Most open world games lean very heavily on the fact that having an open world feels cool, but when it comes time to give the player something to do in that world they don't have any ideas and fall back on fetch quests.
That's because you can handle it all with some lines of dialogue and stuff with no need for cutscenes or anything right? How much harder would it be to to use that to do actually interesting things that add some variety, like special encounters that you have to fight under certain conditions or something?Originally Posted by Robert at Zeboyd Games
In all honesty, these fetch quests in RPGs take almost no time at all to implement by the developers. If you got rid of these quests, they wouldn't replace them with high quality quests (which take drastically more time & money to create), you'd just have less quests.
Why is it that sidequests never mean anything in the game world? You gain a few gold and the quest giver is the only person that knows of this 'problem' for you to deal with and once it's done it's completely forgotten.
I would love to see more impact on the world for your actions. Say you are in a town/city where people are complaining about bandits on the roads and how this has hurt trade etc in the city. You go clear out the bandits and instead of getting enough gold to buy a few potions you get people traveling to the city and trade goes up, new items in shops, prices lowered, etc.
Instead it feels like your character is inconsequential to the world. You may save the world, but nothing changes in the cities etc. Everyone still goes about their business same as before, there is no real 'change' that takes place.
Xenoblade has a good take on this with Colony 6.I was just thinking of this earlier.
Why is it that sidequests never mean anything in the game world? You gain a few gold and the quest giver is the only person that knows of this 'problem' for you to deal with and once it's done it's completely forgotten.
I would love to see more impact on the world for your actions. Say you are in a town/city where people are complaining about bandits on the roads and how this has hurt trade etc in the city. You go clear out the bandits and instead of getting enough gold to buy a few potions you get people traveling to the city and trade goes up, new items in shops, prices lowered, etc.
Instead it feels like your character is inconsequential to the world. You may save the world, but nothing changes in the cities etc. Everyone still goes about their business same as before, there is no real 'change' that takes place.
Some Witcher quests were bad at this, but many at least required you to do a step of research before heading out with getting the monsters added to your inventory. If only the rest of those quests would have been more interesting they'd be set.Originally Posted by jim-jam bongs
Quests are too frequently just a shortcut to XP through focused grinding, especially in ARPG and MMO games. The Witcher is a good example of a series where quests are deeper and actually feel like more than mindless chores, though there are grind based side quests in the form of Witching jobs to keep everyone happy.
From what I played of 2 so far even the slay monster quests have some unique touches to them, like bombing nests, or fighting hive queens after killing cocoons. Pretty neat.
If it's just numbers then that's easy.That's because you can handle it all with some lines of dialogue and stuff with no need for cutscenes or anything right? How much harder would it be to to use that to do actually interesting things that add some variety, like special encounters that you have to fight under certain conditions or something?
"Hey there's this big turtle that's been terrorizing everyone, he has 999 defense so all weapons only do 1 damage to him, nobody has had the time to tough it out long enough to kill him. Have fun!"
There's no such thing as "laziness" in professional game development. It's all about costs & expenses.Originally Posted by Clockwork5
High quality quests are not more expensive anyway, just less lazy.
Making a "Kill X monsters & then talk to this guy for an item" quest might take 1 guy under an hour to implement, assuming that the monsters & NPC assets are already in the game for other purposes since you're just writing a bit of dialogue & adding some flags to the game. Longer if there's voice acting involved.
On the other hand, having a more interesting quest like "Monsters are rampaging throughout the city & you'll get different results & cutscenes if you decide to help out" might take 10 people a couple weeks to make since you have to create the cutscenes, make sure that the engine can handle enemies in a non-combat area, make sure that the event doesn't break anything, etc.
Paying one guy's wages for an hour costs much less than paying 10 people's wages for 2 weeks.
And even if the publisher decides that additional time & money is warranted to make a game better, most developers would rather focus that time & money on making the core game better rather than optional content that most players won't end up seeing. Thus you see a lot of games with filler optional content like fetch quests & monster grinding.
This is probably very true, at least you'd know more than me of it, but the upside is that a more developed quest hopefully isn't only of better quality, but perhaps takes more time for the player to finish as well. Likely not quite as much time as the equivalent development hours spent on trivial quests would add, but if more players are more satisfied after finishing it, it might still be worth it?Originally Posted by Robert at Zeboyd Games
There's no such thing as "laziness" in professional game development. It's all about costs & expenses.
Making a "Kill X monsters & then talk to this guy for an item" quest might take 1 guy under an hour to implement, assuming that the monsters & NPC assets are already in the game for other purposes since you're just writing a bit of dialogue & adding some flags to the game. Longer if there's voice acting involved.
On the other hand, having a more interesting quest like "Monsters are rampaging throughout the city & you'll get different results & cutscenes if you decide to help out" might take 10 people a couple weeks to make since you have to create the cutscenes, make sure that the engine can handle enemies in a non-combat area, make sure that the event doesn't break anything, etc.
Paying one guy's wages for an hour costs much less than paying 10 people's wages for 2 weeks.
