Are Main Quests Necessary?

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I borrow the CoD games off of my friends so I can play and complete the story!

You need the main quest to keep the focus on the game. Take for instance the Assassins creed game... without the story all you would be doing is running and climbing on stuff for collectables... Why would the guards be chasing you... who knows? Who are you meant to kill? Who knows...?

Also take a game like mecenaries... Completely open world... but has a story. The story is a device to allow you to advance, reach new areas, and get new better weapons and air drops. You can also get better air drops and weapons just playing and exploring, but why would you do it without a reason too...? And that takes you back to the story. The story also provides the entire context of the game... Where are you, why are you there, who are you up against, why are you against/with them?

Finally take SRPG's. The story in these is mostly just to provide new challenges. The story missions in games such as FF:Tactics are all based around figting bosses, and providing that reason. Then you have many sidequests that are used to develop your characters, and get them to the level/classes that you want, so that you can continue to the next challenge.

I think story lines are important. Otherwise I just grow tired and get bored after a while. Even games like Tiger Woods PGA games have the season and tournament modes, and it was this kind of mode that made me carry on playing so that I would complete the game!

 

[Rariow]

I'd say it most definitely is. Not only do they give context to a larger setting (Explaining the constant dust storms, and making them somewhat terrifying in Morrowind, for instance), but also they give you a long term commitment to something. Even my Dark Brotherhood complete asshole character has the tingling though in his mind "Perhaps I should warn Whiterun's Jarl. Nah, not right now". It makes it feel like your entire journey is a series of adventures centering around the Main Quest, in that same way that ancient epics did (The Odyssey, for instance, had the "Main Quest" to get back home, but a whole bunch of other "Sidequests" that happened along the way). You COULD argue that it's unnecesary in a Bethesda game were you could make the prime objective something else, like completing the Companion's questline, but those stories are mostly not as epic as the Main Quest. Whilst the Main Quest deals with huge, world-wide problems like the Oblivion Invasion or the End of Time because of Alduin, the other questlines only deal with (relatively) minor issues, that will only affect the guild and its immediate surroundings.

The main thing is: The "Main Quest" is only main as long as you decide it is. And honestly, even in a game as huge as Skyrim, there needs to be some kind of overarching plot, even if it's not excellent and will be ignored by something like 60% of the players.

 

[him over there]

Developer: "Oh hey newcomer... we are going to introduce you to this game in wich you can look around and do stuff"

Player: "What's my objective?.."

Developer: "Objective? What's that?"

Player: "What do i have to do, my goal..."

Developer: "Oh theres no goal... you can go here, there, look around, shoot stuff and... that's basicly it..."

Yeah.... that sounds... so exiting... i can't wait to be trowned into a game with nothing to do... xD

I believe minecraft would like to have a word with you. Actually that made me think of something, games have worked on their own without main quests but the one thing they didn't have is sidequests. Unless you have user made content then eventually the sidequests will run out and you are left with a world where everything is done but with no ending. I think for a game like this to work it would have to be a sandbox world In it's purest form, no sidequests just an enjoyable scenic world where you make your own fun and have endless possibilities within the mechanics themselves.

 

[greatcheezer2021]

the main quest is the steps you take that pull you to the finale of the game.

like Red Dead Redemption. GTA III. GTA SA. GTA IV. Fallout 3. Borderlands. a couple examples from the free roam, open sandbox world types. you have a main quest-line, and many side stories that will either:

give you experience, give you a item you may need, whatever you might need that will help you thru the story. (ie: ammo, money, boss triggers, guns, etc.)


the argument is whether or not main quests are necessary. i believe its whatever you want with the game. whether its gameplay or a title with a story you seek, play accordingly. explore the hell out of your world, or breeze thru multiple play thrus. its your playstyle.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Yes. Yes it is. And using the "oh, but the meat of the game is sidequests!" to defend Skyrim is not a valid excuse for your main storyline sucking.

Fallout New Vegas had a ton of sidequests, but the main story was well done, and a good reason for you to go the most important area of the game.

Saint's Row 2 gave you a ton of sidequests to make you feel like a badass gangster (or just some guy who likes shooting poo at things), and the main quest offered all sorts of interesting bits of gameplay as well.

Majora's Mask (as minimalist as the story is) gives you a motivation to do what you do, and leads to the meat of the series (dungeons) and opens itself up for all sorts of interesting sidequests.

