Extra Punctuation: Sidequests Good and Bad
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
great article as always. sidequests are the msot important part, and the one i spend most of my time for in open world games. making thme fun makes whole game fun. it is something games liek Mafia forgets while thier main story may be great, they arent really open world without having nothing else but main story.
and that's what i'm getting atRandV80 said:
how likely is it after days or even months in the vastness of an open world to find someone who JUST had something happened to them
then i'm thinking that the game has just set this up for ME and ME alone(since i'm the only one who walks there anyway)
breaking the immersion
It sometimes feels like sidequest are suffering from the 'feature list syndrome'. The game must have them because it says so on the feature list, but no one remembers why.
Before the time of level scaling, side quests was an opportunity to level up in between story quests. With that specific purpose gone, it's probably harder to make them feel as important.
The GTA games was always good at making side stuff, they genuinely rewarded exploration.
Before the time of level scaling, side quests was an opportunity to level up in between story quests. With that specific purpose gone, it's probably harder to make them feel as important.
The GTA games was always good at making side stuff, they genuinely rewarded exploration.
That's not "realistic within the game world," that's "accepting something unrealistic."vivster said:
In a living, breathing world? Very likely.
The game "setting me up" seems highly selective and the word "immersion" thrown around haphazzardly. AS IS THE WAY OF THINGS IN THE GAMING COMMUNITY, mind, so I'm not horribly shocked.
A town that needs heroes to protect it but exists fine when the heroes are not there is every bit as ridiculous as someone standing in a field waiting for a quest giver. If "immersion" is broken by one, it should be broken by both. You're just bending over backwards to justify the one and not the other.
But again, as Red Dead was extolled, it would seem that Yahtzee doesn't want people just standing around in fields waiting for you, either. He wants an active and lively world where things happen. Or at least, he seems to.
This is an interesting subject; how are side quests best handled? Yahtzee makes a good point with his example of Red Dead Redemption. Thinking back on my own playing time of that game, I did enjoy how while doing all the free roaming, I could encounter a stagecoach holdup, a random passerby getting attacked by wild animals, even a tricky s.o.b. who comes up and claims to need help but just wants to steal my horse.
But there's one point I wonder about here; can you really call these things side quests or are they more like random encounters? When I hear the term "quest" I think of something a bit more involved than just a sporadic event that's solved with a quick dust-up. Now a side quest shouldn't have a more involved plot than the main storyline quest, but something that's a bit more entertaining than just some 10-second shootout with a couple bandits. Redemption had those too, like the crazy inventor who needed you to help gather materials for him, or the film director who needed you to help him get the house he wanted for his new movie theater (I think that's how it went anyway...).
The issue here seems to be should side quests be something you have to hunt around for around the map or should they all be clustered around the safe havens in a game. I think it depends entirely on the short story behind each mission. If it's an immediate, pressing problem, like someone's fiance or kid just got kidnapped, then it's probably best if it was something you encountered out in the field, because it's hard to imagine it's a pressing matter if the person had time to run all the way back to town and stand around, waiting for someone to recruit to help find them.
If, however, it's a more long-standing dilemma, then it could conceivably be handled by a stationary NPC in a town or other save location. For example, if someone's been unable to travel to some distant location because their horse/coach/whatever mode of transportation got stolen and someone needs to find the thieves and where they took it, then it's conceivable that the quest giver could be stuck in town until someone helps them. Looking at a fantasy setting, if a wizard has been seeking adventurers to retrieve a long-lost artifact he's discovered but can't go after because he's too old or there's some kind of curse on him or whatever, then it again makes sense for him not to be wandering outside of the city he's in or his tower or what have you.
Like a lot of things, it's all about balance here. Some side quests would carry a better sense of urgency and weight if they were dropped on you unexpectedly through exploration. But other things can be handled the traditional way too. A lot of it depends on the story behind the side quest and how it relates to the main plot.
