General Gaming Question/Opinions: Open worlds and Side Quests in game design

[Dexterryu]

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?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

This is a very interesting topic and I'll definitely give it some thought before providing a more thorough response.

 

My initial take is that I've grown disenchanted with the entire concept of "open-world" as a whole (ESPECIALLY the Ubisoft-style formula) so I'm right there with you in the sense that the presence of side quests and/or other activities in open-world games are inherently antithetical to a narrative-driven experience.

[Biggie]

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. 

[Bacon]

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.

[eventide11]

A good balance has always worked better for me personally. Starfield for example, just too much for my tastes. But Elden Ring.. Near perfect because it was just enough to not be too much but had me on Fextralife looking for something else I could have done differently with this or that character. So yeah, balance is key

[crispy4000]

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. 
 

Xenoblade 3 handled it the best I can think of in recent memory, even with too much arguably.  There’s some filler, but also dozens of hours of top shelf content it’s crazy they let you finish without seeing.  And that stuff is generally marked as important, whereas the other stuff can be more hit and miss, but it still generally tries to swing for something that fleshes out the world lore.

[Firewithin]

i tend to like side quests that can be found organically by stumbling on them, talking to a random person, overhearing something.  if they can be done along side a main quest then great but i also dont mind just going off and exploring to complete something.  sometimes "quest boards" can be ok like in Witcher finding the hunting contracts etc.

 

the ones i dont like are ones you HAVE to do to get like resources to advance something or needing to do a certain amount to progress a story aspect.

[TwinIon]

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.

[AbsolutSurgen]

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.

[best3444]

I feel Starfield did a very good job with side quests. Where you get them by over hearing conversations or by being introduced during a main plot line. 

 

I feel if games do it like this, then stuff your game full of side quests but always have the option to just focus on the main quest line. I love open world games and I'm happy games have slowly transitioned to this formula. 

[Remarkableriots]

Open-world games are my favorites, and I enjoy doing all side quests. Especially because they add extra stories that otherwise wouldn't have made it into the game.

[stepee]

I prefer side quests to be separate from the main quest, so I can b-line the main quest if I want and not miss out any major plot details. Side quests I like to establish more about the games lore and world building type stuff. I also expect to be able to become over powered if I do enough side quests. 

[Keyser_Soze]

I think side quests should be an optional thing that compliment a playthrough. If you miss it you don't lose out on anything but if you participate then it enhances the story or you get some bonus out of it. I can't think of big examples but I think something like RE4 that had side quests you could do along the way but you didn't necessarily have to hunt it down to do it.

 

Elden Ring is almost an extreme example of this. There is one obvious path to finish the game but there are quests or choices you can make to net yourself a deeper story and various bonuses.

 

I dunno. like I said I don't really have good examples but I think you know what I mean. For the most part I'm with Wade and that open worlds are kind of tired. I think the good middle ground is an open linear world where there are big zones to do stuff but you're pushed down a specific path, something like a souls game, Lies of P, Resident Evil, etc. Games that give you freedom to explore but can tell a focused story and still have good gameplay.

[best3444]

5 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

I think side quests should be an optional thing that compliment a playthrough. If you miss it you don't lose out on anything but if you participate then it enhances the story or you get some bonus out of it. I can't think of big examples but I think something like RE4 that had side quests you could do along the way but you didn't necessarily have to hunt it down to do it.

 

Elden Ring is almost an extreme example of this. There is one obvious path to finish the game but there are quests or choices you can make to net yourself a deeper story and various bonuses.

 

I dunno. like I said I don't really have good examples but I think you know what I mean. For the most part I'm with Wade and that open worlds are kind of tired. I think the good middle ground is an open linear world where there are big zones to do stuff but you're pushed down a specific path, something like a souls game, Lies of P, Resident Evil, etc. Games that give you freedom to explore but can tell a focused story and still have good gameplay.

 

GOW Ragnarok is an example of this, too. 

[Dexterryu]

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.

[Bacon]

16 minutes ago, Dexterryu said:

^^ 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?