And even if the publisher decides that additional time & money is warranted to make a game better, most developers would rather focus that time & money on making the core game better rather than optional content that most players won't end up seeing. Thus you see a lot of games with filler optional content like fetch quests & monster grinding.
I can understand that it's difficult to create twenty or more hours of quality, non-filler content, but it's definitely what I'm looking for in games. I've quit a lot of RPG's halfway through once I've become bored of doing so much pointless stuff. Even some of the ones I managed to finish, like the Mass Effect games, left me with a bitter after taste from that stuff.
I think it ends up creating a conflict in terms of agency/linear gameplay. Everything becoming an interesting, unique setpiece event can take away from some of the open, world building style stuff that makes some people dig RPGs, but fighting wolves because they are there isn't necessarily thrilling. Quests are a weird middleground. I dunno, I think ultimately the gameplay itself matters more than how it is delivered. If killing wolves is hella fun or intense then that rocks. Or on the other end of things, if the story is compelling enough that can work too.
You are right what matter is that it creates an engaging experience.Originally Posted by voodoopanda
I feel like its part of an interesting evolution of game design. Old games like the first Final Fantasy on NES or Everquest just had you kill wolves cause they were there and you needed XP and/or needed to get to the next area. Then someone added quest givers and quests so instead of just killing wolves you were now killing wolves for a reason, cuz that villager is hungry for wolf meats and you get bonus xp, gold, maybe some gear on top of it. And there's a counter that tells you how many wolves you killed and if you kill 1000 of them you get the Wolf Slayer achievement and title. This kind of direction seemed to work well for WoW when it first came out.
I think it ends up creating a conflict in terms of agency/linear gameplay. Everything becoming an interesting, unique setpiece event can take away from some of the open, world building style stuff that makes some people dig RPGs, but fighting wolves because they are there isn't necessarily thrilling. Quests are a weird middleground. I dunno, I think ultimately the gameplay itself matters more than how it is delivered. If killing wolves is hella fun or intense then that rocks. Or on the other end of things, if the story is compelling enough that can work too.
But more often than not the games these type of activities are more prevalent in do not.
You can only fight one thing so many times before its boring.
Unless we the battle system is like, Ninja Gaiden Black levels of difficult. Can't really sleep in that game.
Precipice of Darkness 3 (our 3rd RPG) has an optional prologue quest called The Beginning of the End. It should last the average player about 90-120 minutes and includes several new areas (complete with new tilesets/visuals), a couple new songs, new enemies, new abilities, and new dialogue/story. It took us about 4-6 weeks to make. Hardly anyone played it (although admittedly, part of that reason is because it was added to the game post-release in a free patch).
In contrast, if we reuse assets from main game content (like making another forest dungeon when we already have a forest dungeon in the main game), we can make a quick optional dungeon with a few new enemies & equipment in maybe a day or two.
As a player, I would much rather have one high quality optional quest than have dozens of throwaway quests, but as a developer, it's easy to see why few games do this. If you took out all the optional content in a game like Xenoblade (which can easily push the game passed the 100 hour mark) and used that time to make high quality quests instead, you might get 4-6 hours of content in its place.
Even better is stuff like what Rob above is talking about, like the Snow Queen quest from Persona 1. Say yes and no to the right people and suddenly the plot and goals of the game change completely
I also get the impression you're more referring to some older JRPGs as counter-points here which didn't have many side quests, but WRPGs have always had this problem. But yeah, nonetheless I get your point. Helpless NPCs are a staple of rpgs in general, and it's not an endearing part of them.
Clearly because being the chosen one specifically means you ain't above getting someone 8 wolf pelts. Keeps you honest, can't forget your roots.Anyone else tired of being everyone's bitch in pretty much every modern RPG? Virtually every RPG forces the "you are the Chosen One" trope on the player, and then they predictably follow it up with hundreds of "please collect 8 wolf meats because I'm hungry and want wolf meats" quests. Should the Chosen One really being participating in these trivial tasks? Many games mock how ridiculous this is... and then they do it anyway, as if mocking it excuses it.
But more seriously, you're right.
I generally liked how RDR did it... Sure, not an RPG, but here you are, John Marston, this former fugitive bounty hunter who is also swinging the balance of the Mexican revolution, and you don't generally have people out giving you shitty tasks... Instead, the shitty tasks (collect 5 wolf pelts, pick 10 Wild Fever Few flowers, etc) enhance your character and give you something to trade with.
I also like how GTAV handles it with at least one character -- Trevor. Trevor does get some completely meaningless requests... "Break these 15 real estate broker's signs," "collect these hollywood movie star artifacts." These things are complete junk and it's a total waste of time for a sociopath who also has $30,000,000 in the bank... But, Trevor loves to just fuck shit up and has such a bizarre, broken moral code... that these things are important for him.
The other characters, like Michael and Franklin, get these requests and they complain "Ugh, do I really have to do this..." but they end up doing it for seemingly no reason (esp. with Franklin's character)
They want to artificially lengthen the game as much as possible in order to keep you paying that monthly fee. They spread out the interesting quests, and dangle the interesting things you can do at higher levels, in order to keep you hooked into the game.
