Support NeoGAF

[Gaiff]

The chief culprit to me is Assassin's Creed. Not only are their maps utterly uninteresting (lacking landmarks and ways to guide the players without opening the map), but the icons make it so I will avoid 90% of the map because I know what's already there. Oh, a lion's den? Don't need it. A fort? Nah, pass. So once you know where everything is, you just speed to wherever you need to go all the while ignoring the rest which makes that sprawling open world completely pointless.

Now, I understand the design flaw lies in Ubisoft's map/world design more than anything else. Removing the markers and keeping everything the same wouldn't suddenly make things interesting. You simply wouldn't know how to avoid the useless stuff.

However, I recently started playing Fenyx Rising and it's surprisingly fun which I didn't think was possible for a Ubisoft open-world anymore. I spent most of the game so far without map markers except for after I have discovered them. Unlike AC, this game actually has landmarks and other elements in the terrain that help locating where you are without relying on the map. The side activities are also much more fun and interesting. Eventually, I got to a point where I had to climb a statue that revealed the map and I could zoom in to "reveal" points of interest such as treasures and upgrades. Needless to say, I didn't bother using that. I figured I rather randomly stumble across stuff I'm not expecting rather than knowing what is where and simply heading where I need to go. It keeps the sense of wonder and discovery. Otherwise, I feel that having everything marked turns the exploration into a boring checklist.

This is reminiscent of Morrowind which lacked a large map and to get around, you had to rely on signposts and directions from NPCs and landmarks. Finding something because you were told it was located west of the great forest right next the haunted valley to me was better than just opening your map and stamping it before mindlessly following a waypoint afterwards.

What are your thoughts Gaf? Nay or yay for map markers/icons and all that jazz?

 

[ReBurn]

Depends. Exploration is great, but if the world is too big or if the items are required for game progression then hunting becomes a slog. I think more games should give you the option of turning the map markers off so the player can control the experience.

 

[Aesius]

Map markers for important stuff, but leave plenty of unmarked stuff on the map, too. Same with quests. Not every "quest" needs to be video gamey with a journal entry and steps to complete. Some can be as simple as stumbling across a cave and seeing some set pieces (dead bodies, weird monsters, traps, strange objects inside) along with maybe a note or log or something to add detail and context. Video game worlds feel more "alive" when not everything is spelled out for the player and is instead left for them to discover and interpret/contextualize on their own.

 

[Kurotri]

I think it depends on how the game is designed. For example, I'm not sure if I would like that in BOTW/TOTK because the entire point is letting go and get completely lost in the world. But more standart open world design needs something because it can get tiring if your world isn't up to par. I think the way Assassin's Creed Odyssey did it was quite nice. It told you in what general area your objective is at, and what characteristics to look out for when searching.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Depends. Exploration is great, but if the world is too big or if the items are required for game progression then hunting becomes a slog. I think more games should give you the option of turning the map markers off so the player can control the experience.

This is probably the best way. Some granularity to it wouldn't hurt either, leave the markers for the active quest on but turn other markers off, etc.

Games are so big today that I think devs fear a scenario where players just give up after being lost in the woods for an hour.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Ubisoft goes way overboard with those, making everything so cluttered.
Immortals is a nice game, nut the thing where you climb a statue and in a minute you can add like 30 markers on the map thanks to some magic vision that goes through walls and hills is silly and just goes to reinforce the concept that Ubi overdoes markers.

I like having and using a map because, well, I like maps.
Exploration relies a lot on how the game is displayed, of course. Birdview is very different from third or first person. Those first person games with big worlds and no markers or maps at all pike they used to make them on PC in the old days, those give me anxiety just watching someone else playing.
I can enjoy Zelda even if I haven’t unlocked the maps because of how the game’s world is designed, but having a map makes me enjoy exploration even more. Zooming in to find places of interest is something I enjoy very much. Also in this game you can put your own markers on the map.

Ubi’s way of using markers and icons makes exploration feel like a checklist. Doesn’t help that trying to make things look realistic is the reason you need that much guidance. If everything looks the same and there’s no clue or visual cue to guide you towards stuff, markers are necessary to just play the game as intended.

