Map screen Vs. Realistic travel

[Babar]

I was wondering which way to make my game. I thought I might put the question to the people here. Which is better in your opinion? Map screens where the player can go to a larger number of rooms from clicking on an overview map (used in games such as Monkey Island, Sam 'n Max and QfG3), or games where the player has to travel through a series of linked rooms to go from one room to another (Kings Quest 1,2,4,5, DotT, SQ1,2,4 etc.)
The way I see it:
Map screens:
Easier to go from one place to another
Gives you a better sense of direction
Easier to know when a new place has opened up
No unecessary "linking" screens where nothing is done

Other:
More realistic-
That is how it normally is
Feel more involved with the world (maybe part of 1st point)
No feeling that every screen has some problem and solution (resulting in a click-fest if the player gets stuck)
Gives a sense of exploration

Comments? Your ideas?

[Quintaros]

I'm trying to have it both ways in my own game.Ã,  There is a map available but it only allows you to use it if you've already previously walked to the screen you're selecting from the map.

I figure this way the player can choose what they want.Ã,  If they're looking for a realistic immersion into the game environment than all the rooms are connected for exploration but if they just want to get from point A to point B they can use the map screen and bypass many inbetween screens.Ã,  My one concern would be that players would become so used to skipping over certainÃ,  screens that they'd miss important parts of the game that occurred there later.

[MillsJROSS]

I prefer maps, they make travel faster, and don't take me out of the game too much. Now you don't have to map every room just a main room that may branch out to other rooms.

Also, a nice convention, is the double click, where upon double clicking at an exit you are immediatly rewarded by entering the next screen. It's just a measure that speeds things up.

People play this games to get away from the hum-drum of life, and having to go through every room is monotonous. This is mainly an issue, for when you get legitimate ideas for a solution of a puzzle, take five minutes to walk there, only to find out the creatory weren't thinking in that light.

But if you feel it will ruin your mood, or you have a short game, do what you want.

-MillsJROSS

[Darth Mandarb]

I, too, like a mixture of both.

Let's say I'm exploring a house, I don't want a map screen where I select rooms in the house, I'll just walk from room to room.Ã,  However, if I leave the house and get in the car, a map screen showing me different desitinations (to drive) is just the ticket.

The game full throttle was like that (if I remember correctly) and it worked great.

[simulacra]

I am using a combination of both in my game. The Zone is based upon exploration of a vast area known as sector 53. When going far, the player traverses the space using a map. When reaching a point of interest, the game gets very realistic and allows you to visualise step by step for as long as something interesting is happening. In filmmaking there is a term known as a longeure, which basicly means a moment in the film where the dramatic progression is too slow. I'd say that travelling across screen after screen would be such an occasion, unless there is a need for that kind of immersion in the story arc.

[Blade]

I use both too. In my game player travels through Los Angeles. A vast area. I think it's the best strategy if the game is set in a large surrounding.
Now take something that was maybe a little different but I still think it makes an example of what I'm thinking about - In Indiana Jones you were looking at map of the world and lines going to the destination. It would be boring to make Indy go through the whole world, don't you think?

[Trumgottist]

It depends on the game. My current game is mostly about a journey, so I don't have map screens. All locations connect logically to each other, and it's also fairly linear so the places in act 1 are not available in act 2. If all (most likely around thirty when it's done) locations were available at any time, I'd be a fool not to use a map of some kind or I'd bore my players to death (even with the double click on exits to skip walk animation system I use).

DOTT (an excellent example of good design) has no map beacuse the geography is compact enough for it not to need one. As has been mentioned, Indy needs a map beacuse of the distances. The only way to avoid it would be to make a very linear game.

Adding locations as filler space is likely to be a bad idea. Even with something as good-looking as the Syberia games there were many complaints about the unused screens. (Also note that the Syberia story, being about a journey as it is, also is linear. Imagine having to run back and forth between all locations there!) What you gain in immersion is quickly lost when the game control becomes tedious.

So the decision to have a map or not should not be based on a poll "do you like maps?" but on the core game design. A map is not only a handy short-cut, it can also give a larger sense of space.