I don't think the discussion is favoured by making it an either or question. I wouldn't say that I need side content to be as big as the rest of the game. I do want it to be actual content, which I don't consider filler quests to be. That said, if the alternatives are tons of stuff I won't enjoy or a few hours of amazing stuff, then--Originally Posted by Robert at Zeboyd Games
The Snow Queen quest in Persona was an awesome idea, but that was pretty much throwing in a second game's worth of content in (with some reuse as far as playable characters go). Would you rather have a game with a split story or a single much longer game?
Last edited by peakish; 12-03-2013 at 10:06 PM.
OP I dream of the same thing... I don't see it happening anytime soon, if ever though :(
This is why we need less Skyrim and more Deus Ex. Or Bloodlines. Smaller games that add more detail to every corner of their worlds.
Sadly, Skyrim is really popular as is. There are games like Risen that successfully dial things back a bit (it takes place on a large island instead of am empty continent), but they mostly come from niche developers and don't provide an experience non-RPG fans can enjoy.
I'd rather play an open-world game with one realistic, thoughtful, well designed square mile of land. I'm not so sure that's what most people want at the moment though.
Sadly, Skyrim is really popular as is. There are games like Risen that successfully dial things back a bit (it takes place on a large island instead of am empty continent), but they mostly come from niche developers and don't provide an experience non-RPG fans can enjoy.
I'd rather play an open-world game with one realistic, thoughtful, well designed square mile of land. I'm not so sure that's what most people want at the moment though.
Last edited by animlboogy; 12-03-2013 at 10:16 PM.
I think the biggest support of this post lies in arguably the greatest MMORPG of all time - EverQuest.
Massive MMO, literally spent hundreds of hours of my life (approx. 200+ real time days) playing it.
Practically 0 "quests"
The only ones that could be classified as such were the quests for Epic weapons... which were more a matter of finding a random drop on a mob and piecing together which npc you give it to in order to progress.
Massive MMO, literally spent hundreds of hours of my life (approx. 200+ real time days) playing it.
Practically 0 "quests"
The only ones that could be classified as such were the quests for Epic weapons... which were more a matter of finding a random drop on a mob and piecing together which npc you give it to in order to progress.
In a lot of ways, EQ set the groundwork for exactly what the OP describes, just not in such a systematic way. It is the MMO that was more about killing mobs than anything else.Originally Posted by EchoedTruth
I think the biggest support of this post lies in arguably the greatest MMORPG of all time - EverQuest.
Massive MMO, literally spent hundreds of hours of my life (approx. 200+ real time days) playing it.
Practically 0 "quests"
The only ones that could be classified as such were the quests for Epic weapons... which were more a matter of finding a random drop on a mob and piecing together which npc you give it to in order to progress.
Yet it let you do that in a much smarter, and probably less costly way. As limited as it was compared to early Ultima Online's attempt at being an online roleplaying experience, it left the actual decisions on what to kill and when to your whims and needs. It felt like adventure, instead of busywork.
Most quests are like the developer putting more effort into diminishing your role as a hero, which is odd because they have to write and sometimes voice all this pointless text to do so. I guess a lot of designers simply don't have the skill to simply put things in a world that players need, and having battles be a good way to get them.
I think Guild Wars 2 was a good step forward, but not entirely there. I think it's a good model to set off from.
When they were designing GW2, they originally had absolutely no quest markers or givers whatsoever. They just wanted people to go out and explore and find events to take part in. (Timeless Isle in WoW is definitely taking from this concept) But what happened? Too many of their testers walked in circles, complained that there were no quest givers, and gave up. As a result, they added the "heart quests", which are sort of a medium, they're quests that guide you through an area, but do not require you to talk to someone to initiate.
Do I think these were a decent compromise? Not really. But the point is, just because an idea sounds excellent (no quest givers) doesn't mean that it's very easy to solve. A significant portion of the audience still needs guidance. We just need to find more clever ways of giving it to them.
When they were designing GW2, they originally had absolutely no quest markers or givers whatsoever. They just wanted people to go out and explore and find events to take part in. (Timeless Isle in WoW is definitely taking from this concept) But what happened? Too many of their testers walked in circles, complained that there were no quest givers, and gave up. As a result, they added the "heart quests", which are sort of a medium, they're quests that guide you through an area, but do not require you to talk to someone to initiate.
Do I think these were a decent compromise? Not really. But the point is, just because an idea sounds excellent (no quest givers) doesn't mean that it's very easy to solve. A significant portion of the audience still needs guidance. We just need to find more clever ways of giving it to them.
Precisely... good post.Originally Posted by animlboogy
In a lot of ways, EQ set the groundwork for exactly what the OP describes, just not in such a systematic way. It is the MMO that was more about killing mobs than anything else.
Yet it let you do that in a much smarter, and probably less costly way. As limited as it was compared to early Ultima Online's attempt at being an online roleplaying experience, it left the actual decisions on what to kill and when to your whims and needs. It felt like adventure, instead of busywork.
Most quests are like the developer putting more effort into diminishing your role as a hero, which is odd because they have to write and sometimes voice all this pointless text to do so. I guess a lot of designers simply don't have the skill to simply put things in a world that players need, and having battles be a good way to get them.
Adding to that - EQ let you literally do whatever you wanted (including kill other PCs anywhere if you were on a PvP server).