Yeahp. Sad thing is it took over a hundred hours for the game hype to wear off and for me to realize I was basically doing the same thing over and over again. Go here and kill X. Go here and fetch X. Haven't touched Skyrim since.Skyrim is packed to the brim with this terrible nonsense.
Umm.. that doesn't add up. Of course they are more expensive. Time creating and writing them costs money.Originally Posted by Clockwork5
And this would be fantastic! I don't want to spend 5+ hours legitimately bored and wondering why am I wasting my time just to get to the next fun and relevant part of the game. High quality quests are not more expensive anyway, just less lazy.
Specifically, the rote, orderly nature of quests gives us (the players) the opportunity to obtain quick rewards, and push us right toward the action. You'll notice these sorts of quests more in action RPGs as opposed to something a bit slower paced - turn based JRPGs often just have quests by you talking to someone, getting some sort of hint/video and having to figure out how to solve these problems for the person to get something. The scale of these quests also vary, sometimes it's a simple fetch quest, sometimes it's to obtain some ultimate weapon.
But that doesn't really gel with the sort of RPG where action is king. Not that it's impossible to implement, but often action RPGs kind of push the story to the side and focus on the action.
I do think it is happening, and HAS happened, but we don't notice it very often or they are implemented in a way that makes them a hindrance. These job-board type quests kind of cleave through the bullshit and give players what they want. A clear idea of difficulty, rewards and they can decide whether or not it's worth it.
I think approaching side quests differently is a good idea, and when the tech gets better, it will potentially be something amazing.
I don't see why that's a problem. Quality > quantity, every single time.Originally Posted by Robert at Zeboyd Games
Well, to give a personal example...
Precipice of Darkness 3 (our 3rd RPG) has an optional prologue quest called The Beginning of the End. It should last the average player about 90-120 minutes and includes several new areas (complete with new tilesets/visuals), a couple new songs, new enemies, new abilities, and new dialogue/story. It took us about 4-6 weeks to make. Hardly anyone played it (although admittedly, part of that reason is because it was added to the game post-release in a free patch).
In contrast, if we reuse assets from main game content (like making another forest dungeon when we already have a forest dungeon in the main game), we can make a quick optional dungeon with a few new enemies & equipment in maybe a day or two.
As a player, I would much rather have one high quality optional quest than have dozens of throwaway quests, but as a developer, it's easy to see why few games do this. If you took out all the optional content in a game like Xenoblade (which can easily push the game passed the 100 hour mark) and used that time to make high quality quests instead, you might get 4-6 hours of content in its place.
This is not true at all. Especially when it comes to intellectual laziness.Originally Posted by Robert at Zeboyd Games
There's no such thing as "laziness" in professional game development.
In general "lazy devs" is overused but there are lazy devs and lazy ways of approaching game development.
I once interviewed for a job at 3DO and the people there worked 6-7 hour days with a 2 hour Starcraft lunch break. (3DO went out of business soon afterwards - the two are probably related) But more importantly it's easy to just do what has been done before without really thinking critically - being lazy with the brain.
I think you are underestimating how small differences in presentation and theme can make a big difference to the player. Yes, making new content is expensive. But a lot of fetch quests in open world games don't even really try to be anything other than transparent fetch quests. They typically have no real in-game motivation, don't even make sense half the time, and make no effort to hide the fact that you are killing X or collecting Y. It's just a block of text with a paragraph explaining why some farmer needs 10 cabbages.In contrast, if we reuse assets from main game content (like making another forest dungeon when we already have a forest dungeon in the main game), we can make a quick optional dungeon with a few new enemies & equipment in maybe a day or two.
You can do a lot with the same basic content. Or at least a lot more than most open world games do.
There is tedium available to those who would like it, but I've mostly been spending my time exploring. Progression is not tied to mundane side-quests, but rather the main story, as well as being offered as a reward for free-form gameplay - raiding ships, exploring, and hunting - none of which you are prompted to do, outside of a brief moment in the main quest to demonstrate how it's done.
It's lovely.
And the no-filler quests model is paid for in an MMO whose playerbase has been descending for 5 years in a market deeply antagonistic to B&S by...Excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical, seeing as the amount of filler quests in the game has only increased over the years. Significantly, too. Mind you, the non filler quests have gotten better, but they're few and far between.
Also, Gnomeregan was pretty well hated back in the day. I remember them putting so much effort into it, only for it to get wasted to some of the stupidest design I've ever seen in an MMO. :\
And seriously, those time-and-money-intensive quests get ground down to a fine dust just like the "10 bear's asses" quests by most people flying hellbent for max level.
Then you have if these wonderful super-quests become so unnecessary due to tuning or design that they become side quests and only completionists see but a few, but if they're mandatory, it gets them grinded on like the WoW model has been for over 5 years now.