 

[Fbh]

Absolutely, but it's only one factor.

Most open world games I've liked also have a degree of freedom and non linear progression.
Instead of "You need to do A, then B then C" it's "You need to do A,B and C but you can do so in whichever order you want and you'll likely run across interesting stuff along the way "

I also think traversal is somewhat important. IMO Assassin's Creed games really hurt their exploration by giving you automatic climbing with infinite stamina.

 

[64bitmodels]

it does, but just leaving the player off with nothing but a map and a compass would be terrible since most games designed around map markers tend to have extremely obscure places where the item is placed.

Elden Ring's way of just making you go to places through visual markers instead of icons is the way to go, IMO

 

[genesisblock]

It's their undoing by their own making. By building a very large open and empty world, they put themselves up for a task that they cannot accomplish. So the only resolution is to fill it with constant unnecessary fluff just so it won't be empty.

Funny thing is they did this with Unity, even though the world just invites you to explore because of how detailed it is. Could've been the Zelda BOTW/TOTK/Elden Ring of the series. Nope. They're still trying to fill it with mundane busy work. Such a shame, the investigations, riddles and missions are the best of the game and they had to dump this nonsense on top.

 

[ReBurn]

This is probably the best way. Some granularity to it wouldn't hurt either, leave the markers for the active quest on but turn other markers off, etc.

Games are so big today that I think devs fear a scenario where players just give up after being lost in the woods for an hour.

Having to stumble around looking for stuff would make me drop a game after a few hours, or not buy it at all if I see someone else struggling with it in their playthrough. Just give players options and let them balance it out for themselves.

 

[Ansphn]

Absolutely. Elden Ring did it the best. Tell us as little as possible. Let us experience the world.

 

[BbMajor7th]

Nah, most games use some form of map marker - even the most hands-off games. I think what kills exploration is going to every map marker and finding the same copy-pasted bandit camp, collectible or side activity you found on the other side of the map. Map markers just need to reward your curiousity.

 

[ProgenitorCastle]

I think this OP describes my problem with most open world games...that's why I tune out of them. I vastly prefer games with level design in them...to me, most open world games feel distinctly "un-game-y" with the sense that the game worlds are trying to be as realistic as possible...if I want to explore a realistic world, I'll take a walk...give me creative shit that doesn't exist in reality please thanks

 

[Thief1987]

It's their undoing by their own making. By building a very large open and empty world, they put themselves up for a task that they cannot accomplish. So the only resolution is to fill it with constant unnecessary fluff just so it won't be empty.

This paragraph perfectly describes elden ring lol

Absolutely. Elden Ring did it the best. Tell us as little as possible. Let us experience the world.

Like I said in the other thread I would prefer if it had markers. I wasted too much time on a garbage copypasta "content" in this game. At least with markers I know what kind of activities worth my time and what don't.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

I'm not a fan of collectable being marked on the map. Half the fun was finding them.

 

[Games of Today]

You're way of thinking is interesting. I'm very simiar but I've ever had a problem with actual POI icons on the physical map that I look at.

My problem is in game world markers and excessive exploration HUD that clutters my screen. After Far Cry 2, Ubisoft became notorious for doing this. It also pisses me off when you are basically forced to play with the mini map turned on in order to find your next mission or NPC mission giver. Far Cry 6 and Red Dead 2 both have this horrible design and it ruins the otherwise pretty worlds in those games.

When I heard Ghost of Tsushima was going to use a guiding wind to help players find the next objective I was really excited. Unfortunately, even though it's a wonderful feature, especially for main missions you have to open up the map, select the next main mission/side mission and then the wind will guide you. I wish that the wind was primarily locked by the game or manually by the player to the main missions until the completion of the campaign and when you completed one it would just guide you to the next one. But all in all it's still better than pretty much every open world game's design out there.

Horizon is decent too because you can just have the compass turned on and it doesn't really clutter the screen plus it's also dynamic so you can pop it on and off at will.

 

[FoxMcChief]

I certainly hate it in FF16. I really wish the markers could be toggled.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

I think completely uninteresting maps with little motivation or reward for exploration kills exploration.

 

[Games of Today]

Absolutely, but it's only one factor.