The main quest is the reason you're supposed to play a game. It's why sidequests are just that: SIDEquests. MMOs have a ton of quests, but those type of games are more about the grinding and the social interaction as opposed to progressing a story.

And I can hear you going "B-b-but MINECRAFT!" But part of the whole novelty of Minecraft was that a story mode would have hindered that kind of game: a giant creative tool to make whatever you want. And there aren't any sidequests in Minecraft.

 

[DustyDrB]

Yeah. Absolutely. God yes. Seriously, how many fetch quests can you go on? There were only a few miscellaneous side-quests (non Daedric or faction-based) that I liked in Skyrim. The rest were just boring. Radiant quests turned out to be a clunker.

Agreed in regards to the radiant quests, they were way too repetitive. The point about Skyrim is valid as well. I suppose a developer's motivation for abandoning the main quest would be important. If they were doing so because they suck at storytelling (Bethesda) then they wouldn't be able to make the side-quests any more interesting storytelling-wise. But if another developer came forward who were good at both creating interesting open worlds and storytelling then I think the idea might work better. Because even with a developer who are good at creating those two facets of games, I'd guess the main story would still suffer from pacing issues due to the game's open world nature.

Some would disagree, but I submit Fallout: New Vegas as the kind of game you're talking about.

you know why i hated new vegas? no post storyline sandbox... i dont know why..i loved the plot..but after i beat it once i had no drive to ever play it again.. because my experience was over after i beat the main plot..so i had no reason to keep playing..i like clearing out the main quests so i can od the side quests or vice versa but..once i beat new vegas there was nothing left for me..it just got really fucking boring..fallout 3 didnt have that problem to me.. it was a sandbox game that ended after you beat it..thats not how a sanbox should be..it should be never ending..i mean i loved the game..considered it as like number 3 of 2010 behind red dead redemption and mass effect 2 but unlike those games i just could not bring myself to beat it more than once. Technically im like 200 hours into skyrim and only 1 third of the way through the plot but not because its bad but because the directionless fucking around keeps me entertained, so it comes down to the gamer i guess.

Fallout games are typically story-based more than purely sandbox-focused. They just happen to take place in rather open worlds. Even Fallout 3 (as inconsistent in tone and lore with the rest of the series as it was) originally had a definitive ending.

Think about how extremely difficult it would be to have the game go on after the main story in New Vegas. There are four possible major endings with numerous other choices that you made throughout. For example: The Khans could have been wiped out (by the NCR or Legion), they could have been assimilated into the Legion, they could left the Mojave and sought aid from the Followers of the Apocalypse (and then used their new knowledge to become a truly powerful faction), they could have been broken and scattered, they could have been relocated by the NCR to a new reservation, and they could have joined up with the Vault 19 Powder Gangers. That's just for one faction. How would they represent all the possible changes to the world in gameplay if they allowed you to continue on after the main story?

Beyond that, most of the side quests in New Vegas at least tangentially relate to the main story. So you don't get the "faffing about" feel when you wander and help random people out that you do in other RPGs. Everything feels like it can help flesh out the world and inform your ultimate decision in who to side with in the game.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

It seems like the problem a lot of people have with the idea of 'no main story' is that they think that there would be no drive to do anything. But if the developers created a living world and then dumped you in the middle, how long would it take you to get involved with some NPCs? It seems like most players would find some storyline- a missing child, a struggling restaurant, an oppressive ruler- that drew them in, and then it is up to the developers to tie that to another arc so that you naturally follow one to the other, and so on and so on.

For instance, I know D&D groups that just wander their world, and they meet various NPCs, and decide who they want to help, which lets the DM design a minor arc for them to follow, which they do until they get bored or they screw up the campaign so that the situation is irreparable, at which point they return to the road. They like the free-roaming aspect, and wouldn't want to be railroaded from one encounter to the next.

In short, a well designed world with a bunch of interconnecting minor storylines is the same as one major story.

 

[Darkmantle]

no, they are not, see mount and blade, and minecraft for example. But the one in skyrim is fine, so you're batting 500 I guess.

 

[CatmanStu]

How about a game with the storyline that doesn't care about player at all ?
Some events happen, because they happen, they can't be changed, prevented or slowed down.
Actions of player, his level or progress have no impact on them.

Player, exactly like everyone else in the game faces them and it's up to him how he react - will he go boldly, try and make a difference, hide in some vault or try to escape all problems. There's no main storyline focused on player - he is only one piece of bigger picture. No chosen one, no scion of angels and scourge of gods. Only simple person that can change his life.