Just to be clear It is FFXVI/FF16 that has the poor side quests. Anyway, it is clearly MMO-style padding, but they are also used to expand upon the game, but what it expands upon hardly matters. I feel the intent of the side quests was to make you feel immersed in the world and as Clive, but they don't really hit the mark. There are only a few truly decent side quests that all happen at the end of the game. Side quests give all kinds of rewards, but generally, it can be summed up as story/lore, upgrades, money, and EXP, but you really only care about the upgrades. The major problem is that they all feel too errand boyish and like they were designed for Allied Grunt A rather than the Main Character. That and there is a major presentation issue in that they are presented poorly, and yet still have full voice acting. It's kinda funny that no voice acting and text boxes would have made some quests better, like all of the blacksmith's quests.

 

And it's really only the "story" side quests that suck. Side quests where you hunt rare monsters or do optional challenge trials are pretty fun. But most side quests are the boring filler quests with WAY too much boring talking.

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, Dexterryu said:

 

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.

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.

[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.

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, Dexterryu said:

 

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.

To me "Side Quest" and "Something To Do in The World" are synonyms, as long as there is some sort of reward received for doing the thing. 

[gamer.tv]

Side quests for the sake of it (collect 40 of something) are awful. If they progress a side element or non-essential part of a story or allow you to get/upgrade your character, they’re fine. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

The whole discussion makes me think of this video I saw a while back. 
 

 

And I kind of agree. I am often less likely to finish open world games due to burnout or a sense of being overwhelmed with so much to do. 
 

More often I want a world to feel open and vast more than I want an endless world. And when Devs create a big open world they feel a duty to fill it with quests and little things to do. As if they need to justify the size. As if the world will feel empty if they don’t. 
 

I still feel like this is part of why Elden Ring ended up not feel overwhelming. You can miss things and not even know it. And the ignorance of that doesn’t bother you. You just run into something. Now it could do better with a journal system to keep track of the quests you do find, but it’s lack of half holding felt freeing and less stressful. 
 

I think side quests will always be a bit at odds with the narrative in many games. You take away the choice to do side quests and people might get upset. Depending on the story they are telling you might not be able to even complete side quests after a main quest. So no matter the urgency devs may want to still give players the chance to mill around doing other stuff. 

 

Some easy side quest styles I like are when you’re asked to do something as part of a main mission, or while on a main mission you find or read something important and later find a person interested in it. It feels a bit more organic and doesn’t distract from the main mission and the main narrative. 
 

In Horizon Zero Dawn the side quests kind of annoyed me. Here I am trying to find the people responsible for a viscous assault who are threatening to destroy everyone and Aloy is also seemingly the only person that can do literally anything. How the fuck did any of these people survive to adulthood or to build a society is beyond me. That being said I felt very rewarded when at the climax of the game you are aided by everyone you took time out to help. Mass Effect 2 was kind of similar except you were punished one way or another if you waited too long to do the major side quests (loyalty missions). 
 

I don’t think when it comes to side quest design the issue is open worlds. I think the greater issue is the story being told and whether the design of the side quests have any cohesion with the main story. Both in how they fit in story wise, but also how they are given to the player. But a lot of it stems from why the side quests exists at all. And often it only exists as a cheap way to pad out the game’s run time and to make a world seem more alive than it really is. 

 

[Dexterryu]

On 10/23/2023 at 1:24 PM, AbsolutSurgen said:

To me "Side Quest" and "Something To Do in The World" are synonyms, as long as there is some sort of reward received for doing the thing. 

 

On 10/23/2023 at 2:17 PM, gamer.tv said:

Side quests for the sake of it (collect 40 of something) are awful. If they progress a side element or non-essential part of a story or allow you to get/upgrade your character, they’re fine. 

 

Responding to the two above. Yes, quality is largely a thing here but also narrative value. That's what makes something have a little impact vs just being filler.

 

On 10/23/2023 at 3:07 PM, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

The whole discussion makes me think of this video I saw a while back. 
 

 

And I kind of agree. I am often less likely to finish open world games due to burnout or a sense of being overwhelmed with so much to do. 
 