Most open world games I've liked also have a degree of freedom and non linear progression.
Instead of "You need to do A, then B then C" it's "You need to do A,B and C but you can do so in whichever order you want and you'll likely run across interesting stuff along the way "

I also think traversal is somewhat important. IMO Assassin's Creed games really hurt their exploration by giving you automatic climbing with infinite stamina.

A stamina bar like Zelda or some kind of more in depth climbing mechanics especially when climbing massive cliff faces in Origins and Odyssey would have made the game awesome. I wish they would do something like that with Uncharted as well, actually add some depth to the climbing instead of it being automatic.

 

[nkarafo]

I think Metroid/SOTN had the best kind of maps. Show the general area you are/need to go but without too much detail like the exact spot of an item.

 

[mortal]

Maybe not outright kill, but I believe they disincentivize exploration because you're making a beeline to a determined destination.

 

[RoboFu]

Oh yeah map markers just show bad design. I’d much rather have a smaller world with unique areas that could support no marker gameplay. Where you get clues from the people and items in the world.

 

[Pelta88]

Depends on the publisher/studio.

Ubisoft for instance likes to saturate their open world maps until the map itself is engulfed. Guerilla's HZD had a lof of content but implemented their markers in a way that kept exploration and traversal to markers vibrant.

 

[diffusionx]

I don't think the issue with AC (and other similar open world games) is the map markers, it's how repetitive and unrewarding the exploration is. Once you go in one fort you've gone in all of them. The nu-AC games were especially bad with this.

 

[Spaceman292]

Partly. If there's a single marker 400 miles away with no indication of how you're meant to get there, that's good. If there's a new marker every few feet, then that's a problem.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I’m fine with it being an option,

I usually don’t have a lot of time to play, so I don’t mind the icons popping up telling me where to go.

I also don’t mind exploring, and having the option of putting my own icons down to mark discoveries.

 

[tmlDan]

I think you need to get the perfect balance, I like the GoT approach where the marker is not on the actual game map but you use the environment (wind) to get there.

I like when it's not super obvious but also get frustrated when idk where to go or if my exploration leads to absolutely nothing of value like I felt in ER sometimes. I think main quests should be marked and side quests/exploration don't really have to if they use good visual descriptors in the dialogue/journals.

It's really difficult to appease both perspectives

 

[Gandih42]

I think you hit the nail on the head in saying that true root of the problem is in the actual open world design. The overabundance of map markers are essentially just a way to mitigate an open world map that is too big and not all that interesting to explore. In AC Odyssey (the last one I played) I can imagine the game being worse off without the markers, since you'd instead keep stumbling into repetitive content you're not interested in, instead of actual interesting content (I really liked AC Odyseey though, just a critism I have for it).

I'm definitely on your side in that I would much prefer less map markers, but even more so than that, a map/open world that does not need map markers to be fun and exciting to explore. And sure, make an option for map markers for those that don't want to spend time getting lost (for me thats part of the thrill). But don't design a map that is only playable with a bunch of icons plastered all over it.

Honestly, I think one of my favorite things about Elden Ring is the map itself. Trying to discover locations based on an artistic representation of the gameworld is so cool and fun. Zelda does it amazingly too, in a totally different style.

 

[Mephisto40]

Every game I can think of that has map markers, would be infuriating to play if it didn't have them

That being said, I do like how Dead Space does it, with the line to tell you where to go, I think I prefer that to markers

 

[Humdinger]

The chief culprit to me is Assassin's Creed. Not only are their maps utterly uninteresting (lacking landmarks and ways to guide the players without opening the map), but the icons make it so I will avoid 90% of the map because I know what's already there. Oh, a lion's den? Don't need it. A fort? Nah, pass. So once you know where everything is, you just speed to wherever you need to go all the while ignoring the rest which makes that sprawling open world completely pointless.

Now, I understand the design flaw lies in Ubisoft's map/world design more than anything else. Removing the markers and keeping everything the same wouldn't suddenly make things interesting. You simply wouldn't know how to avoid the useless stuff.

