Yes. And I've been to Paris, because one time I saw a picture of the Eiffel Tower.
Well, 99.999999% of us aren't going to Mars anyway. Of all the reasons we sent Neil Armstrong and friends to the Moon, giving them the "authentic Moon experience" wasn't one of them. With the budgets for a manned mission to Mars we could do way more unmanned science than today, quite possibly more than with a manned mission. What it really boils down to, which is perhaps hard for many to swallow is whether sending humans will be pioneers exploring and settling new land or just an annoying radiation sensitive, temperature sensitive, pressure and atmosphere sensitive, resource intensive burden for a small army of robots to sustain while they're mostly cowering in their habitat to avoid the extreme climate outside.
For example, I doubt it will be possible to survive a night outside the habitat in any kind of mobile camp site so most likely the action radius is at most half a day's travel from where you landed for the entire trip. And if you want faster vehicles than we have, well they'll also need more energy. Not that there's roads suitable for driving very fast anyway, in double the Lunar Rover's gravity it's all going to take a more powerful engine and construction, more wear on the wheels and suspension and all that. The nice thing about rovers is that we can drop several, where we want them to be while a human mission is one site and that's it. And it might need to be a practical one, not an interesting one.