This is where I agree as a fellow developer. The thing people don't often understand is the sheer scale of the amount of work required to make a "meaningful quest" versus a fetch quest. Not to mention the fact that, hey, that crazy event is super nice and all, with the monsters invading the town, and you can ignore them, or battle them, or do whatever, but the problem then becomes that you have to support each possible direction with additional content. If you ignore them, you can't just say "they'll hate you for a while", you have to appropriately script their reactions, what happens and the underlying systems. Do you work with sort of a reputation system? Should it be hidden or visible to the player? Or do you work with a binary system where they just react a certain way depending on what you chose, and then after a set amount of time they reset back to their default because they "forgot"? How long is this period of time? And then does this event happen again? How many events like this do you have to script in order for the system to be fun and meaningful?Originally Posted by Robert at Zeboyd Games
Well, to give a personal example...
Precipice of Darkness 3 (our 3rd RPG) has an optional prologue quest called The Beginning of the End. It should last the average player about 90-120 minutes and includes several new areas (complete with new tilesets/visuals), a couple new songs, new enemies, new abilities, and new dialogue/story. It took us about 4-6 weeks to make. Hardly anyone played it (although admittedly, part of that reason is because it was added to the game post-release in a free patch).
In contrast, if we reuse assets from main game content (like making another forest dungeon when we already have a forest dungeon in the main game), we can make a quick optional dungeon with a few new enemies & equipment in maybe a day or two.
As a player, I would much rather have one high quality optional quest than have dozens of throwaway quests, but as a developer, it's easy to see why few games do this. If you took out all the optional content in a game like Xenoblade (which can easily push the game passed the 100 hour mark) and used that time to make high quality quests instead, you might get 4-6 hours of content in its place.
You can't just say "Hey, it's easy, just do this!" because doing that can and usually WILL have huge ramifications on the rest of the game. Every drop of water you add to the glass creates a ripple effect, and these ripples create other ripples, constantly, so what do you do? You just make them as simple as possible so you can mitigate the risk because hey, making games takes a lot of time and a lot of money. Developers have to eat and feed their families too.
See those sidequests in FFT and Fallout are "false choices". Typically ignoring them denies you content, and as developers there's absolutely NOTHING we hate more than working like crazy, crunching and all that stuff, for weeks on end, for content that a small portion of the playerbase will see, so we end up making all these sidequests mostly false choices. Sure, you can ignore the dude fighting with a Minotaur, but why would you? There's literally NO reason to ignore him, because you know you're playing a game, you know he's going to give you a reward for helping him. Even if he doesn't, you're rewarded with XP at the very least, and then the next time you see someone, you still will help them, even if you're not guaranteed a reward beyond XP. That's why sidequests are rarely truly hidden anymore, and they have clear cut breadcrumbs so that players will easily discover them. You don't want to create content players won't play.Originally Posted by Black Door
I prefer "sidequests" in the nature of Final Fantasy Tactics and Fallout, where if you pass by a certain part of the map sometimes there'll be some random fucker out there in the desert, trying to kill minotaurs with underpowered equipment or arguing with his friend or something. You can ignore them, help them, enslave them, whatever, but that event is a living, breathing part of the world that exists outside of a "job board" or "quests" slider in your party menu
Even better is stuff like what Rob above is talking about, like the Snow Queen quest from Persona 1. Say yes and no to the right people and suddenly the plot and goals of the game change completely
WoW's quest system is *definitely* not made to support it's monetization model. It's not made to artificially lengthen the game in order to keep you playing more. If you'd played the game, you would probably understand what it's quest system is about, and what problems it seeked to solve (and it still is incredibly successful). And even then, if you look at the quality of the quests you undertake in Mists of Pandaria, you'd immediately change your mind. There's so much variety, and even the typical "get 10 bear pelts" quests serve an actual purpose, whether it is for exploration purposes, or to actually give you a reason to fight enemies on your way to the "meaty" quest in your log. Typically you'll get something that has more lore and intent behind it, and you'll get other supporting quests so that you'll do other tasks along the way to the lore-based one. It works because you don't get bored going to your quest destination (you'll have shit to kill and gather). It's a pretty elegant system, and while your initial sentence (WoW isn't well suited to this argument) is true, it's definitely not for the reasons you stated.Originally Posted by Grief.exe
Someone has probably already said it, but World of Warcraft is a bad example for this argument. Many of the quests are designed as filler in order to support the monetization model.
They want to artificially lengthen the game as much as possible in order to keep you paying that monthly fee. They spread out the interesting quests, and dangle the interesting things you can do at higher levels, in order to keep you hooked into the game.
What would you prefer? A 60$, 4 hour RPG with one intense quest, or 60$ for a 60 hour RPG with a major questline and several other "filler" quests to get you on your way?Originally Posted by Morrigan Targaryen
I don't see why that's a problem. Quality > quantity, every single time.
Are you still in game dev? Even with the most casual of developers, there's essentially zero laziness. That 3DO example is an extreme side to it, but every one I know that's working in the industry knows there's no such thing as laziness, especially on the developer side. Suits will ask things that will make you look lazy, but the developers themselves are definitely not lazy. There's so many factors that affect game development that you seriously can't call developers lazy. When something is done a certain way, there's always a reason. When Deadly Premonition ships with a locked framebuffer and 720p support only, there's a reason (and it's most likely not laziness, it's probably lack of financial support and probably lack of knowledge of DirectX).This is not true at all. Especially when it comes to intellectual laziness.