More often I want a world to feel open and vast more than I want an endless world. And when Devs create a big open world they feel a duty to fill it with quests and little things to do. As if they need to justify the size. As if the world will feel empty if they don’t. 
 

I still feel like this is part of why Elden Ring ended up not feel overwhelming. You can miss things and not even know it. And the ignorance of that doesn’t bother you. You just run into something. Now it could do better with a journal system to keep track of the quests you do find, but it’s lack of half holding felt freeing and less stressful. 
 

I think side quests will always be a bit at odds with the narrative in many games. You take away the choice to do side quests and people might get upset. Depending on the story they are telling you might not be able to even complete side quests after a main quest. So no matter the urgency devs may want to still give players the chance to mill around doing other stuff. 

 

Some easy side quest styles I like are when you’re asked to do something as part of a main mission, or while on a main mission you find or read something important and later find a person interested in it. It feels a bit more organic and doesn’t distract from the main mission and the main narrative. 
 

In Horizon Zero Dawn the side quests kind of annoyed me. Here I am trying to find the people responsible for a viscous assault who are threatening to destroy everyone and Aloy is also seemingly the only person that can do literally anything. How the fuck did any of these people survive to adulthood or to build a society is beyond me. That being said I felt very rewarded when at the climax of the game you are aided by everyone you took time out to help. Mass Effect 2 was kind of similar except you were punished one way or another if you waited too long to do the major side quests (loyalty missions). 
 

I don’t think when it comes to side quest design the issue is open worlds. I think the greater issue is the story being told and whether the design of the side quests have any cohesion with the main story. Both in how they fit in story wise, but also how they are given to the player. But a lot of it stems from why the side quests exists at all. And often it only exists as a cheap way to pad out the game’s run time and to make a world seem more alive than it really is. 

 

 

Great points on Elden Ring (both the not-overwhelming part and the journal).

 

As for side quests being at odds with the narrative, that depends. Ideally they should be able to deliver one of two things: 1 - Adding something to the main narrative or 2 - Be worthy of standing on it's own in a way that's good enough that you'd want to do it after completing the main game.

 

I like to call back to Witcher 3 on this one because they really nailed the aspect of being a Witcher with the contracts board.

• The means of getting the quest from the board felt like a very in-world way of accepting the quest.
• They were almost always local to the village (no traveling to a remote corner of the world to deliver a love note).
• They were all "Witcher things" kill x monster that is doing evil things and get paid.
• They generally had a mini-story with a few ways of solving it.
• They fit just as well for living in the world after the main narrative as during.
• They weren't in your face pestering you to do them while you were doing the main quests (a la Cyberpunk/Far Cry 5 & 6).

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

A game that always bothered me in quest design was Dragon Age Origins. A great evil is coming to bring about the apocalypse. I need armies to fight it off. And the game devolves into nested quests, because everyone needs me to do them a favor. It would get so bad at times I’d forget what I was trying to do for the main quest. lol

 

another thing many open worlds are bad about, and Starfield it’s really obvious, is the game just allowing you to do everything. Be part of every faction, even when factions are at war with each other. All so players don’t have to worry about locking themselves out of content. It often ends up with quest lines ending where nothing matters. 

[crispy4000]

Just another thought: I long for that time when side quests were more secrets than handholdy, directed quest lines.  That change probably came about because designers just thought everyone would just look up YouTube tutorials anyways.  They wouldn’t be wrong… but something is lost for those who just want to be surprised about something tucked away under some perspective hidden passageway.

[Remarkableriots]

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

Just another thought: I long for that time when side quests were more secrets than handholdy, directed quest lines.  That change probably came about because designers just thought everyone would just look up YouTube tutorials anyways.  They wouldn’t be wrong… but something is lost for those who just want to be surprised about something tucked away under some perspective hidden passageway.

Lots of games have side quests and easter egg surprises to be found.

[crispy4000]

15 hours ago, Remarkableriots said:

Lots of games have side quests and easter egg surprises to be found.

