skyrim good at exploration ? Hahahaha . It was just a snowy landscape with a ruins... Now morrowind... that's an ideal game .
Why can't many games do exploration as well as Skyrim?
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The thing about WoW and Skyrim that makes me enjoy their exploration far more than most games, is the manner in which the character moves and responds to input - even mid jump I can alter my trajectory or spin in a circle if I so wish.
This goes hand in hand with a world without (for the most part) invisible walls, where with enough effort one can typically go wherever one pleases.
Whereas games like DA:I (and soo many MMOs) which try to emulate this open world style often falls short of my expectations, and generally leave me feeling like I'm walking down little more than a glorified corridor.
This goes hand in hand with a world without (for the most part) invisible walls, where with enough effort one can typically go wherever one pleases.
Whereas games like DA:I (and soo many MMOs) which try to emulate this open world style often falls short of my expectations, and generally leave me feeling like I'm walking down little more than a glorified corridor.
For all its popularity, Skyrim actually seems like a game for a niche crowd in this sense. Just look at how many people are think that Skyrim's world is dull and lifeless (I'm one of them).
A good exploration game to me would require a lot of NPCs, creatures, other interactible things going about, surprising me with their complicated behaviors. I think this would impress lots of people, more so than the way Skyrim went about doing things, which mainly seemed to be to show off the grandeur of its environments.
A good exploration game to me would require a lot of NPCs, creatures, other interactible things going about, surprising me with their complicated behaviors. I think this would impress lots of people, more so than the way Skyrim went about doing things, which mainly seemed to be to show off the grandeur of its environments.
I'm going to break with the haters and say that I really enjoyed exploring Skyrim (with 179 hours under my belt; I damn well should have).
Could it have stood up to more enemy/dungeon variety? Yes. (Thank God for mods) That said, there was a certain 'what's that over there?' factor that exploration is all about. I loved the fact that a tiny, utterly missable hutch in the Northern wastes could yield a daedric side-quest. I loved that I could simply pick a direction and run into all sorts of stuff.
So, for me, 'finding things' was more crucial than what was found. Again, I'll fully admit that there could have been more. In fact, when I heard ES5 was going to take place in Skyrim, I rolled my eyes ('Gee, temperate European fantasy setting no one's done that before...'), but I liked it far more than I thought I would.
The things I enjoyed about Skyrim (as well as Oblivion) was just getting lost in it; screw the story. From finding that rare alchemical ingredient to that last ebony ingot to finish my armor, I've found that if you just pick something to do (rather than be told what to do) the Elder Scrolls games are very rewarding.
I didn't really get that with Dragon Age or Far Cry. With those games, there's always something pushing you along the main path -even the side quests are just a function of the main story. In ES games, *not* being the hero is totally an option. For a number of (in-game) weeks, I was a pearl-diver in Oblivion; with some water effects mods, it was quite relaxing --then one night, I surface to find a ghost wandering the coast of Bravil. There's nothing comparable to that in DA or FC and that's why I love Elder Scrolls exploration.
Could it have stood up to more enemy/dungeon variety? Yes. (Thank God for mods) That said, there was a certain 'what's that over there?' factor that exploration is all about. I loved the fact that a tiny, utterly missable hutch in the Northern wastes could yield a daedric side-quest. I loved that I could simply pick a direction and run into all sorts of stuff.
So, for me, 'finding things' was more crucial than what was found. Again, I'll fully admit that there could have been more. In fact, when I heard ES5 was going to take place in Skyrim, I rolled my eyes ('Gee, temperate European fantasy setting no one's done that before...'), but I liked it far more than I thought I would.
The things I enjoyed about Skyrim (as well as Oblivion) was just getting lost in it; screw the story. From finding that rare alchemical ingredient to that last ebony ingot to finish my armor, I've found that if you just pick something to do (rather than be told what to do) the Elder Scrolls games are very rewarding.
I didn't really get that with Dragon Age or Far Cry. With those games, there's always something pushing you along the main path -even the side quests are just a function of the main story. In ES games, *not* being the hero is totally an option. For a number of (in-game) weeks, I was a pearl-diver in Oblivion; with some water effects mods, it was quite relaxing --then one night, I surface to find a ghost wandering the coast of Bravil. There's nothing comparable to that in DA or FC and that's why I love Elder Scrolls exploration.