In general "lazy devs" is overused but there are lazy devs and lazy ways of approaching game development.
I once interviewed for a job at 3DO and the people there worked 6-7 hour days with a 2 hour Starcraft lunch break. (3DO went out of business soon afterwards - the two are probably related) But more importantly it's easy to just do what has been done before without really thinking critically - being lazy with the brain.
At that price, I'd buy neither. 60 hours of filler is boring, but 4 hours is really too short to justify that price tag unless there's tremendous replay value. How about 25 hours of meaningful content instead? That I would buy. And I know it exists. I mean look at the D-Souls games, depending on the player and build, a first standard playthrough can go anywhere between 25 and 60 hours and there's absolutely zero filler (but a lot of optional, yet meaningful content).Originally Posted by TimeKillr
What would you prefer? A 60$, 4 hour RPG with one intense quest, or 60$ for a 60 hour RPG with a major questline and several other "filler" quests to get you on your way?
It's gratifying to see a dev echo my thoughts from earlier in the thread, but is that really your position - that the solution is simple quests cos game devs gotta eat?Originally Posted by TimeKillr
stuff about quests and ripple effects
It's entirely understandable why developers want to ensure players see all the content they create, but in one way I feel it's a shame as it undercuts the sense of a bigger world and the feeling of discovery of a completely novel experience. Once upon a time the fact you could finish a game and only afterwards, in the playground, discover there was a whole separate continent you weren't even aware of was mindblowing.Originally Posted by TimeKillr
stuff about leading players to side content
It's worth clarifying something here. There is laziness in terms of effort and sheer manhours, and there is laziness in terms of design and implementation. It's possible to work incredibly hard on something that reeks of laziness, in the second sense, at the final reckoning. This ties into your first point about 'devs gotta eat'. Something packed to the gills with simple, repetitive quests with barely any framing devices would be regarded as lazy, even if the developers worked their nuts off for 90 hours a week producing it to some insane deadline. The lazy devs comment doesn't always imply we think they're dicking around when they should be working. We realise a final game is the outcome of a series of choices and tradeoffs, but I think "laziness" is sometimes used as shorthand for "I don't like the decisions they made and the reasons why they made them"Originally Posted by TimeKillr
stuff about developer laziness
I'll admit I haven't played Dark Souls, and I haven't played Demon's Souls enough, so I would have to check how much "questing" there is in that game - from what I remember from Demon's Souls it was mostly action-based dungeon crawling with boss fights, but I might be entirely wrong.Originally Posted by Morrigan Targaryen
At that price, I'd buy neither. 60 hours of filler is boring, but 4 hours is really too short to justify that price tag unless there's tremendous replay value. How about 25 hours of meaningful content instead? That I would buy. And I know it exists. I mean look at the D-Souls games, depending on the player and build, a first standard playthrough can go anywhere between 25 and 60 hours and there's absolutely zero filler (but a lot of optional, yet meaningful content).
My point isn't that game devs gotta eat, but when you're a professional game dev, you have other factors besides "make perfect content". You have deadlines, schedules, budgets, etc. All of these factor into how you make your game. If you give me 10 years to make something, it'll probably have all incredibly meaningful content, but if you give me 6 months, it probably won't. There are realities to game development that a lot of people on GAF don't realize (and I can't blame them, as I was the same way before I started this job 10 years ago),It's gratifying to see a dev echo my thoughts from earlier in the thread, but is that really your position - that the solution is simple quests cos game devs gotta eat?
It was mindblowing back in the day, but nowadays a it's not that present, mostly because we prefer to focus on game content rather than post-game content (again, mostly because post-game content is hard to justify as you know there's a big portion of your userbase who won't see it - see what happened with Robert's example of Precipice 3).It's entirely understandable why developers want to ensure players see all the content they create, but in one way I feel it's a shame as it undercuts the sense of a bigger world and the feeling of discovery of a completely novel experience. Once upon a time the fact you could finish a game and only afterwards, in the playground, discover there was a whole separate continent you weren't even aware of was mindblowing.