But there's one point I wonder about here; can you really call these things side quests or are they more like random encounters? When I hear the term "quest" I think of something a bit more involved than just a sporadic event that's solved with a quick dust-up. Now a side quest shouldn't have a more involved plot than the main storyline quest, but something that's a bit more entertaining than just some 10-second shootout with a couple bandits. Redemption had those too, like the crazy inventor who needed you to help gather materials for him, or the film director who needed you to help him get the house he wanted for his new movie theater (I think that's how it went anyway...).
The issue here seems to be should side quests be something you have to hunt around for around the map or should they all be clustered around the safe havens in a game. I think it depends entirely on the short story behind each mission. If it's an immediate, pressing problem, like someone's fiance or kid just got kidnapped, then it's probably best if it was something you encountered out in the field, because it's hard to imagine it's a pressing matter if the person had time to run all the way back to town and stand around, waiting for someone to recruit to help find them.
If, however, it's a more long-standing dilemma, then it could conceivably be handled by a stationary NPC in a town or other save location. For example, if someone's been unable to travel to some distant location because their horse/coach/whatever mode of transportation got stolen and someone needs to find the thieves and where they took it, then it's conceivable that the quest giver could be stuck in town until someone helps them. Looking at a fantasy setting, if a wizard has been seeking adventurers to retrieve a long-lost artifact he's discovered but can't go after because he's too old or there's some kind of curse on him or whatever, then it again makes sense for him not to be wandering outside of the city he's in or his tower or what have you.
Like a lot of things, it's all about balance here. Some side quests would carry a better sense of urgency and weight if they were dropped on you unexpectedly through exploration. But other things can be handled the traditional way too. A lot of it depends on the story behind the side quest and how it relates to the main plot.
Pretty high, but pokémon is generally thought as a cartoon because of the whole it-was-my-childhood thing.Zachary Amaranth said:
If you needed Omnislash or Knights of the Round to complete the game, something is terribly wrong. I beat the game just doing what was required, with the caveat being that I would never run from a random encounter; No boss posed any threat to me. I was actually disappointed by how easy it was to beat Sephiroth.cefm said:
I remember that same fight took me HOURS to beat when I was a kid. I must have been a retarded child or something.
If anything, what bothered me about the Side Quests in FF7 was just how -pointless- they were in the long run. I know the Final Fantasy series has been all about grinding and finding all the little trinkets and summons you possibly could, but in the end, what do you have to use it on?
The extra bosses practically couldn't be beaten except by cheating, so even with all the best equipment, it never really felt like the extra work was worth anything. That's my definition of bad side-quests.
Granted, I still loved FF7 for what it was.
Playing Vampires: Bloodlines - The Masquerade, I can't help but agree with you. I remember this side mission where I was supposed to help a ghoul by tracking down someone who was stalking him. My only clue was a driver's license the stalker had dropped by accident. Then I had to track down the person using a computer (using a text-based interface!) by searching through a license registry, only to find out that the guy in the driver's license was actually *GASP*... dead! Then I checked out the hospital morgue of the city looking for the body, and my next clue was a key of a packaging shop I found in his list of possessions the hospital staff retrieved from the dead body. I went to that shop, opening the front door using the key, and finally to confront the Chinese ninja vampire who had killed that guy and made that place his base of operations. Hacking his computer and reading his emails (before he saw me), I found out that a Chinese triad of vampires was planning to come overthrow the Camarilla of downtown LA and install their own influence! Phwooar!Worr Monger said:
Sorry, kinda got carried away... *misty eyed*
In contrast, the game I played before that, Crysis 2, had a constant quest marker on the map and the screen, even though the map was linear as fuck and there was only one obvious direction to go all the time.
I miss that type of old style questing as well. Many RPGs used to have main quests that deliberately started very vague and part of the gameplay was to get more leads. Side quests acted as possible angles for those leads. When the story is more linear and more urgent sidequests sometimes seems misplaced.Raiyan 1.0 said:
- "The world as we know it is about to blow up in 24 hours, please hurry and save us. Oh and while you're doing that, we have 224 deliveries we would like you to handle."