There's just something about TES which makes it feel special, probably because you can take it at your own pace and have the freedom to do what you want, when you want.senordesol said:
There's also so many neat little touches in the world that make it special. You find clutter items arranged at random shrines throughout the world, which tell a story. Each fort might have its own unique special point of interest - like the fort with the special trapped vault inside of it full of treasure.
Every rock and shrine and ruin and fort and inn seems careful placed and it feels like a real world (thought I'll admit New Vegas is even better for that), and each time you play it you can discover something new in the world. Dragon Age or Kingdoms of Amalur just don't have that feeling. The scenery is pretty sure, but you just feels like you're walking down a corridor, to points along a map, ticking off a checklist rather than organically exploring the world.
No Man's Sky seems to be going for that, though whether they'll deliver is up for debate.visiblenoise said:
Skyrim is... not particularly big. Most of the travel time starts coming from mountains and cliffs being dumped in your way. There's not much to find off-route either. You get the occasional abandoned shack with some half-sentence of lore to it, but its mostly just detouring into more bears. The caves that weren't completely forgettable were generally mission-based setpieces, and often locked off from free exploration until you got to the mission.
Could be because in ES and FO there's actually a 'world' to save...a very animatronic one, sure --but they're self-contained, functioning systems.endtherapture said:
With Dragon Age, for all of its lore and (comparatively) explored characters, there's really nothing worth saving. The 'world' in that game exists only to be saved whereas in ES, it's a world that only needs saving at the moment. I hear and agree with everyone calling for more depth, but there is already so much to love!
If I could have one wish for the next ES game, it'd be to add more levels of creativity to each 'profession'. I don't give a crap about the story (and I normally do), I don't really care that much about the setting (Though Elsweyr would be nice); just do everything possible to make each individual component of gameplay (be it alchemy, archery, smithing, or magic) as fun as possible. We players will do the rest.
they managed to chock the map full of things nothing is extremly copy paste and no matter where you go you are bound to find a interesting thing whether its a new cave dungeon/ rare ore/ or a easter egg they really packed that thing full
Eh, if Skyrim had more variety I'd be inclined to agree, but every dungeon falls into one of the same few archetypes. Draugr dungeon, falmer dungeon, bandit dungeon etc. That, and there really isn't all that much to do outside of fetching and killing.
When I think about it, any game where the primary way to interact with the world is through combat falls short of great exploration in my opinion.
Minecraft does it well I think. Mapping out a new region looking for villages and cool looking mountain formations is always satisfying, even when things do look so samey (multiplayer helps too).
When I think about it, any game where the primary way to interact with the world is through combat falls short of great exploration in my opinion.
Minecraft does it well I think. Mapping out a new region looking for villages and cool looking mountain formations is always satisfying, even when things do look so samey (multiplayer helps too).
It depends if you find the dungeons the main draw of the game. I personally don't, I think the dungeons for the most part suck, and the big wide outside is the best part of the game. But even some of the more unique dungeons like the huge Dwemer city, and Blackreach, are pretty cool.Smigglebops said:
That's true, the overworld is pretty good. I've always appreciated the more organic aspects to the Bethesda games, like when a dragon attacks a settlement randomly and a huge fight breaks out. I always wish that any NPC could die, imagine if Ulfric Stormcloak was taking a stroll through Windhelm and a dragon swoops down and eats him. wars over everybody!
New Vegas has fucking truckloads of content though and an entirely serviceable open world to fit it in.snekadid said:
Artificially promoted guard post? It's a deathclaw nest, and probably the only high level area in the game without loot. Yes, its two functions are 1. Suggesting the player take the long route during their first playthrough and 2. Deathclaw hunting after you have leveled up significantly. The deathclaw cave, deathclaw promontory, cazador mine, nightkin cave, etc, all have high level loot in them for high level players.snekadid said:
I actually think Skyrim (and to a far lesser extent, Oblivion) seriously screwed the pooch on the exploration aspect with that bug which rendered the local map virtually useless by almost immediately refilling uncovered portions of the map (I guess it depends on how much ones regards cartography as essential to exploration experience). I agree with you about Morrowind.endtherapture said:
I think most of it is nothing about The Elder Scrolls series really restricts your sense of exploration. In most "open world" games, content and areas are tiered in such a way that exploring an area before the story points you to that location is either going to mean a lack of content, super hard enemies, or just a lock-out of that area (like old GTAs).
In Skyrim as soon as you leave the tutorial dungeon you can go anywhere and absolutely nothing prevents it. If you happen to know where the best word walls are with the best shouts, or the best hidden gear, you can head straight there and pick it up. I think Morrowind actually did exploration even better since it has no map markers to point you towards things, you have to rely solely on your eyes, no compass. Oblivion really hampered the exploration not only by making everything pop up on your compass but also the generic way it handled loot and enemy advancement on a very linear slope. Skyrim did a lot to correct these issues but still lacks the freeform exploration in many ways.
In Skyrim as soon as you leave the tutorial dungeon you can go anywhere and absolutely nothing prevents it. If you happen to know where the best word walls are with the best shouts, or the best hidden gear, you can head straight there and pick it up. I think Morrowind actually did exploration even better since it has no map markers to point you towards things, you have to rely solely on your eyes, no compass. Oblivion really hampered the exploration not only by making everything pop up on your compass but also the generic way it handled loot and enemy advancement on a very linear slope. Skyrim did a lot to correct these issues but still lacks the freeform exploration in many ways.
Honestly, I don't think exploration is something Skyrim should be lauded for. IMO, it was pretty average in that regard. Not bad, but not good either.
Skyrim's main problems lie in a few places:
1. Obviously, copy pasted dungeons and areas. Anyone who say's "They weren't copy and pasted". Yes. They were. The world editor has blocks "Dwarven Hallway", "Dwarven Hallway long" [Literally just 2 Dwarven Hallways shoved together], "Dwarven Room Corner". Its all copy pasted. Yes, all games have limited assets. Skyrim, however, took it to a new level. Each Dwarven ruin has a couple of the same gates, a couple of the same pedestals, a couple of the same golden doohickies, and then if its been explored it has one or two bed sheets in it and a book saying "I AM EXPLORING THE DWARVEN RUIN". Very little is unique about most of them. Some are... Until you find the other 50 versions of it scattered around the world.
The overworld, much as its lauded for variety, isn't a ton different. There are different terrains, sure, but overall there isn't a lot of different feel to the terrains. Snow just feels like grassy plains. But its white. Hot springs act the same way hills do, and all mountains, regardless of how green, are the same shit. The only difference is in water, where behaviour changes.
2. Over-reliance on purely environmental storytelling. There is only so much story you can tell through the environment. Additionally, I often find this is better suited to cinematics rather than normal gameplay, as for effect environmental storytelling, you need the right pacing, you need to be subtle, but still show people where they should be looking [No, I'm not going to know I should look at this corner here out of this giant dungeon], and properly frame things. You also don't want people messing about with things before they get a chance to see the story - i.e; a Dragon swoops down and suddenly your story is spread across half of Skyrim because it got blown around with shouts and such.
You also need to effectively tell a GOOD story more than you need to tell it through the environment. Bethesda fails horridly at this. Dialogue is often poor, story is simplistic, and next to nothing is remotely personal. Everything feels plastic.
This then carries over to the environmental storytelling. A lot of the time its missed, because you're given no reason to care. You show up at a house, find a vial of poison to use on your weapon, some food to scoff for health, and a dead guy with some Skeavers to kill for XP [to take an example from earlier in the thread]. To see the story, or even look for it, normally you'd have to be engaged in the location, have some investment in it. Skyrim gives you no reason to invest in anything. There's no level of payoff for figuring out the story - and I don't mean in XP or something. It just feels like nothing. It all means nothing.
Going through the actual quests is hilarious in an awkward way, because its just that poorly written, but at least it means something to you the player. Its the same sort of problem a lot of the side quests in DA:I have. Whilst overall I'd say exploration in DA:I is better, it still runs into the same problem with a lot of its side quests; you find a note saying "Yo bro, I'm a Templar you're a mage, come at me", you get a magic map marker, you go there, and you fight a templar and that's that. Not even a special templar. Just your average one. What reason have I to care? Why do I have to kill this templar? What if I side with Templars instead of Mages?
Some personal hook is needed. In exploration, environmental storytelling needs to be about the world as a whole, tell you what sort of world you're in, not try and outline someone random's personal story. For that you need a nudge to tell you to focus on that. So the environmental storytelling does a great job of telling me I'm in Skyrim, a land of frost, plains, forests, tiny towns, and far too many Dwemer Ruins, however it does little to lend personality to each area [Largely because the story of most areas is "Draugr coming back to life, kill" or "Dwemer disappeared, Falmer taking over"], and needs more direct methods to engage me, but those more direct methods are heavily lacking.
"Make your own story" could be a thing, but the game lacks the depth or fidelity to make that a compelling option.
3. No consequences for anything. No reason to go look over that next hill, as it'll do nothing for you. I'm not talking about getting phat lewt [Well, I kind of am], of getting XP, I'm talking about things happening. Dragon Age Inquisition does this well in some areas, terribly in others. In places like the Hinterlands, your exploration does things. Hunt down the wolf den? Wolves stop attacking you so often when you're exploring. Take out the mage and templar encampments? Mages and Templars stop attacking you so often. Free up a fort somewhere of undead? People move in and take up residence.
Whilst there is a mechanical payoff for some of these things, there isn't for everything. The ability to see the world change, however, is important for good exploration I feel. In Skyrim, you clear out a den of bandits, and as soon as you fast travel a new set of bandits will be there, exact same as the last. Discover a lost shrine to Talos, and no-one will ever visit it. Find some great archaeological discovery, and clear it out of dangers, no-one will look into it, no-one will guard it. Whatever you do, the world is largely static. The exception is one of the semi-main quests, with the civil war. Bringing an end to that will change the uniforms some people wear.
When nothing changes, there's that much less exploring to be done, as everything is the same. You can't come back to that fort you cleared out a week ago, and find guardsmen protecting it, and using it to chase off bandits - with your bandit encounters in that area now having guardsmen fighting them. What you can do is return to that bandit hideout to find the exact same bandits respawned there. This is a big problem with motivation and storytelling for near everything in Skyrim though, TBH.
4. No phat lewt. Very little of it anyway. This instantly degrades exploration to largely a grinding task, as there isn't a ton to really discover by exploring. You can hunt down the Daedra, do their quests and get some phat lewt from them, but beyond that... There was maybe 2 special swords I found in the whole game?
Not every dungeon needs phat lewt. Every dungeon should have something pointing to it though - get some of that environmental storytelling going. Your small side dungeons hint at the location of the main dungeon, the main dungeon contains some legendary sword, or legendary bow, or axe, or shield. Preferably with some story though - its the downside I found to many of the Daedric artefacts in the game; they're story was "Made by Daedra". Well. The other two, I don't remember a lot of info on them. Dragon Age does this well with its unique items. There are PLENTY of them, and each of them has its own story - in origins, its stapled in the codex. In Inquisition, its in the weapon description. Would be interesting if you had to visit a historian to get that info, but being gamey in this sense isn't bad, its more convenient truth be told.
That loot adds its own story to the game, can be used for more effective environmental storytelling, and is something that makes exploring worth it. The surprising lack of it in Skyrim was a bit disappointing.
5. No other way to approach a situation but fighting. Why would I ever want to explore, when all I'll find is another thing for me to mash left click at. Combat was terribad in Skyrim, yet its the only thing exploring would get you. Ok, there were some Dragon Claw "Puzzles" that lead you to some of the fighting, but that was about it. The same is largely true of Dragon Age Inquisition, though at least when it had puzzles they were more interesting. If exploring gave you a chance at diplomacy, a sneaky way into some place [Exploring finds you an unlocked back gate to the palace, which you normally aren't allowed into], a way to use the environment to get rid of your enemies [Drop some rocks on them rather than fight them, as an example]. I think there may have been 1 or 2 cases in Skyrim where this was the case, but there needed to be more. Something interesting to come across. Something worth finding.