Then I figure people should use "I don't like the decisions they made" since you can't really know the exact decisions unless you were in a dev team - when someone does PR, they won't tell you the whole truth. I did back in the day for a game I worked on to some very specific enthusiast forums, answered questions and was 100% open and the community loved it, but I didn't work for a big publisher so I could afford to do it. The problem is if you give a game team infinite time and infinite money to make a game, they're gonna make it awesome. Nobody on a team says "Hey let's do filler content because I love it". It's more of a "Hey we have 2 weeks left before our deadline and we don't have enough time to do a nice piece of super meaningful content, so let's add filler, because the choice is filler quests or nothing". The "mental laziness" comes from factors that affect game development, not from actual laziness.It's worth clarifying something here. There is laziness in terms of effort and sheer manhours, and there is laziness in terms of design and implementation. It's possible to work incredibly hard on something that reeks of laziness, in the second sense, at the final reckoning. This ties into your first point about 'devs gotta eat'. Something packed to the gills with simple, repetitive quests with barely any framing devices would be regarded as lazy, even if the developers worked their nuts off for 90 hours a week producing it to some insane deadline. The lazy devs comment doesn't always imply we think they're dicking around when they should be working. We realise a final game is the outcome of a series of choices and tradeoffs, but I think "laziness" is sometimes used as shorthand for "I don't like the decisions they made and the reasons why they made them"
All true but there are realities to any job that people outside that industry don't realise. And of course one of those realities is that as consumers we can only judge the end product and decide if we want to buy it or not, and what we're discussing here is game design that might dissuade a certain proportion of the target audience from doing so. I feel for the people working under pressure that have to untie this particular knot, but it is ultimately their knot to untie. To put it another way - if deadlines, schedules and budgets force your hand and I don't like the final result, you'll get my sympathy but not my money, because I similarly worked my knackers off to earn that.Originally Posted by TimeKillr
My point isn't that game devs gotta eat, but when you're a professional game dev, you have other factors besides "make perfect content". You have deadlines, schedules, budgets, etc. All of these factor into how you make your game. If you give me 10 years to make something, it'll probably have all incredibly meaningful content, but if you give me 6 months, it probably won't. There are realities to game development that a lot of people on GAF don't realize (and I can't blame them, as I was the same way before I started this job 10 years ago),
No I understand why it doesn't happen so much, I just think it's a shame - it added to a game in a way beyond simply being additional content, gave it a mystique (or magic, or charm, or pick your preferred nebulous descriptive).Originally Posted by TimeKillr
It was mindblowing back in the day, but nowadays a it's not that present, mostly because we prefer to focus on game content rather than post-game content (again, mostly because post-game content is hard to justify as you know there's a big portion of your userbase who won't see it - see what happened with Robert's example of Precipice 3).
So, cards on the table: What'd you sacrifice from (say) Skyrim in order to get that dev time instead implemented on fewer, more engrossing quests?All true but there are realities to any job that people outside that industry don't realise. And of course one of those realities is that as consumers we can only judge the end product and decide if we want to buy it or not, and what we're discussing here is game design that might dissuade a certain proportion of the target audience from doing so. I feel for the people working under pressure that have to untie this particular knot, but it is ultimately their knot to untie. To put it another way - if deadlines, schedules and budgets force your hand and I don't like the final result, you'll get my sympathy but not my money, because I similarly worked my knackers off to earn that.
It makes for a lot of writing though.
They're basically no-effort things, if the engine is in place.
Real sidequests, ala FF IX, instead, take time. A lot, lot more time than "Let's swap 25 kill sidequests for a real sidequest"
Majoras Mask = side quest the game.
I think FF Tactics Advance and A2 did a fantastic job of finding a middle ground here. They have literally hundreds of missions, most of which with very simplistic goals and run of the mill errands, but they enriched even the smallest delivery with a generous dash of charming dialogue and personality. And then once in a while you stumble on a series of mission with their own self contained story that surprises and nearly outshines the main game's plot, like the whole Frimelda quest.
I haven't played Skyrim (and didn't enjoy Oblivion so the Elder Scrolls games are clearly not my thing), but I'll answer for my absolute favourite game last generation, Xenoblade. And of course this is what I'd like to see, not what I think will sell.So, cards on the table: What'd you sacrifice from (say) Skyrim in order to get that dev time instead implemented on fewer, more engrossing quests?
I, personally, would gladly live without every item gathering quest in that game, and think I can safely say most people would at least permit them to be heavily cut back. But that's not fair of me because, as TimeKillr says, they are easy and quick to generate and so not much dev time is regained through their omission, probably not enough to allow for the amount of more in-depth content I'd like to replace it,
With Xenoblade, though, even the main story taken alone is huge and I would be fine with a cutback in that area that allowed the creation of optional, missable content even if the overall combined playtime was shorter (allowing for extra development work to smoothly incorporate the additional content). Entire sections like Makna Forest could go, with a little rejigging of the origins of the character from that area - or these areas could become the extra content.
Also one thing Xenoblade does do (by necessity as much as anything) that I would have no problem with applying to something like Skyrim or pretty much anything else, is take a visual hit. I would gladly sacrifice visual fidelity on more powerful systems if it enabled the creation of more handcrafted content. Cutting edge graphics do not do it for me, whereas having what feels like a living, explorable world does. I'm one of those who thinks that if SE ever remade FF7 it should offer nothing more than a better translation, some minor visual polish and a bit of new content; I've got no interest in seeing a full 3D HD reimagining.
And that's another thing - there's no need for full 3D worlds, I'm perfectly happy with sprites, tiles, 3d models on pre-rendered backgrounds etc. If it allows the creation of a bigger, more immersive world (and I think it does) then all the better.
