where you're up close to the action.

[Newbie_Power]

[Iblis]

Well, I've never played that.

Actually I should have said "I don't remember ever playing an RPG with any significant amount of fun exploration" anyway.
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano

[Newbie_Power]

Skies of Arcadia was tedious (mostly due to slow map traveling and semi-high encounter rate on Gamecube version), but when you found something, it was awesome. You really felt like you found it.

[msw188]

[J.A.R.S.]

Early dragon warrior maps are huge, and aside from a few with bonus maps, you usually have no idea where you are... Dragon warrior, exploration-wise, are a hassle, but some coolies can be found that way from what I recall. There is, however, little to be found out of the huge land to search for. That, of course, can be quite annoying, especially when you are simply trying to stay on the main quest that is, because you are never too sure what "an island to the north" truly means...
I think exploration is good within dungeons where there are various optional chests or the likes to get. On the world map though, it sorta puts more weight on the game for nothing (aside fromt he occasionnal hidden bonus dungeon I mean).

And Iblis, you are right, I was emphasing on the fact it reduces the room for story, not its quality. A link to the past is a game based around a simple yet very interesting story, but its exploration kinda gameplay sort of restrict story elaboration compared to linear games such as the FF where a lot of cutscenes will happen at fixed positions. I agree that the correlation is not major though. It just seems to influence story flow a little.

There is one game that I know is based off exploration, but its not typically an rpg. I forgot the name, but perhaps people will be reminded of that game and can point it out... Basically, you are on a ship and cross the sea from port to port to board more men and rations, and the whole idea is to go around africa and visit the orient with your spaniard ship and fight pirates and military fleet. The cool thing is that, although we do have a knowledge of the world, the game started out as a small "known" place which sorta grew as you explored, and more ports meant more goods to fetch from. Now, I agree this is somewhat a big stretch between an rpg (because there were duels too) and a strategy game, but I believe if one was to make an exploration based rpg as you suggest, this could definately be one good reference. The ship goes well hand in hand with the theme of exploration, but field exploration is not impossible (aka Worldmap). I also have to agree with msw on the fact that exploration isn't necessarily fun without a sense of confinement which is often depicted by peril: combats. Even better, the further you get, the harder the monsters should be so that you feel like in a barren land. This also serves a good flavor purpose in the sense that, the further from the cities, the easier it is for monsters to live and organise themselves if needs be. Of course, the opposite can be said if the monsters rely upon stealing from the villages, in which cases they'd need to stay closer, but there is definately something to do with monsters in barren and unknown land.
Now, as of semi-exploration which supposedly means you are sent to find a clue (for example, when you see the two cliffs, go north, and you have to find these 2 cliffs), I think it opens up an interesting take on gameplay, but it conditions a lot of the game in that direction as well: it is not a choice without consequences. It is much harder to trigger events in accordance to a global progress towards a point through exploration, and to add areas of interest along the way sort of breaks the linearity. It is basically like falling into the elder scroll's take on gameplay which, in my opinion, fails to be a compelling rpg. It is more of an adventure game where you are 'someone'. You don't play a role, you are merely a no-role kind of person then, and this conditions the storyline and gameplay in such a way that, obviously, it cant quite end up as an epic story such as FFVI. Though, as stated earlier, it can still be a fair Zelda.
So let me correct my previous answer:

[Newbie_Power]

I just skimmed through J.A.R.S' post, and I didn't find 80% of it helpful or worth debating about. I'm just going to try and stick with "come up with story first, implement gameplay next, then finally pace the story around what I implemented" philosophy when designing my game.

I did see this, though.

[Moogle1]

[Newbie_Power]

[msw188]