Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

890671 Posts in 33509 Topics- by 24749 Members - Latest Member: Ryguy764

June 17, 2013, 11:18:23 PM
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGamesWhat I don't like with "exploration games"
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: What I don't like with "exploration games"  (Read 1688 times)
zacaj
Level 3
***


void main()


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2010, 07:36:21 PM »

Have you tried using Red Right Returning, placing torches on the left side of any tunnel you walk through so you know where youve been and what direction you were going?
Logged

My twitter: @zacaj_

Quote from: mcc
Well let's just take a look at this "getting started" page and see--
Quote
Download and install cmake
Noooooooo
SirNiko
Level 10
*****


View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2010, 07:47:58 PM »

The thing that I enjoy about games is that there is a finality to them, that eventually you CAN discover everything. In a world of such paralyzing vastness, lost opportunities and infinite discoveries it is relaxing to be able to explore a tiny microcosm within a game pak and eventually uncover every last square inch and clear every mystery.

The little star next to my save file that indicates that nothing remains to be seen or done is both calming and empowering to me, since when I go back to work the next day I'll once again be faced with questions with no certain answers and choices that I will never be able to see the other option once I choose my direction.
Logged
Evan Balster
Level 10
*****


dreaming close to metal


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2010, 04:31:15 AM »

I have to experience every single action or else I feel like I missed out

I genuinely want to make a game where this is impossible.  (EDIT: remembered I am)


exploration games are more like real life, which is so vast that you can't possibly do or see even a fraction of what there is to do or see. exploration games are more realistic in that sense, they're about exploring worlds, not surpassing challenges. but most 'games' have trained you into wanting to 'do and see everything' or 'beat everything'. but that's just a habit you'll overcome if you play a lot of exploration games and get into them.

In my book this is what a genuine exploration game should be.  Aquaria is one of my favorite games because it *nearly* embodied this and presented a depth of experience as I meandered.  I still explored everything, or so I thought--somehow around 40% of the artifacts eluded me.


The sense of being in a great, wide world and wandering about half-directed in it, motivated by novel discoveries which reward the search.  That's the ideal.  And it's very hard to achieve.  It means content, content, content.  Procedural generally can't cut it on its own but it can come close sometimes.

(I actually created what I believe to be one of the world's largest non-procedural sidescrolling explorative games because I like the genre so much.  Players generate the content when they reach the edges of the world.  It still needs more tinkering.)


A fun case study I'd like to bring up:

Photopia - Interactive fiction - You make a number of one-or-the-other choices that give you the illusion of free motion, when really the game is largely linear and the plot can't be affected by different decisions.  In the short term, your actions have results, but all paths re-integrate by the time the next part of the story is reached.  It gives the feeling of openness without requiring huge amounts of content.

Explaining further:  In the game's first scene, you may move freely about an open wasteland.  Other than already visited areas (EG, N, W, S, E) each movement brings you to the next in a sequence of discoveries.  Once all have been explored, your character expresses that other areas are simply "open wasteland" and a trinket you've picked up should be promptly returned to your ship.  It does this differently with a few other areas, and later puts the player into an illogical labyrinth.  She doesn't escape until the player has meandered a little, at which point she grows uncomfortable in her space-suit, takes it off, and the player realizes she has wings.

I think the concept could be used in other types of games such as sidescrollers without much difficulty.  It's something the player will never be aware of except in repeat plays.



SirNiko:  That's an interesting viewpoint.  But it's that very same thing that leaves me disappointed with games.  That, and how the big ones can get shallow by spreading themselves thin.
Logged

Infinite Blank, SoundSelf, Cave Story+, Wreath
voice, accordion, mandolin, oboe (?!)
Game audio programming consultant.
<plaid/audio> 0.2: opensource audio framework
PompiPompi
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2010, 05:11:26 AM »

Minecraft (yes, that game again) is doing my head in at the moment. I'm an explorer type of player, but I've also got a bit of OCD about leaving areas unexplored. It's a particularly big deal in Minecraft, because who knows if that unexplored tunnel leads to diamonds? Diamonds are a pain to find, and it's good to have as many of them as possible. I can mark tunnels which have been fully explored by walling them off, but it's not to easy to mark tunnels I definitely haven't explored. When the tunnels start to loop round in circles or ascend/descend to different levels, there's no system I know of that can allow me to definitively explore every corner of a big cavern. Drives me mad.

I've given up and returned to the surface to build a skyscraper. Exploring those caverns is great fun, but the feeling of not even knowing how many parts are unexplored, let alone where they are is getting to me.
Hmm, you have to mark the junction points. Maybe some of the Depth search or whatever graph algorithms should work.
There is probably an algorithm to do what you want, though you will probably have to mark junctions if it got circles.
Edit: A simple algorithm for a connected graph with no circles, is simple walking along the left wall. That will cover the whole maze. With cricles I suppose you need to mark them so you would know to take a different path when you return to them. But it might be more complicated than that. It is a long time since I took an algorithms class at university. :D
Logged


Kickstarter? no no no... it's Kicksucker...
LemonScented
Level 7
**



View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2010, 05:34:35 PM »

The "always keep the wall to my left" approach is what I usually go for in games, but in Minecraft it doesn't work so well. The caverns are so big compared to what I can carry in my inventory that I have to keep batcktracking to known locations where I keep a bunch of chests, and the layout of caverns doesn't suit this approach well - specifically when tunnels go up or down levels, or when previously unconnected tunnels join up once I've mined through a seam of something.

I think it's just a feature of the game. If I want nice predictable exploring I'll just have to start strip-mining, and failing that I just need to let go of my OCD and accept that I'll probably miss whole sections of cave, or find them once but never work out how to get back to them.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic