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

[TwinIon]

13 minutes ago, Bacon said:

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.

I agree. I also just think he only makes half a point and frames that half poorly. He repeats multiple times that "you don't want open world games, you just want the freedom you think they provide," but he fails to prove that in any meaningful way. He argues that open world games can give you too much choice, which I suppose is true enough, but that isn't intractable or inherent to the form. He shows that that even open world games can still restrict your choices in displeasing ways, which again is true enough, but it's also the status quo, so again, not necessarily a reason why we shouldn't want an open world game. Then he goes through some ways that open world games can best handle player choice while still nudging players in the "right" direction, which I don't disagree with, but again, isn't an argument for not wanting open world games. If anything, it's an argument in favor of well made open worlds.

 

Open world games do provide more choice in a lot of important ways that players can appreciate and I think can make games genuinely better. If there's one thing this thread proves it's that it is difficult to add meaningful side content in a way that is actually additive to the overall player experience.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

6 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

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.

If it’s something more mysterious. But when you’re picking it up like a bounty Hunter and nobody can give you anything. The quest design was any lazier the only thing telling you to go talk to a character or go find a character/thing would be the quest marker. Which some games have done for side quests. 
 

16 minutes ago, Bacon said:

 

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.

yeah I think it’s how he’s trying to explain the psychology of it. It can come across like I know better than you, and I know why you do or do not like something. I tend to look at videos like this like they’re presenting me a perspective. It might match how I feel on a topic or might not. 

[Dexterryu]

On 10/26/2023 at 2:47 PM, crispy4000 said:

 

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.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 1:57 PM, 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. 

 

Calling out Witcher 2 & 3 on this as a great example of what to do vs what not. They integrated clues, witcher senses, etc... to help you find/hunt whatever it was in everything from main quests, side quests, and quick contracts.

[5timechamp]

Honestly at this point its not the sidequests that are important as much as the baked in mechanics for the NPCs, AI etc during some of these games… in GTA this manifests itself with random crimes or arguments you can get into at random moments.. the mechanics and emergent gameplay from those situations make full use of the beautiful maps in these games.. a simple mugger you chase can shoot at you, fight you, or even steal a car to try and get away.. the random factors make the game better

 

Ghost Recon Wildlands biggest flaw is that it has one of the very best maps of its generation, but most gunfights are relegated to towns or enemy bases… If the game populated random patrols in the environment the replay value would be endless specially if it had a well developed QRF system..

 

again, sidequests in and of themselves are fine but its the mechanics and ability to generate emergent gameplay that truly sets some open world games apart..

 

for example.. I loved Red Dead Redemption the missions are great… but what I will remember most is going into Tall Trees and the sheer terror of Bear attacks, vicious and merciless

 

 

[Dexterryu]

11 hours ago, 5timechamp said:

Honestly at this point its not the sidequests that are important as much as the baked in mechanics for the NPCs, AI etc during some of these games… in GTA this manifests itself with random crimes or arguments you can get into at random moments.. the mechanics and emergent gameplay from those situations make full use of the beautiful maps in these games.. a simple mugger you chase can shoot at you, fight you, or even steal a car to try and get away.. the random factors make the game better

 

Ghost Recon Wildlands biggest flaw is that it has one of the very best maps of its generation, but most gunfights are relegated to towns or enemy bases… If the game populated random patrols in the environment the replay value would be endless specially if it had a well developed QRF system..

 

again, sidequests in and of themselves are fine but its the mechanics and ability to generate emergent gameplay that truly sets some open world games apart..

 

for example.. I loved Red Dead Redemption the missions are great… but what I will remember most is going into Tall Trees and the sheer terror of Bear attacks, vicious and merciless

 

 

 

Emergent event's are great... they're neither padding nor plotted. They're just there and make the world feel dynamic and alive. So honestly a bit of a different topic.