 

I feel like it’s more carrot on a stick oriented today generally than hard-to-find, rewarding secrets.  Go chase that map icon, after all, a FAQ won’t spoil that for you.  Go talk to the character with the ? or !  symbol above their head for a side thing, that probably will reward you with money and some needless shit, but you’ll be helping the people!  Oh hey, check out at that land feature we’ve designed by committee to have an utterly benign reward that won’t put you at too much of an advantage, because it wouldn’t be fair to the players that missed it.  Don’t forget to play dress up with all the cosmetic options we have for you, go exchange your tokens for that!

 

I’ve enjoyed several games that have done some variation of this.  But it really is getting tiresome seeing so many AAA games go down this route.  The obsession with cosmetics and granular loot upgrades as a motivator needs to be dialed back.

[Dexterryu]

15 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

A game that always bothered me in quest design was Dragon Age Origins. A great evil is coming to bring about the apocalypse. I need armies to fight it off. And the game devolves into nested quests, because everyone needs me to do them a favor. It would get so bad at times I’d forget what I was trying to do for the main quest. lol

 

Ironically, this is something I find fairly realistic. Look at what happened with Covid and with Global Warming. Regardless of where you fall politically it's universally challenging to understand the objective truth due to the amount of media manipulation & misinformation (Aside: "Don't look up" articulates this so well). So despite what the Grey Wardens knew to be an apocalyptic threat, the general population and nobility were basically shrugging their shoulders and greedily maneuvering to gain power.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 hour ago, Dexterryu said:

 

Ironically, this is something I find fairly realistic. Look at what happened with Covid and with Global Warming. Regardless of where you fall politically it's universally challenging to understand the objective truth due to the amount of media manipulation & misinformation (Aside: "Don't look up" articulates this so well). So despite what the Grey Wardens knew to be an apocalyptic threat, the general population and nobility were basically shrugging their shoulders and greedily maneuvering to gain power.

it may be realistic, but it also made me stop playing, because it felt like the game was just being artificially padded out. If felt like even if I wanted to focus on the main story the game was 90% mandatory side quests. Where it was quests nested in quests nested in quests. So I just left the world to it’s fate, because none of them cared. Which kind of relates that that video I linked above. It felt like choice was being taken away. Maybe I should have been able to just tell somebody, fine don’t help, I’m leaving you to your fate.  

[Remarkableriots]

Spider-Man 2 has easter eggs you can find, but you're not told where they are. For example, 

Spoiler

you can find the Avengers Tower and the Fantastic Four building.

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

On 10/24/2023 at 5:22 PM, crispy4000 said:

Just another thought: I long for that time when side quests were more secrets than handholdy, directed quest lines.  That change probably came about because designers just thought everyone would just look up YouTube tutorials anyways.  They wouldn’t be wrong… but something is lost for those who just want to be surprised about something tucked away under some perspective hidden passageway.

I think it’s less because people would just look them up on YouTube and more because some gamers get upset they feel like they have to look them up on YouTube. It’s either FOMO or gamers complaining a game feels empty when there is actually a ton in the world if you go exploring and inspecting things. So developers just not wanting players to miss anything make side quests and collectibles hard to miss any easy to see on a map. 
 

It’s also easier to design very linear quests that have map markers and way points guiding you around by the hand from point to point. They can just say “go see Steve Stabbin” and not tell you where Steve is or make clues to find that where you can find Steve. They just drop a way point and lead you straight to Steve. Many quests are almost impossible to complete without way points now. 

[crispy4000]

42 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I think it’s less because people would just look them up on YouTube and more because some gamers get upset they feel like they have to look them up on YouTube. It’s either FOMO or gamers complaining a game feels empty when there is actually a ton in the world if you go exploring and inspecting things. So developers just not wanting players to miss anything make side quests and collectibles hard to miss any easy to see on a map. 

 

Designing a game so that people who will use Youtube could use it a bit less is counterintuitive.  That's the type of FOMO I wish developers would ignore.

 

Also, if a game feels empty unless you turn over every box for secrets, that's on the developers.