I'm thinking about some fort or castle that prepares for the siege scenario ("Army of Darkness" anyone ?)

("Dead Island" flirted with this idea for a bit, however they failed)

This is very close to my thoughts as I was playing Skyrim. If a world is going to be truly immersive and your choices really matter then all quest lines should continue with or without you.
The only thing I would say differently is that the player DOES make a difference to quests or there is no point to doing them.

In answer to the OP; in any narrative based media there has to be an over-arching story to give all the characters purpose otherwise it wouldn't be entertainment, it would be real life; and isn't that what we're trying to escape from every now and then?

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

And I can hear you going "B-b-but MINECRAFT!" But part of the whole novelty of Minecraft was that a story mode would have hindered that kind of game: a giant creative tool to make whatever you want. And there aren't any sidequests in Minecraft.

I'm with you. If people choose to make up a story for why they are clearing that ravine of monsters, it's not the same as if the developers wrote and planned a story to happen.

 

[CrazyBlaze]

The thing with Minecraft and other games like it is that there is nothing else to compare in the game with. They are empty spaces that you paint in. There is no real context to them at all. In Skyrim and games like it you have a world that you interact with other people in it. The main quests in those games allow for context of the world to be setup. Yes there are other ways, like talking with people, but the MQ brings everything into an easy focus and allows for a setup for the rest of the game.

 

[lacktheknack]

Well, given your example of Skyrim, with no main questline there would be:

-No dragon shouts
-No Dovahkiin
-Alienated fans (such as me)
-No "You Are The Only One Who Can Save The World" fantasy

Imagine if they tried to make you Dovahkiin with no main quest. What would be the point? Imagine everyone's disappointment if you were found to have immense powers at the tip of your tongue, and you proceeded to do nothing about the massive threats hanging over everyone's heads! So there would be no reason to include Dragon Shouts.

Besides, just because YOU think main quests are unnecessary and subtract from side-quests doesn't mean that games should get rid of them. I happen to dislike decapitation, a pretty optional part of Skyrim, clearly they should have gotten rid of it and used the decapitation funds on a spellmaker instead. Gore fans disagree with me.

If you're talking in general, then yeah, there was beta-Minecraft. Of course, it had tons of detractors because there was no story.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

I need focus.

I hate anything Bethesda because they're all about big worlds where you can stack spoons (*) but no one gives a shit if you've just killed Satan and saved the world.

This is a good analogy for Skyrim actually. There is an awful lot of spoon stacking and very little gratitude for killing Satan.

I was actually surprised to find myself dissapointed by Skyrim's main quest, or at least the ending. I can walk through any town/city now and hear praise from multiple people there, thanking me for that tiny fetch quest I did for them way back at level 3. But I defeat the World Eater himself and what do I get? Nothing. No one even knows I did it and the only people who do know (who are the same people who actually dragged me into doing it in the first place) won't talk to me because I refused to do some arbitrary quest for them all because it went against my character's morals.

I love story driven games because I'm all about the narrative. But essentially I need a goal. I don't want to kill an endless supply of Space Nazis (for example) with no reason other than "Duh, they shot you first!" I need a justified reason and a motivation for my actions.

When I play Skyrim I have a clear idea of who my character is. Damn, sometimes I even speak her parts aloud to my TV so the character interaction doesn't feel so one sided. But frankly my character has a hard time fitting into the world if all she's doing is setting up Skyrim's first courier service... oh, wait.

Give me a sandbox around my main quest. Don't let my main quest get lost in the sandbox.

 

[Anthony Wells]

Yeah. Absolutely. God yes. Seriously, how many fetch quests can you go on? There were only a few miscellaneous side-quests (non Daedric or faction-based) that I liked in Skyrim. The rest were just boring. Radiant quests turned out to be a clunker.

Agreed in regards to the radiant quests, they were way too repetitive. The point about Skyrim is valid as well. I suppose a developer's motivation for abandoning the main quest would be important. If they were doing so because they suck at storytelling (Bethesda) then they wouldn't be able to make the side-quests any more interesting storytelling-wise. But if another developer came forward who were good at both creating interesting open worlds and storytelling then I think the idea might work better. Because even with a developer who are good at creating those two facets of games, I'd guess the main story would still suffer from pacing issues due to the game's open world nature.

