Dexterryu

On 10/18/2023 at 2:07 PM, AbsolutSurgen said:

There are lots of ways that developers can signal the importance of sidequests -- i.e. Hogwart's Legacy used different map icons to indicate the different things you could do at each place.  The character's you met throughout the school would also give you side quests, which you could decide to do (or not).  Most games don't just put an exclamation point above a character's head anymore.

That's actually kind of what I'm getting at. When do we consider something an actual side quest vs just something to do in the world. Hogwarts is an interesting topic in this regard because it was all over the place. It had the main quest, which was decent. The companion quests, which were excellent. A few side quests where an NPC gave you something to do which were honestly a mix of forgettable/annoying for me. Yes, it had item collection/puzzles identified on the map as "quests" but I don't really consider those things quests as much as just stuff to do in the world.

One of the things that HW did well was make it fairly easy to distinguish between them because it was a game that for me, sort of dragged on, got a bit repetitive, and it's idea of increasing difficulty was just more bad guys at once or endlessly spawning bad guys. So it made it very easy for me to realize that I didn't care about searching for so & so's missing stones and ignore it.

First off... Thank you to everyone that responded. Really like where the discussion is headed and seeing opinions. I've quoted several folks here as you've brought some additional dimensions to the conversation that warranted a specific response/deeper dive.

The other thing is how many of us are lamenting the open world games themselves. That's another topic altogether of the value of the open world game vs semi-open world vs level based. Who wants to start that thread?

The other main thing that several mentioned was Elden Ring. I thought I'd call it out here separately because it fits both in the side quest and open world discussion. It's open world was built with the purpose (and player value) of being explored. It was filled with it's own history and secrets to discover which made it a character of it's own (a FromSoft speciality). To contrast it with Cyberpunk where Night City was just a setting. 
 

20 hours ago, Biggie said:

I enjoy side quests. Sometimes in games like Starfield when I wanna jump on and play for maybe an hour I’ll do some side quests instead of getting involved in a Main Story Quest that’s going to be a time sink. 

^^ I think this aligns to the perspective of just having them there and giving the player the choice. Though it also begs the question of options for filtering/obscuring side quests beyond just a basic quest tracker.

20 hours ago, Bacon said:

Side quests are best when they are to be done alongside the main quests. Like, you do both at the same time. While FFXVI had very poor side quests, they were generally designed to be done during your current visit to the area. FFXIV actually does the same thing in some cases. Like, it just doesn't make sense from a story perspective to do some quests after you have already resolved the zone's main issue.

 

When it comes to games with a narrative time limit, just make it all post-game if you can. If CP77 didn't have god-awful endings, this game would be perfect for it.

 

Overall, I hate open world games these days. This isn't my main issue but I can't say I'm a fan of it. Also, most side quests kinda fuckin' suck. In CP77 and AssCreed, they aren't even a quest. More like a task that isn't worth doing if it wasn't for some enhancement to your character.

^^ In the case of FFXIV (I haven't played it)... if the side quests are poor yet you can do them at the same time as a mainline quest then what is the value they provide to the player or the narrative? Are they just EXP padding? If so, maybe a flaw in the design of the XP system? Or are they just another reward system trigger to give a player a sense of extra accomplishment?

19 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

If your game has to set up a whole system to let the player keep track of and juggle side quests, you probably have too many.  And if your game feels empty without that many, you need to find other ways to make your world interesting, IMO.

 

As for the quests themselves I think there needs to be something worthwhile to them to justify their existence.  A cutscene that doesn’t feel slapped on, but something you’re truly glad you got to see.  A cool item that you’d actually use.  A hint for uncovering some other secret in the world.  A new member of your party.  A super boss.

 

In general, the more that side quests feel like enhancements that better your experience with the game, the more their existence is justified. 

^^ Great points. Especially on a side quest tracker. I think you call out something about the side quests themselves being interesting. A great example of this to me is ME Trilogy vs any Ubi game. UBI's are mostly filler whereas ME, the side quests added significant value to not only the outcomes of the games but the character interactions.

19 hours ago, TwinIon said:

I think it's worth separating out a few different issues at play here. One issue is the ludonarrative dissonance between the story being told in an urgent main quest and the gameplay experience of knowing that there really is no real urgency and thus being able to take all the time in the world to help a random NPC find their lost cat. The other issue is the way so many open world games simply inundate the player with an endless amount of activities, most of which are of a relatively low quality as compared to the main quests.

 

Personally, I'm less bothered by the latter problem than most seem to be. I'm not a completionist, I don't care about trophies or scores. I'll take part in side quests when I'm enjoying spending time in that world or it seems the reward is worthwhile, but if I don't enjoy a type of sidequest, I'm more than happy to simply ignore them. Personally, I'd much rather creators pad their games' length by adding in 100 copy-paste side quests than by putting a bunch of low quality filler into the main quest.

 

Ideally the gameplay itself is enticing enough that I'm doing side quests just to enjoy the process, but even when that's not the case I think there is a place in these massive games for the more bite-sized content provided by all the optional activities. Sometimes as a player it's nice to have the option to do something small that you know won't spiral your game session out longer than you have time for. Sometimes it's nice to have bite sized encounters available to try out a different build or a new ability. As long as you're not locking great material behind something tedious, I think having a bevvy of options is usually a good thing for players, and at worst it's something to just ignore.

 

The narrative issue is more difficult, but I do think we've seen it done well. The GTA games often get credit for spawning the side quest hellscape that dominates modern gaming, but the newer entries have done a great job of balancing the main story with the side content. The stories aren't usually so urgent that it wouldn't make sense to take part; to the contrary, the main quest usually has built in lulls specifically put their for players to explore. I feel like both Cyberpunk and Horizon do this as well, though I agree that the primary driver is such that it makes any break seem narratively difficult to justify.

^^ Several things here. First regarding the filler quests that you could ignore or not based on completionism. The problem that I have is that they often add general clutter. My problem is the constant interruptions from those quests.  Far Cry games, Harry Potter, Spiderman and CP, it felt like every ten seconds some NPC is calling or texting me to do something. It's almost like game doesn't want me to enjoy whatever it is I was doing to try and pull me onto something else. 

Second is the gameplay aspect... and this is where going to something like GOW, Arkham, and Spiderman games stand out. Their fantastic gameplay made me want to come back and unfinished side quests were there to give narrative reasons to add value to just simply playing the game more. For my money GOW was the sweet spot in giving the feel that many side quests felt like post narrative bonus content vs filler.

18 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

There isn't one type of side quest -- in modern video games side quests can be anything from a huge side narrative to managing collectibles.

 

Designers feel the need to include some quests to make the world more alive.  Others are just there to pad out the game time for players who are motivated by "how long does this game take to beat".  There is no straightforward answer, because so many different designers have done it in so many different way.  I like having the option of deciding what I will do next.  I like having the option of not doing something I don't enjoy.  Fundamentally, given that different players have different preferences, I don't really have a problem with games having tons of side quests that don't interest me -- because they could interest someone else.

This is a good callout because it addresses side quests in a way that qualitative vs quantitative. AC Odyssey is a good case study because it was a mix of both. It had some quests that sent you across the map for a 15 second conversation as a glorified messenger (that are so forgettable I can't go into further detail) and then it had other things that were truly cool like the Minotaur quest line. The problem here is that there's no way to tell when you encounter a quest giver. It could be a grand mini-adventure or it could be sending the savior of the world on a silly trip to deliver flowers to their dog.

Thanks for clicking on my post. I hope it's a fun discussion.

I've been gaming since the 80s and as technology has progressed it's felt like many games have transitioned from levels to open worlds... and to varying degrees of success. I was prompted to start this discussion based upon going back to replay CyberPunk for the Phantom Liberty DLC... and as I did I became somewhat frustrated and overwhelmed by all of the side stuff going on... because it didn't really feel right narratively. Here's V, who's literally in a race against time to save his/her life taking on side quests... and those side quests usually required me to spend at least a little bit of time traveling somewhere where characters are texting V with even more crap to do.

So... that brings me to the question and asking your opinions about side quests in game design. Where, when, and how should side quests be implemented? On one hand, it's an open world. The player is given freedom to go and do as they wish. However, the world waits for them. Johnny waits to glitch V out until various narrative actions are taken... so V really isn't in a race against time. On the other hand, who in that situation would ever be doing a "side quest" with their life or some other urgent situation on the line? World is possibly ending, but Aloy has time to go help some random NPC she just met hunt down black boxes from 1000 years ago.

In this case, side quests often detract from the experience. The main narrative gets muddled, details get forgotten, and often (since everything has RPG elements these days) the character is over-leveled and unchallenged by the big ultimate thing. That said, many are good... but I'm wondering if they wouldn't be better as continuations of the world and characters to do afterwards (basically built in DLC).

So what do the gamers say? Is it better for open worlds to be stuffed full of side quests or should they be streamlined to the main narrative? What games find the right balance vs being bloated?

FrostPunk
They are Billions
Stranded: Alien Dawn

Gonna definitely wait on this for a bit to see if performance gets patched up. I've seen a lot of reviewers complaining about PC performance... how is console performance?

1 minute ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

you don’t like the voice acting or

you don’t like the character? Because the character is kind of defined by you, you select the actions and dialog choices. So if you don’t like the character that might point to a bit of self loathing. lol 

I can kind of see this. I felt this somewhat in my first playthrough and feel it still playing with the other voice actor. No matter the choices in dialogue or intent V wants to be cool/edgy. Regardless of voice actor, V is kind of an unlikeable person. Part of it is the world of Night City because almost every character is in that same 'only looking out for themselves' way of life.

To compare to games like Witcher and ME, Geralt & Shepard are a little more defined characters. V's backstory is very thin and it's more jarring to be thrust into the characters shoes. Geralt and Shepard are characters themselves, just that we as a player have influence as to how their story plays out where Cyberpunk tries to make it your story a little more and isn't 100% successful.

I'm excited for this. I've tried the original several times but it's age/clunkiness always ends with me prioritizing other things and forgetting about it.

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

 

If memory serves, it opens up as a quest branch naturally in the main game which you would do before you finish the main quest.

So with my previous save (from like 2020) being already at the end of the game it would probably be worth starting over? With the 2.0 update and a better PC I'm kinda considering this anyway.

Question for those that have read more (trying to avoid spoilers). Is this a complete Add on meant to be played after the game (with your current character), like an additional quest line (like Witcher 3's) or it's own thing entirely?

 

8 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

There is plenty of lore in an Elder Scrolls game, they're all in books you find in the world and some are quite lengthy.

While that's true... IMHO, not a great way to implement it. Going to compare it to ME. The lore is a big part of not only the settings but also the motivations of the characters. Wrex and the Krogans dealing with the genophage. Mordin and his guilt about it. 

Conversely, Skyrim had interesting looking ruins throughout that you'd wander upon... but little explanations of what they were before. So they (to me) feel hollow. Compare that to Elden Ring, which had similar but most places felt like they had a purpose in the world vs just being there. Ruins weren't just a random castle in the wilderness but the ruins of whole towns....

Which brings me back to Starfield. One of the things that stuck with me in IGNs review were the copy/pasted sections of the MAIN plotline. Inch deep/mile wide. I know I'll eventually play it but when I read/hear stuff like that it just reminds me of the many things I dislike about your typical Ubi game. Lots of stuff to do but not a lot of narrative reason to do them beyond checking boxes.

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

It still could be for you. I don’t like Fallout games, but really like Elder Scrolls games. If Bethesda made a Cowboy Western game I’d probably skip that. Sometimes it just really depends on what the setting and theme is with a Bethesda game. 

That's possible. Skyrim was OK-ish for me. Didn't care for Fallout either. I think the main issue with Bethesda games is that they build worlds but skip the narrative world building... That's the difference between Witcher 3/Mass Effect/Dragon Age Origins/Elden Ring vs Skyrim. Those worlds have lore, history, etc... that make them a world vs a map.

Where I may become interested in Starfield is when it's modded up to minimize some of the tedium (IGN called out the typically clunky bethesda inventory) or there is the inevitable gold/GoTY version that comes out.

After watching/reading many of the reviews... this is a Bethesda game through and through. I know a ton of people are excited about that but I'm pretty sure it means this game is definitely not for me despite being a bit of a space nerd.

10 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

FWIW, people who want these subs and pay monthly instead of bundles are suckers  

(now, buying a single month or two to play something vs an entire year is a different story!)

This is true of pretty much all subscription services (TV Streaming too). Unless they're providing consistent value in things to play, cancel until there is or theres a backlog of things worth trying for a month.

28 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

That's how I feel, but there's also enough alternatives for cheap ownership today that I'm not so interested in the subscriptions.

 

Back in the day, you'd have to pay your $6 Blockbuster rental fee to play a new release.  Games Pass/PS Extra is a way better deal than that.  But I'm also patient enough with 99% of the indies and AA games out there to wait for Humble Choice or Epic giveaways.

 

If that faucet ever plugs up, I'd move (begrudgingly) to the subscriptions.

And that's if you the rental place had a copy that wasn't already checked out. I agree that these subs are a good deal... provided that they aren't month after lackluster month like PS Plus has been this summer.

2 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

Same, I'm done. Need to figure out how to turn off auto renew because I'm not paying that. I'm good until next summer but I can't even remember the last "free" game I played 

Sign in via a browser and go to manage subscriptions under account settings. Just did it myself

3 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I don’t think one year access to all 1st party releases is worth $204 annually.

 

The other additions have to be puts it over the edge.  Either that, or you play Games Pass stuff exclusively on PC, or you forgo online play.

 

Microsoft is definitely offering better options in the $120-140 annual tier now though.  

If I'm playing a game online, it's on PC which costs me zero. Even with game pass I typically will only sign up for a month or two at a time if there is a game I specifically want to play but not long term. Charging anyone to play online is a money grab that I've never supported. The only reason I'd ever sign up for any of them is the games.

Nail in the coffin for me. I've played all of the games in the back catalog that I wanted last year and new games are rarely added to PS plus before you can get them at bargain prices anyway. Definitely not renewing when my current annual sub expires.

At least (currently) Game Pass (PC) has day 1 releases to justify it's price.

Why do people care so much about how others play single player game? One of the top reasons I prefer them is because I don't want to deal with other people trying to tell me what to do/how to play.

There's a TON of hype about this game right now, and I'm definitely going to wait until it dies down before deciding to invest time into it. With BG3 and Remnant II, I've got plenty of game content on my hands that I don't need to rush and buy this right away, regardless of the reviews.

1 hour ago, Paperclyp said:

That’s a nice thing to hope but would be shocked if it is true. 

I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. I would be surprised if it made a difference.

29 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

The response from some devs on this game was really fuckin weird. The idea that some of these studios don’t have the same resources that Larian had is absurd. It should be a wake up call to publishers that if you give a talented team the resources and leave them the hell alone and stop trying to squeeze every penny from your customers, incredible experiences (and profitable ones) are possible.
 

As for you @HardAct, you should just get the game. If it’s not like a budgetary thing just buy it. It’s an amazing game and it deserves to be rewarded.  

Depends on how you look at it. My guess is that it's early damage control in that they are realizing that their projects are vastly inferior. At face value, it appears that they're throwing shade at Larian saying that BG3 is a unicorn. It has prompted a TON of backlash from fans, influencers, and game press. However, what I HOPE it is them using the backlash to influence the suits that want them to keep cranking out reskins and sequels of the same games. The main reason I'm hopeful is the number of devs that posted & responded. 

 

I'm kinda torn about a couple of things as I go through it. Note: Act 1 spoilers below:

Puzzles:

 

Overall, though I am loving the game and don't want to put it down. There are lots of decisions that result in a crazy amount of unpredictability and interesting consequences..

On 8/2/2023 at 2:40 PM, skillzdadirecta said:

The sound design is pretty good in this game and I think what you're talking about is done on purpose to keep you on your toes. You always have to have your head on a swivel because you never know when and where enemies are gonna pop up, but they usually give themselves away anyway. When those "mini-bosses" spawn into a level you know because there's a distinct sound cue. I think the sound in this game is very well done.

 

Anyway I beat that boss encounter I was talking about. It's more of a three dimensional puzzle with shooting than an actual boss fight and it was challenging. Took me pretty much all of my gaming time yesterday to beat it. Now I'm in a new world with a more futuristic theme... kind of like ALIEN or something. Really love the imagination put into this game and its environments.

 

The sound of the "elite" types are obvious. That's not what I'm whining about. I'm whining about the general movement sounds of your average everyday mobs and their ability to walk up to you without any audio queue. Especially when you're fighting something bigger that takes a lot of damage to defeat. It's an easy enough problem to solve in the game as it is (Just retreat a bit and they'll funnel themselves into a choke point).

Really enjoying the game so far, but if I had one area that I'd critique it would be the sound. Particularly surround and/or mob noises. The game spawns things all around you, which is fine in a game like this. However, I don't know how many times stuff just ends up behind me without any audio queue. Unless something is gigantic, there are no footsteps/movement noise or anything.

Does anyone else have this challenge? Is it just a PC headset issue?

I'm intrigued but definitely waiting for reviews. No "Soulslike" from anyone outside of FromSoft has made has never felt quite right, especially in the combat department.