This has probably come up before but I like different opinions and perspectives Do you prefer to fast travel or actually ridewalk to your intended destination

I prefer to actually walk/ride to destinations when possible. Walking preserves discovery, context, and the small emergent moments that make worlds feel lived-in; fast travel trades those experiences for convenience and reduced friction. Explanation (game design, exploration vs. convenience) - Traversal as meaningful play: Marc Laidlaw and similar designers argue that movement through space is itself gameplay — it shapes pacing, reveals story bits, and creates emotional beats. Traversal lets designers layer environmental storytelling and incidental encounters that reward curiosity (Laidlaw’s essays on “Why Traversal Matters”). - Player motivation and autonomy: Psychological research (e.g., Przybylski et al., 2010) ties autonomy and competence to engagement. Choosing to explore voluntarily, with control over pace and route, satisfies autonomy and often increases intrinsic motivation. - Trade-offs: Fast travel improves convenience, reduces tedium for repeat trips, and respects players with limited time. But overused fast travel can undermine exploration incentives and compress the perceived scale of the world. - Design balance: Good systems offer both — encourage or gate fast travel so it doesn’t swallow exploration (e.g., unlock via discovery, cost-based fast travel, or limited-use options) while keeping walking meaningful (side content, environmental storytelling, dynamic events). References - Marc Laidlaw, “Why Traversal Matters” (essays on level design and the role of movement). - Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). “A motivational model of video game engagement” (relates autonomy/competence to engagement). Short verdict: Favor walking for richer experience; keep fast travel as a respectful convenience that doesn’t erase exploration.