However, I recently started playing Fenyx Rising and it's surprisingly fun which I didn't think was possible for a Ubisoft open-world anymore. I spent most of the game so far without map markers except for after I have discovered them. Unlike AC, this game actually has landmarks and other elements in the terrain that help locating where you are without relying on the map. The side activities are also much more fun and interesting. Eventually, I got to a point where I had to climb a statue that revealed the map and I could zoom in to "reveal" points of interest such as treasures and upgrades. Needless to say, I didn't bother using that. I figured I rather randomly stumble across stuff I'm not expecting rather than knowing what is where and simply heading where I need to go. It keeps the sense of wonder and discovery. Otherwise, I feel that having everything marked turns the exploration into a boring checklist.

This is reminiscent of Morrowind which lacked a large map and to get around, you had to rely on signposts and directions from NPCs and landmarks. Finding something because you were told it was located west of the great forest right next the haunted valley to me was better than just opening your map and stamping it before mindlessly following a waypoint afterwards.

What are your thoughts Gaf? Nay or yay for map markers/icons and all that jazz?

You make a good point about icons crowding a Ubisoft game. They make exploration dull, because you already know what awaits you.

I enjoyed Morrowind, and I was disappointed when they dumbed down exploration in Oblivion. I didn't like my nose being pointed to where I needed to go. However, I understand why they did it. Morrowind had a wonderful sense of exploration, but I spent a lot of time lost, frustrated, wondering where I was supposed to go. I would need to consult a guidebook to help me out.

It's a tradeoff. Level of accessibility vs. genuine feeling of exploration. I have been spoiled by modern games. If I had to deal with a game structured like Morrowind now, I would opt out. I don't have the time to wander around for hours, looking for a landmark or whatever. I know that's more realistic and immersive, but I need things to keep moving.

There has been some compromise, where developers create games that can be played with map markers on or off. The difficulty there is, the game is designed for the lowest common denominator -- in other words, it's designed with map markers in mind. When you turn them off, you don't necessarily have the environmental cues or journal hints that other games like Morrowind would have, which were built from the ground up without all those map markers. So it doesn't quite get us there.

I enjoyed Fenyx Rising, too. I understand Elden Ring did a good job of recapturing the sense of open-world exploration. I haven't played that one, though.

 

[Secret_Lover]

For me its just about striking a balance where I am neither bombarded by quest markers nor totally directionless.

There were a couple questlines in Elden Ring that I absolutely refuse to believe people completed organically without consulting some kind of guide. Having no quest log of any kind didn´t help matters.

 

[Fbh]

A stamina bar like Zelda or some kind of more in depth climbing mechanics especially when climbing massive cliff faces in Origins and Odyssey would have made the game awesome. I wish they would do something like that with Uncharted as well, actually add some depth to the climbing instead of it being automatic.

Yup.
Something like stamina, or some skill based climbing would be more fun.

In Zelda it felt rewarding reaching some high location because it took getting creative and planning on how to get there. Or in Elden Ring you sometimes see places which are too high and then when you finally get to them through some dungeon or passage you found by exploring it felt rewarding.

But in AC it always feels like you can get anywhere with zero effort.

 

[Laieon]

Depends on the person. I personally prefer carrots on a stick over no carrots.

A stamina bar like Zelda or some kind of more in depth climbing mechanics especially when climbing massive cliff faces in Origins and Odyssey would have made the game awesome.

And I also feel the exact opposite from this guy, I find stamina bars more annoying than I do "fun".

 

[Games of Today]

Depends on the person. I personally prefer carrots on a stick over no carrots.



And I also feel the exact opposite from this guy, I find stamina bars more annoying than I do "fun".

I'd be happy with alternative too. Something that just adds depth instead of just pointing the walk button or stick upward. U4 made things a little more interesting with the grappling hook and piton but they could definitely make it even more interesting some how.

 

[Wildebeest]

A lot of people want exploration to be killed, so they get their way. One problem is that games give people 1000 unique locations to find and if they don't also give them a way to optimise discovery like crazy the completionist player is going to lose their temper or maybe even start to feel stressed or have crippling panic attacks. I think it is fair to say that enabling completionist players is a big focus for many single player game designers, and they are used to getting their way.