Overall, exploration in Skyrim was pretty meh for me. Very little reason to do it, what you were exploring was bland and uninteresting, and eventually cheapened to non-existence thanks to fast travel. Skyrim isn't exploration done well. Its a certain style of world - fully open - which many don't do because Open World games come with some inherent flaws, are a lot of work to make, and if you're trying to tell a story you probably don't want your player wandering off for 120 hours, coming back, everything about the story forgotten, and then continuing through it. Its difficult to do, requires you to focus very little on a main story, or at the very least give a reason why the main story can be put on hold for 6 months, and has problems that are very hard to overcome. Its not for every game, and I'd say its not even really for most, which is why you don't see it too often. Some games it suits, and some games will do it, but being open world isn't a mark of being good, and thankfully a lot of developers seem to understand this [Though that number also looks ready to steadily decrease], it all depends on the sort of game you want to make.
Skyrim's main problems lie in a few places:
1. Obviously, copy pasted dungeons and areas. Anyone who say's "They weren't copy and pasted". Yes. They were. The world editor has blocks "Dwarven Hallway", "Dwarven Hallway long" [Literally just 2 Dwarven Hallways shoved together], "Dwarven Room Corner". Its all copy pasted. Yes, all games have limited assets. Skyrim, however, took it to a new level. Each Dwarven ruin has a couple of the same gates, a couple of the same pedestals, a couple of the same golden doohickies, and then if its been explored it has one or two bed sheets in it and a book saying "I AM EXPLORING THE DWARVEN RUIN". Very little is unique about most of them. Some are... Until you find the other 50 versions of it scattered around the world.
The overworld, much as its lauded for variety, isn't a ton different. There are different terrains, sure, but overall there isn't a lot of different feel to the terrains. Snow just feels like grassy plains. But its white. Hot springs act the same way hills do, and all mountains, regardless of how green, are the same shit. The only difference is in water, where behaviour changes.
2. Over-reliance on purely environmental storytelling. There is only so much story you can tell through the environment. Additionally, I often find this is better suited to cinematics rather than normal gameplay, as for effect environmental storytelling, you need the right pacing, you need to be subtle, but still show people where they should be looking [No, I'm not going to know I should look at this corner here out of this giant dungeon], and properly frame things. You also don't want people messing about with things before they get a chance to see the story - i.e; a Dragon swoops down and suddenly your story is spread across half of Skyrim because it got blown around with shouts and such.
You also need to effectively tell a GOOD story more than you need to tell it through the environment. Bethesda fails horridly at this. Dialogue is often poor, story is simplistic, and next to nothing is remotely personal. Everything feels plastic.
This then carries over to the environmental storytelling. A lot of the time its missed, because you're given no reason to care. You show up at a house, find a vial of poison to use on your weapon, some food to scoff for health, and a dead guy with some Skeavers to kill for XP [to take an example from earlier in the thread]. To see the story, or even look for it, normally you'd have to be engaged in the location, have some investment in it. Skyrim gives you no reason to invest in anything. There's no level of payoff for figuring out the story - and I don't mean in XP or something. It just feels like nothing. It all means nothing.
Going through the actual quests is hilarious in an awkward way, because its just that poorly written, but at least it means something to you the player. Its the same sort of problem a lot of the side quests in DA:I have. Whilst overall I'd say exploration in DA:I is better, it still runs into the same problem with a lot of its side quests; you find a note saying "Yo bro, I'm a Templar you're a mage, come at me", you get a magic map marker, you go there, and you fight a templar and that's that. Not even a special templar. Just your average one. What reason have I to care? Why do I have to kill this templar? What if I side with Templars instead of Mages?
Some personal hook is needed. In exploration, environmental storytelling needs to be about the world as a whole, tell you what sort of world you're in, not try and outline someone random's personal story. For that you need a nudge to tell you to focus on that. So the environmental storytelling does a great job of telling me I'm in Skyrim, a land of frost, plains, forests, tiny towns, and far too many Dwemer Ruins, however it does little to lend personality to each area [Largely because the story of most areas is "Draugr coming back to life, kill" or "Dwemer disappeared, Falmer taking over"], and needs more direct methods to engage me, but those more direct methods are heavily lacking.
"Make your own story" could be a thing, but the game lacks the depth or fidelity to make that a compelling option.