 

42 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

It’s also easier to design very linear quests that have map markers and way points guiding you around by the hand from point to point. They can just say “go see Steve Stabbin” and not tell you where Steve is or make clues to find that where you can find Steve. They just drop a way point and lead you straight to Steve. Many quests are almost impossible to complete without way points now. 

 

Because modern games generally don't do a great job building side quest NPCs into memorable characters.  In their location, in presentation, or in personality.

 

 

This is the way, IMO.  Don't hand hold the player.  Instead, make us think a quest-associated NPC is notable when you find them.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Quests also often feel pencil whipped. Too often there’s no clues to follow or find. 
 

Starfield is a recent example of this issue. I land at a settlement and overhear an altercation between characters. I talk to one who tells me a bit of what’s going on who then tells me to go talk to character 2. Where is character 2? Don’t know. No “they’re probably hiding their office in the building to left there. On the second floor”. So all I have is a name and because the quest markers have bugged out and aren’t appear I have no idea where this person is. I eventually find the person. Who tells me I need to find some security person who went missing outside of the compound. There’s no blood on the ground. Tracks left behind. A trail of breadcrumbs, nothing. Just wonder around until I stumble across the person. I find the person and get them back. Now I need to check out some complex/building or

something nearby. Where? Who knows. Around. The NPC knows it exists, but they couldn’t be bothered to have a line of dialog pointing me in a direction. 
 

Too often it feels like magic quest trails or way points serve to be just as much crutches for the developers as it is for us. But worse so when they use it as such, because it means we have to too. 

[TwinIon]

I've been praising it in it's on thread, but I think Spider-Man 2 handles side quests very well. Side quests are mostly discovered as you traverse the map, and they aren't all pushed at the same time, with different quests becoming available as you progress through the game. There is a good variety in what the quests entail, Some of them unexpectedly turn into longer quest lines that end up tying into the main narrative, others operate more or less on their own.

 

The main story itself has built in breaks for side quests, giving you time to "just be Spider-Man." In what could be argued to be a downgrade, the biggest encounters in side quests are much smaller than they were in the first game, but that reduction in size keeps the pace of the game moving along, ensuring they don't overstay their welcome. While side quests of a certain type usually end up being fairly similar, they still generally spice things up a bit, adding new wrinkles to quests in different locations or changing them as the main story progresses.

 

Overall it's some of the best handling of side quests in open world games to date. Not all of them are memorable or great fun, but even the simple distractions are a fine change of pace and short enough not to be annoying.

[crispy4000]

43 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Quests also often feel pencil whipped. Too often there’s no clues to follow or find. 
 

Starfield is a recent example of this issue. I land at a settlement and overhear an altercation between characters. I talk to one who tells me a bit of what’s going on who then tells me to go talk to character 2. Where is character 2? Don’t know. No “they’re probably hiding their office in the building to left there. On the second floor”. So all I have is a name and because the quest markers have bugged out and aren’t appear I have no idea where this person is. I eventually find the person. Who tells me I need to find some security person who went missing outside of the compound. There’s no blood on the ground. Tracks left behind. A trail of breadcrumbs, nothing. Just wonder around until I stumble across the person. I find the person and get them back. Now I need to check out some complex/building or

something nearby. Where? Who knows. Around. The NPC knows it exists, but they couldn’t be bothered to have a line of dialog pointing me in a direction. 
 

Too often it feels like magic quest trails or way points serve to be just as much crutches for the developers as it is for us. But worse so when they use it as such, because it means we have to too. 

 

I like the idea of many people in a settlement giving you vague clues to a side quest rather than quest markers and explicit directions.  I'd want to hear rumors about something mysterious happening in the woods up there.  Then piece together what actually happened myself.

[Bacon]

On 10/23/2023 at 3:07 PM, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

The whole discussion makes me think of this video I saw a while back. 
 

 

 

I'm not sure why, but I found this video very grating to my own personality. I definitely don't like Daryl based on his presentation of this topic.

 

Edit:

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but it was like I was being mansplained to and then he made assumptions about how I feel but he was wrong. It's stupid, but that's how this video made me feel lol. Not a big deal, it's just a video, but just wanted to bring it up.