 

[supernova8]

Someone else already mentioned it but I really enjoyed BOTW's approach of just being like "hey look there's something over there in the distance..... wanna go check it out?" It's the number one reason I still haven't come anywhere close to completing BOTW and yet I've been playing it on and off for what feels like 2 years now.

Other part is how the climbing in BOTW makes the journey itself enjoyable. The feeling of accomplishment when you just barely manage to scale a rock face, making that last jump as your stamina turns red. With experiences like that, finding something at the top of that mountain is almost more of a bonus than the actual objective and so you never feel like you wasted your time.

 

[Variahunter]

No.
It needs a well designed map with very recognizable locations just by looking at it.
Zelda does it well. It doesn’t need anything. Elden Ring does it too.

Outside of teleporting points which are obligatory to… well teleport to that specific place, nothing in Zelda and ER is needed.
Most caves entrance are drawn directly and integrated to the map so no icons are needed.

 

[Greirat]

A lot of games tell you exactly what you're going to find long before you get there. That really makes the exploration uninteresting. It's like seeing spoilers for a movie, but for every step of the game. I much prefer games that let you organically find things and be pleasantly surprised. I think Jonathan Blow called it "the joy of discovery".

 

[EverydayBeast]

I consider immortals a top 10 open world game, unique bosses, plus story is a service to historic Greek mythology in ancient Greece. Having maps cluttered can be a problem, I get that.

 

[lughnasadh123]

No, especially when you can often adjust icons as you want.

I also like my world to look more like an actual world, and not something that's akin to a theme park caricature of a map with yard games methodically placed in a backyard. Immortals is an example of a gamey ass game world (and that's ok) that's also a terrible actual world. I'd much rather have a layout like that of RDR2 or Witcher 3. Something more believable that could actually exist.

 

[Paasei]

No. A mix of both is fine. An icon to tell you there’s a hub somewhere for quests or just a city in an open world is alright.

The hint system AC implemented is a fun middle ground if it weren’t for the map markers.
Like “this dude patrols north east of village and has this hairstyle/gender/whatever.

Great idea if they then wouldn’t just throw that out of the window when I can just zoom out with the bird and it still shows me exactly who I need if I’m close enough.

 

[mitch1971]

Immersion, maybe, not exploration.

 

[Fredrik]

If you only get a dot on the map that guides you to an area you could explore further and you get no hints what you might find - Then it’s fine.

However, I absolutely prefer no markers.
But then the game must be built with that in mind, like Elden Ring which have tiny little things that gets you interested to move in for a closer look.
In something like Hogwarts Legacy it’s nearly impossible to play if you remove all guides. Even just finding a class room can take like an hours since the map isn’t built around that.

 

[GymWolf]

I take general markers where you still have some exploration to do on your own over no icons but shitty rewards for exploration that make the whole thing worthless.

 

[Chronicle]

It's a decent argument but I'm the opposite. I appreciate the markers. I like exploring but sometimes i just want to get on with a mission. Its kinda like waiting in line. No one really likes to do it. We just want to get on with our day. I think you can turn most of them off but they may appear as a single icon if on a mission. I've never turned off a marker so I'm not sure.

 

[HL3.exe]

Yes, always turn it off when possible (if still playable)

I want to look at the world and figure things out myself as much as possible.

Edit: my enjoyment of Cyberpunk 2077 expedientially increased when I used the limited HUD mod and only shown markers when using the scanner interface. It way more immersive and it invited more exploration and looking for different routes.

 

[ahtlas7]

I don‘t mind compass markers but I despise idiot markers zooming around the play-screen. Markers on a map should be handled with more care.

 

[kiphalfton]

Unfortunately most modern games where you can turn off markers, are so built around having markers to try and find stuff that without them it's way more difficult than it needs to be (namely because there's no real clues given during dialog or in notes to sus out where to go). So at that point you're essentially wondering around with absolutely no direction whatsoever.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

I don't mind map icons/markers as long as only the main-quest and few areas of interest are displayed. What I do hate is when a cool mysterious side-quest is activated that asks me to search for clues or a hidden valuable, yet the location of the clue/valuable is explicitly stated on the map. It takes away the whole point of exploring.

 

[Griffon]

That's why Soulslike are so good. Memorable environments and no minimap.