As to the type of content that would be made possible by this I would much prefer, as you mentioned, a smaller amount of more in depth, engrossing quests that perform the same function of encouraging you to explore off the beaten track - stuff like the Giant's Treasure, and anything that develops the characters a la Wutai in FF7. As I've said earlier in this thread, I actually consider it a positive thing that extra content be missable. I'm not a fan of adventures that take great pains to ensure you see damn near everything there is to see - it makes the world feel small. A popular refrain is how our world lacks mystery now that every corner of it is charted and most of it can be reached in short time by air transport, and I think it's a shame that our imaginary worlds seem to be going in the same direction. I like blank spaces on the map, and I like to discover them on my own. I completely understand why developers don't particularly want to do this, but I would argue that it is a risk worth taking as - if you can pull it off - the experience it allows is instrumental in creating a die-hard fanbase.
Any dialogue box that reads "I need you to kill 10 monsters and return to me." is lazy. Tie the quest into the story, make it interesting and relevant. That is not expensive, that does not require teams. That requires creativity and leadership that demands a well thought out, fun game that shows the team cared. Anything less is lazyness and unnecessary filler.Originally Posted by Robert at Zeboyd Games
There's no such thing as "laziness" in professional game development. It's all about costs & expenses.
Making a "Kill X monsters & then talk to this guy for an item" quest might take 1 guy under an hour to implement, assuming that the monsters & NPC assets are already in the game for other purposes since you're just writing a bit of dialogue & adding some flags to the game. Longer if there's voice acting involved.
On the other hand, having a more interesting quest like "Monsters are rampaging throughout the city & you'll get different results & cutscenes if you decide to help out" might take 10 people a coiuple weeks to make since you have to create the cutscenes, make sure that the engine can handle enemies in a non-combat area, make sure that the event doesn't break anything, etc.
Somewhat akin to the Bravely Default: For The Sequel approach? I'm not sure I agree with the idea of 'taking meaningful content *from* the main quest line and making it optional' - as someone who personally actively tries to seek out all the content, that's going to make no perceptible difference to meWith Xenoblade, though, even the main story taken alone is huge and I would be fine with a cutback in that area that allowed the creation of optional, missable content even if the overall combined playtime was shorter (allowing for extra development work to smoothly incorporate the additional content). Entire sections like Makna Forest could go, with a little rejigging of the origins of the character from that area - or these areas could become the extra content.
I'm curious why the (actually reasonably good, and well-implemented) Red Pollen quest chain doesn't fit the bill for what you want? Coherent storyline, actual climax, optional and even missable.
It wouldn't, at least not directly. The people behind visual coherence are not the ones populating the world with content. Now, I guess you could fire an environment artist and hire a new content creator with the saved money, but gaming isn't generally handled on the Hollywoord work-for-hire model, so you'd be losing a longtime employee. It's much more normal to work around the resources you have.Also one thing Xenoblade does do (by necessity as much as anything) that I would have no problem with applying to something like Skyrim or pretty much anything else, is take a visual hit. I would gladly sacrifice visual fidelity on more powerful systems if it enabled the creation of more handcrafted content.
I actually broadly agree; when stuff's cheaper to produce, there's much less to fear about having some of it missed; it's not wasted investment. The problem is what you alluded to right at the top of the post: Is that remotely marketable in this day and age? I'd love to believe so, but no-one seems that convinced.And that's another thing - there's no need for full 3D worlds, I'm perfectly happy with sprites, tiles, 3d models on pre-rendered backgrounds etc. If it allows the creation of a bigger, more immersive world (and I think it does) then all the better.
There's an interesting dichotomy here. WoW is actually quite good at placing even its most mundane quests in a meaningful story context... which the vast majority of players just skip over. Indeed, this highlights a further example of the earlier point: WoW can afford to spend time contextualising the content, because for the most part, the story context is conveyed through text, which is fairly cheap and easy to produce. The Old Republic, though, committed to having content voice acted, which immediately adds extra cost and time to implement.Originally Posted by Clockwork5
Any dialogue box that reads "I need you to kill 10 monsters and return to me." is lazy. Tie the quest into the story, make it interesting and relevant. That is not expensive, that does not require teams. That requires creativity and leadership that demands a well thought out, fun game that shows the team cared. Anything less is lazyness and unnecessary filler.
Gonna have to second this.It sounds like you should play Guild Wars 2 just to see the branching quest system.
In lieu of NPCs with blobs of boring quest text who tell you to collect 40 bear asses, the game instead has Dynamic Events that naturally occur in the game world. So instead of an NPC saying "Help, the monsters are attacking the village!" when they're actually just standing in a field waiting for people to come kill them, the monsters actually come down from their camp and start attacking the village, triggering an event. All of the players in the vicinity get a notice in the UI to come help (and if they're not nearby, usually NPCs run into the nearby towns or crossroads and shout for someone to help them).
What's also nice is that everyone contributes towards the event too, so if a bunch of people show up and start driving off the monster attack, they aren't hindering you in the same way a guy also collecting bear asses is by killing the small population of very specific quest mobs. Oh, and events get harder/more rewarding as more players show up too.
If the players fail (or there aren't any around at the time), the monsters take over the town and a new event occurs where you need to retake it. In some cases, the monsters will actually use the occupied town as a base to start invading other towns. Some zones have massive event chains where the players/friendly NPCs and the monsters are constantly pushing back and forth for control of bridges, passes and fortified camps. The higher level zones even have event 'webs' that require players to spread out and organize multiple events simultaneously to retake vital positions.