3. No consequences for anything. No reason to go look over that next hill, as it'll do nothing for you. I'm not talking about getting phat lewt [Well, I kind of am], of getting XP, I'm talking about things happening. Dragon Age Inquisition does this well in some areas, terribly in others. In places like the Hinterlands, your exploration does things. Hunt down the wolf den? Wolves stop attacking you so often when you're exploring. Take out the mage and templar encampments? Mages and Templars stop attacking you so often. Free up a fort somewhere of undead? People move in and take up residence.
Whilst there is a mechanical payoff for some of these things, there isn't for everything. The ability to see the world change, however, is important for good exploration I feel. In Skyrim, you clear out a den of bandits, and as soon as you fast travel a new set of bandits will be there, exact same as the last. Discover a lost shrine to Talos, and no-one will ever visit it. Find some great archaeological discovery, and clear it out of dangers, no-one will look into it, no-one will guard it. Whatever you do, the world is largely static. The exception is one of the semi-main quests, with the civil war. Bringing an end to that will change the uniforms some people wear.
When nothing changes, there's that much less exploring to be done, as everything is the same. You can't come back to that fort you cleared out a week ago, and find guardsmen protecting it, and using it to chase off bandits - with your bandit encounters in that area now having guardsmen fighting them. What you can do is return to that bandit hideout to find the exact same bandits respawned there. This is a big problem with motivation and storytelling for near everything in Skyrim though, TBH.
4. No phat lewt. Very little of it anyway. This instantly degrades exploration to largely a grinding task, as there isn't a ton to really discover by exploring. You can hunt down the Daedra, do their quests and get some phat lewt from them, but beyond that... There was maybe 2 special swords I found in the whole game?
Not every dungeon needs phat lewt. Every dungeon should have something pointing to it though - get some of that environmental storytelling going. Your small side dungeons hint at the location of the main dungeon, the main dungeon contains some legendary sword, or legendary bow, or axe, or shield. Preferably with some story though - its the downside I found to many of the Daedric artefacts in the game; they're story was "Made by Daedra". Well. The other two, I don't remember a lot of info on them. Dragon Age does this well with its unique items. There are PLENTY of them, and each of them has its own story - in origins, its stapled in the codex. In Inquisition, its in the weapon description. Would be interesting if you had to visit a historian to get that info, but being gamey in this sense isn't bad, its more convenient truth be told.
That loot adds its own story to the game, can be used for more effective environmental storytelling, and is something that makes exploring worth it. The surprising lack of it in Skyrim was a bit disappointing.
5. No other way to approach a situation but fighting. Why would I ever want to explore, when all I'll find is another thing for me to mash left click at. Combat was terribad in Skyrim, yet its the only thing exploring would get you. Ok, there were some Dragon Claw "Puzzles" that lead you to some of the fighting, but that was about it. The same is largely true of Dragon Age Inquisition, though at least when it had puzzles they were more interesting. If exploring gave you a chance at diplomacy, a sneaky way into some place [Exploring finds you an unlocked back gate to the palace, which you normally aren't allowed into], a way to use the environment to get rid of your enemies [Drop some rocks on them rather than fight them, as an example]. I think there may have been 1 or 2 cases in Skyrim where this was the case, but there needed to be more. Something interesting to come across. Something worth finding.
Overall, exploration in Skyrim was pretty meh for me. Very little reason to do it, what you were exploring was bland and uninteresting, and eventually cheapened to non-existence thanks to fast travel. Skyrim isn't exploration done well. Its a certain style of world - fully open - which many don't do because Open World games come with some inherent flaws, are a lot of work to make, and if you're trying to tell a story you probably don't want your player wandering off for 120 hours, coming back, everything about the story forgotten, and then continuing through it. Its difficult to do, requires you to focus very little on a main story, or at the very least give a reason why the main story can be put on hold for 6 months, and has problems that are very hard to overcome. Its not for every game, and I'd say its not even really for most, which is why you don't see it too often. Some games it suits, and some games will do it, but being open world isn't a mark of being good, and thankfully a lot of developers seem to understand this [Though that number also looks ready to steadily decrease], it all depends on the sort of game you want to make.