Don't like the way your guildmaster spoke to you? Kill 'em!
Don't like Gnomes? Kill their whole city!
That big ass dragon you heard about? Sneak all the way through its dungeon so it can kill you in one hit! Love it!
8 hour corpse retrievals in Plane of Fear? Get your shit ready.
It was hardcore, and awesome.
The closest experience I've found to it, isn't even an MMO - Dark Souls.
Last edited by EchoedTruth; 12-03-2013 at 11:31 PM.
I find it amusing that so many people took the opportunity to take potshots at Skyrim once again, because Skyrim has exactly the sorts of scenarios the OP used as a positive example. The key is, they were never called "quests," but were colloquially referred to as something like "randomly encountered dragons." We can critique these quasi-"quests" on their own merits, of course, but they provide exactly that sort of situation wherein you actually experience directly the sort of danger they pose, you lose control over your companions, and you experience sometimes bizarre, occasionally touching moments of mechanical and narrative emergence. The primary difference between these dragons and the scenario presented in the OP is a certain lack of the game acknowledging to such a strong degree what has occurred; conversely, however, precisely because the game does not enforce a scripted reply, the results of such an incident have far more potential for actual role-playing than a direct injection of scripted plot ever could.
I can think of two such moments in particular from my own time in Skyrim that illustrate my point. The second dragon I randomly encountered during my first character's playthrough attacked a small mining town just as I was returning from some mundane, courier-style quest. I was completing the scripted quest for a woman, Sylgja, who I was hoping to marry to my character (it wasn't until later that I found out for certain that she was one of the paltry number of marriageable women in Skyrim), but, during the random attack by this low-level dragon, this woman and a couple other miners were killed. This seemingly minor event altered the course of my character's life. Marriage was never an option, so to speak, for that character again. Another, similarly random dragon encounter (much later and at a much higher level) killed the horse I'd been using for dozens of in-game hours, a horse that I still remember purchasing in the middle of the night as I left Riften (soon after the death of my would-be bride) to head north, and which I simply did not have the heart to replace.
We wouldn't, however, call these "quests." They're merely only a couple of things that can happen during any given moment in a game that provides for and encourages this sort of randomly generated emergence. The game doesn't provide these characters simply to kill them as one watches on helplessly, like some twisted divinity tempting the wrath or testing the mettle of one of its subjects; rather, the game's world simply serves as a space wherein two objects within the game just happened to encounter each other in such a way that the resulting relationship of these objects has a lasting effect on the psyche of the person playing the game and, consequently, the character being played.
Perhaps we won't need quests as we currently conceive of them to fill in our gameworlds when these sorts of events become more commonplace, more complex, and more sophisticated.
I can think of two such moments in particular from my own time in Skyrim that illustrate my point. The second dragon I randomly encountered during my first character's playthrough attacked a small mining town just as I was returning from some mundane, courier-style quest. I was completing the scripted quest for a woman, Sylgja, who I was hoping to marry to my character (it wasn't until later that I found out for certain that she was one of the paltry number of marriageable women in Skyrim), but, during the random attack by this low-level dragon, this woman and a couple other miners were killed. This seemingly minor event altered the course of my character's life. Marriage was never an option, so to speak, for that character again. Another, similarly random dragon encounter (much later and at a much higher level) killed the horse I'd been using for dozens of in-game hours, a horse that I still remember purchasing in the middle of the night as I left Riften (soon after the death of my would-be bride) to head north, and which I simply did not have the heart to replace.
We wouldn't, however, call these "quests." They're merely only a couple of things that can happen during any given moment in a game that provides for and encourages this sort of randomly generated emergence. The game doesn't provide these characters simply to kill them as one watches on helplessly, like some twisted divinity tempting the wrath or testing the mettle of one of its subjects; rather, the game's world simply serves as a space wherein two objects within the game just happened to encounter each other in such a way that the resulting relationship of these objects has a lasting effect on the psyche of the person playing the game and, consequently, the character being played.
Perhaps we won't need quests as we currently conceive of them to fill in our gameworlds when these sorts of events become more commonplace, more complex, and more sophisticated.
I feel like the problem you're outlining here has more to do with the bad habits and learned behavior of players than it does with game design. MMO players are used to playing "Connect-the-Dots" with quest hubs, and changing that is going to take time. Especially since few developers seem interested in breaking from the mold (after all, it's easily produced busywork and they're in the business of getting subscription fees).I think Guild Wars 2 was a good step forward, but not entirely there. I think it's a good model to set off from.
When they were designing GW2, they originally had absolutely no quest markers or givers whatsoever. They just wanted people to go out and explore and find events to take part in. (Timeless Isle in WoW is definitely taking from this concept) But what happened? Too many of their testers walked in circles, complained that there were no quest givers, and gave up. As a result, they added the "heart quests", which are sort of a medium, they're quests that guide you through an area, but do not require you to talk to someone to initiate.
Do I think these were a decent compromise? Not really. But the point is, just because an idea sounds excellent (no quest givers) doesn't mean that it's very easy to solve. A significant portion of the audience still needs guidance. We just need to find more clever ways of giving it to them.
It may sound a bit melodramatic, but sometimes I feel like a lot of gamers have sort of forgotten how to play just for the sake of having fun, and need some kind of shiny reward/progression system to get them to play games that are actually fun on their own merit.
| Thread Tools | |