Some would disagree, but I submit Fallout: New Vegas as the kind of game you're talking about.

you know why i hated new vegas? no post storyline sandbox... i dont know why..i loved the plot..but after i beat it once i had no drive to ever play it again.. because my experience was over after i beat the main plot..so i had no reason to keep playing..i like clearing out the main quests so i can od the side quests or vice versa but..once i beat new vegas there was nothing left for me..it just got really fucking boring..fallout 3 didnt have that problem to me.. it was a sandbox game that ended after you beat it..thats not how a sanbox should be..it should be never ending..i mean i loved the game..considered it as like number 3 of 2010 behind red dead redemption and mass effect 2 but unlike those games i just could not bring myself to beat it more than once. Technically im like 200 hours into skyrim and only 1 third of the way through the plot but not because its bad but because the directionless fucking around keeps me entertained, so it comes down to the gamer i guess.

Fallout games are typically story-based more than purely sandbox-focused. They just happen to take place in rather open worlds. Even Fallout 3 (as inconsistent in tone and lore with the rest of the series as it was) originally had a definitive ending.

Think about how extremely difficult it would be to have the game go on after the main story in New Vegas. There are four possible major endings with numerous other choices that you made throughout. For example: The Khans could have been wiped out (by the NCR or Legion), they could have been assimilated into the Legion, they could left the Mojave and sought aid from the Followers of the Apocalypse (and then used their new knowledge to become a truly powerful faction), they could have been broken and scattered, they could have been relocated by the NCR to a new reservation, and they could have joined up with the Vault 19 Powder Gangers. That's just for one faction. How would they represent all the possible changes to the world in gameplay if they allowed you to continue on after the main story?

Beyond that, most of the side quests in New Vegas at least tangentially relate to the main story. So you don't get the "faffing about" feel when you wander and help random people out that you do in other RPGs. Everything feels like it can help flesh out the world and inform your ultimate decision in who to side with in the game.

everyone touts it as having great writing which it does..but the concepts that they could have implemented with a post story sandbox in one of the dlc's would have been tremendous.. i never played fallout 1 or 2 and i dont plan to anytime soon ,mainly because of my huge backlog of indie games and non indie games plus new releases to come out in the next two months, but as i said i liked the story it was great but it got really dull once it ended since i had to revert to a previous save and continue with my glaring final objective just sitting there...it got so boring and dull knowing that i cant beat it then go back and do the side quests in the post sandbox.. i also didnt pick up fallout 3 until 2010 so i had all the dlc's when i did buy it (bought them seperatly not in the game of the year edition) i still think new vegas was the poorer game for it despite all the advancements in the gunplay and items.

 

[JesterRaiin]

The only thing I would say differently is that the player DOES make a difference to quests or there is no point to doing them.

Could you explain what you mean by that ?
I'm sure there's some kind of misunderstanding.

 

[DarkRyter]

The sidquests need some kind of context, and that's where main quests come in.

 

[DustyDrB]

snip

I see two options here.

1) We can agree to disagree.

2) We can let this debate be decided by a grilled cheese sandwich making duel. The winner will be decided by the Escapist community. And I warn you, I'm very practiced in this art.

 

[00slash00]

wait so if i understand correctly, your argument is that they should cut out quests so they could focus more on quests? wouldnt it make more sense to just cut out some of the tedious side quests and spend more time creating a more fulfilling main quest? i dont think skyrim would be as fun for me if it didnt have a main quest. im close to the end of the main quest so ive been doing a bunch of side quests and quite frankly, the game is boring me now. i like having a final goal, it gives me more motivation to keep going. i can only do the "i need to kill a bunch of things because that guy over there told me to" quest before i start asking myself why im doing this

 

[starhaven]

Yes, frankly I would have liked Skyrim a lot more if it had sacrificed some of it's side quests for a better main campaign, especially the Stormcloak, Empire quests, which felt copy pasted, unchallenging and unrewarding.

i think you miss typed hes asking if they should abandon the main quest not the side quest how ever i agree with you the stromcloak empire war was really lame

although i did have fun attacking forts and cities but when i am able to call in a dragon and kill everyone in them on my own dont stradle me with your useless troops just let me go nuts or at the very least throw in somthing that i would need help agaist instead of wave after wave of chumps

also the fact that even after you kill the stromcloaks (i helped the empire) they have these little camps with 1 unkillable person in them i know hes a quest giver for the other side but for christ sake i choose my side now let me kill them all there leader is already dead so why not this guy

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

If you like that, try the Mount&Blade games. Straight up no story, just you and demi-realistic fantasy sandbox world.