Beats the hell out of delivering Iron Pikes and Rivets to an NPC to repair a bridge that's never been completed. That damn bridge in Redridge is still broken after 9 years and probably millions of people turning in supplies.
Somebody should look into that quest NPC, seems kind dodgy.
OP and anyone who shares his sentiment should take a look.
Well that was really just what I would be willing to do with Xenoblade as an example rather than recommending it as a developmental approach. But do you not think that making it side content that actually needs to be discovered - that seeking that you like to do - rather than just lying on the main path actually adds to the game in a 'more than the sum of its parts' kind of way?Somewhat akin to the Bravely Default: For The Sequel approach? I'm not sure I agree with the idea of 'taking meaningful content *from* the main quest line and making it optional' - as someone who personally actively tries to seek out all the content, that's going to make no perceptible difference to me
Never did that quest! Ironically, I missed it, and that's actually nice to know. But I'm cheating, really - you can take my comment as "I'll sacrifice the crap quests in exchange for more good ones", which is hopelessly unfair of me, but then that's why I tried to go further than just ditching fetch quests.I'm curious why the (actually reasonably good, and well-implemented) Red Pollen quest chain doesn't fit the bill for what you want? Coherent storyline, actual climax, optional and even missable.
That's a fair point - I suppose when I think of it, I think of it as a new studio set up to make the games of my dreams, rather than current studios adapting to my whims.It wouldn't, at least not directly. The people behind visual coherence are not the ones populating the world with content. Now, I guess you could fire an environment artist and hire a new content creator with the saved money, but gaming isn't generally handled on the Hollywoord work-for-hire model, so you'd be losing a longtime employee. It's much more normal to work around the resources you have.
Almost certainly not, particularly on console. A man can dream, though.I actually broadly agree; when stuff's cheaper to produce, there's much less to fear about having some of it missed; it's not wasted investment. The problem is what you alluded to right at the top of the post: Is that remotely marketable in this day and age? I'd love to believe so, but no-one seems that convinced.
Shorter, more impactful quests that the world shows means more to players than hundreds of fetch quests of X variety.
Yes, all quests devolve into some variety of fetch this, kill that, but how you dress it up counts.
But, modern RPG quests serve a gameplay purpose - to break up the monotony of grinding with exactly go here go there.
But would they be better served by repurposing content for longevity instead of filler?
e.g. instead of having filler, give players reusable content that they can repeat without nauseum.
Examples include complex gameplay modes - e.g. tower defense, MOBA or horde mode. Essentially instead of wasting all that artist and design resource on hundreds of quests and traverse once land masses, use it for things that players will see repeatedly.
We're so use to the notion of having these filler quests to our games - we find it difficult to imagine the alternatives for grinding... but what if we made the grind fun? In the absence of explicitly fun grinds, players will make do with what they have. But that's just not as good.
Experiencing quests like that puts these fetch quests into perspective. They're lazy and they're wasting your time. They are filler designed to stall you. The developer doesn't want you to finish the game for another 40 hours so you don't trade it in too quick and cost them a sale with what will be your used copy. Or the MMO developer doesn't want to you to hit the end game for another month so they can squeeze an extra month's subscription fee out of you.
That's everyone's favorite quest. I want to know who came up with the idea, because it really was genius.My favorite RPG quest of all time was in ES: Oblivion. It was a dark brotherhood quest where you trapped people in a mansion and then played out a murder mystery game with them. Only the murder was real. You could dig into dialogue trees to seed suspicion and talk them into murdering each other. You could isolate them one-by-one and do the dirty work yourself. Or you could draw your weapon and challenge them all to battle at once. It may not have been the moral quest I've every played, but it certainly wasn't the boring either.
Experiencing quests like that puts these fetch quests into perspective. They're lazy and they're wasting your time. They are filler designed to stall you. The developer doesn't want you to finish the game for another 40 hours so you don't trade it in too quick and cost them a sale with what will be your used copy. Or the MMO developer doesn't want to you to hit the end game for another month so they can squeeze an extra month's subscription fee out of you.
I think that's the major issue with modern RPGs: being far too streamlined and mechanical with respect to approaching sidequests. The 3DS Ace Attorney is guilty of this too. Instead of letting you actually explore to find clues, you're literally given a checklist of things you need to do. Developers no longer mask sidequests, which was part of the fun in the past; you had to figure out where you had to go or what you had to kill by speaking to NPCs or exploring the world.I hate the MMO influence that has creeped its way into single player RPGs. Can't we even pretend like our sidequests are special and meaningful? Every RPG now literally has some screen that resembles of a checklist of everything you've got going on. Imagine if each story thread in the World of Ruin of Final Fantasy VI was summed up in one sentence and a check box telling you how to tie it all up.
Of course, the actual content of sidequests, especially those in FF, haven't improved at all with the times. In XII, XIII, XIII-2, and LR:XIII, there are literally lists of what exactly it is you need to find or do, which kills so much enjoyment of experimentation that older FFs have had. Wish developers wouldn't be so uncreative and lazy with their games.
| Thread Tools | |