Exploration... in its widest sense.

[Utforska]

Exploration, to me that's one of the most compelling possibilities of games/notgames.

When I think of it, I realize that this is often the thing that attracts me most about computer games. I mean, almost all computer games have some kind of exploration in them. But there's always that pesky gameplay in-between. Mostly things to kill and avoid being killed by. That's not my cup of tea. I would enjoy just jumping into an interesting world, and explore it as I desire. I do realize however that unless there's a lot to explore, or the world is well designed enough to be interesting even when explored slowly, the interest might wear off. So there's a problem of content - it takes time to create, it takes skill to make it interesting.

But there are also other ways to explore. It doesn't have to be about navigating a landscape. Vanitas, for instance, is built on a type of exploration - exploring objects. Exploration could also be to explore a mechanic, similar to mastering a game mechanic but with out an explicit goal in mind. And what about creativity? Music for instance. When a musician say they're jamming, they're infact exploring music. Exploring what can be done with music, considering how they're affected by it, trying out new combinations, etc. Essentially, the building blocks are twelve notes, time, and a choice of timbres. And with that, you can entertain yourself for hours, days, years... same thing could be said of painting, writing, etc...

Could we achieve that feeling in a notgame? Give the notgamer some fundamental building blocks and mechanics to explore and combine in different ways, encourage creativity and curiosity, and see the creativity as a reward in itself.

[Michaël Samyn]

I like to think of our games as exploration of certain themes and topics. Or better: tools that allow the player to explore these. It's interesting that the making of these tools also involves exploration of those themes and topics. So it feels like the player's activity is a continuation of the maker's activity. I like the idea of our work never being finished.

[alistair aitcheson]

I always found that the literal take on "exploration" was a little dissatisfying. That is, exploring an existing landscape and looking for different objects or items seemed a little dull, and it was always the "pesky gameplay in-between" that I wanted to do. I think the main problem was that prodding around someone's pre-designed level until you found something was a fairly unstimulating experience. You knew a designer had hidden your target somewhere and you just had to prod around until you found it. The "gameplay" sections tended to be more interesting, because you were forced to actively do something, and to think.

I always enjoyed the exploration present in Ikaruga, where you can explore different approaches to the levels in an attempt to increase your score. Or in Kongai, where you can explore different character combinations and strategies and see what works.

I understand these games aren't very closely linked to the philosophy of notgames, but I think there's something of real value there. I found the nonliteral sense of exploration much more interesting than the literal. Perhaps because what I was exploring hadn't already been determined by a designer, and I wasn't just following a set path. Or maybe it was because my exploration had a more unpredictable outcome. One that changed the play experience rather than just advanced it to the next step.

Food for thought perhaps.

I like what you say about music and painting, Utforska, and very much agree.

[Michaël Samyn]

I don't think it's fair to compare traditional gameplay activities with freeform exploration in modern videogames. Games have been around for centuries. So there's plenty for a designer to fall back on. It's much easier to design a satisfying game that way. If you leave that behind and start working with the new potential created by computer technology, you're pretty much on your own. It will take a while until we figure out how to deal with these new forms of interaction.

Both as designers and as audience!
Because I think "exploration" requires an entirely different mindset in the player. Videogames have perfected the art or spoon-feeding amusement to the player. So much so that playing has become a very uncreative, almost passive, activity in videogames (which sound like the polar opposite of actual playing to me). Explorative play requires a lot more active engagement of the player.

That being said, I do think that there's a lot that designers can do in explorative games, other than the hiding of content that you mention, Alistair. I think the first thing a designer needs to do is let go of the idea that there is a goal in his game. I think the linearity implied by finding something that was hidden is actually detrimental for real exploration. We should aim to build worlds that generate their own surprises. This is not necessarily a difficult scientific problem. It could be seen as an artistic one. I think we can learn a lot from the Surrealists in this respect, for instance.

[alistair aitcheson]

I understand what you're saying, Michaël. But I do think the concept of exploring concepts rather than simulated locations holds a lot of value. Much like following Wikipedia threads from one to the next, depending on what piques your interest. I find that kind of exploration to be thoroughly interesting.

I would disagree that standard videogames spoon-feed players, at least not in all cases. Often, there is an amount of spoon-feeding necessary to get people going, as there is in almost any activity, like riding a bike. But I wouldn't call it passive at all. Developing strategies in any competitive game, for example, is a very active experience that requires creativity and active testing and analysis, all of which is very stimulating. I'm talking about games with defined goals in this instance, but the fact that I worked out my approach on my own and made it work was stimulating and enjoyable, and I knew my strategy was my own. This could equally be applied to any game without strict goals. In fact, I'm sure that people who've pioneered machinima in particular games, or made something they thought was awesome in a physics engine have felt the same satisfaction.

Perhaps more food for thought, I had a very fun exploration activity in real life. A friend and I from university set ourselves the challenge to walk from Coventry to Leamington Spa in a day, without directions. We roughly knew which direction Leamington was in, but that was it, and the rest was up to us. And it was really exciting trying to find our way there and guess where we were. In a sense, Warwickshire was the game world, and we set ourselves our own goal, to see what we hadn't seen before and do what had never been done (at least by another student).

Maybe there's something to be said for that experience.

[axcho]

But I do think the concept of exploring concepts rather than simulated locations holds a lot of value.

Yes! Exploring music, exploring combinations of cards in a CCG (virtual or otherwise), exploring the possibility space of fractals - it doesn't have to be spatial. It doesn't have to be about uncovering hidden objects. Thank you for reminding us, Utforska.