A story that develops at a slow pace seems to be more fitting for side quests.
i would have to say oblivion. i rarely play the story line. i just run around doing everything but
that's why i always used the neat little 2 words "for me"Zachary Amaranth said:
i can except a town with lots of quests waiting for me as it is very likely for quest givers to concentrate on one point
i cannot accept highly unlikely encounters that are obviously targeted only at me
a little realistic example just for you
you are looking for a job
how many jobs do you find by walking through the streets and people coming to you and offering you one and how many jobs do you find when going to a job center?
jobs need to be centralized to be feasible for the job givers...
and of course the town works fine when i'm not there because there are obviously other(smaller) heroes who do the little dirty work
immersion is a highly subjective thing
some people don't even get to a point of immersion and some people choose to believe certain things to keep up their immersion
or are you telling me now that you've objectively defined immersion and that i can't be having said immersion because it doesn't fit your definition?
Yahtzee is right, but to be honest, even when I am playing a sandbox game I'm always planning how to go about stuff. Even in games such as Red Dead: Redemption, I'd look at my side quests and choose which is closest to my next primary objective and head there. I recently beat Dead Island, and I did almost the exact same thing. First I'd accept all of them, then complete any that're away from the majority of them, and finally complete the ones that're more densely placed. Kind of like a hypno wheel in a sense 
I personally think quests/missions, side and main, are tedious busywork that gets in the way rather then enhances. I would sooner they be replaced with events, which work like Yahtzee describes the random ambushes and such in Red Dead: Redemption, only I think more or less ALL quests/missions should work like that. Instead of going to find some NPC to get the next story mission I think it would be better if say, you came in to town for the first time and there was a battle between two gangs going on. Make the "missions" part of the actual world, not it's own self-contained mini story. It will make the player care more about them if it's something that just happens and they have to deal with, rather then a NPC whining at you to do stuff for them.
He's right in that it's difficult to define sidequest - I'd consider it something that simply doesn't need to be done for game completion, though it would likely make said game completion easier (though not so much that it would be impossible to do so otherwise). My examples:
Civilization V:
Or really any Civ game, but I'm being specific for the sake of it. I don't know why. Civilization is a very open-feeling game, I believe, as there are many ways to play the game and multiple ways to win. It also has no sidequests. Therefore, I'd say that a game needs no sidequests to feel open, depending largely on the genre.
No More Heroes:
I wouldn't consider most of anything in it a sidequest - money is required to proceed with the plot, and missions provide it. One might say that you do the money to buy fun shirts and stuff, and that that isn't required for game completion, but the limited number of cash-generating missions means that you'll only get said cash by replaying them, and replaying a required "quest" doesn't make it a sidequest the second time around in my opinion. Perhaps the only sidequests are the "quests" (used loosely here) to beef yourself up or learn new moves via the gym and drunken bar guy (again, simply paying for something wouldn't make it a quest as per the aforementioned money collection process, as is the case with the beam katanas). But it's certainly a sandbox game in my mind, (not to the level of GTA and friends, though) what with the motorbike and the running down pedestrians and the finding cash and shirts in dumpsters or buried in the ground and all. But it doesn't feel too open to me.
Super Mario 64:
Tough to say. While one certainly needs stars to proceed through the game, which are obtained through the various worlds, you don't need all of them to finish the game. And repeating a star-collection process doesn't get a new star, only different star missions do, which may be in the same world you used for a minimum-star requirement. However, it's even possible to skip entire worlds to reach the star quota. So are all missions sidequests? Are none of them sidequests? Are re all of them potential sidequests depending on whether or not you undertake it for the fun of it? I'd say no, as none of it would better prepare you or improve your combat ability in any way, save for the hats, which are only used to be able to accomplish missions, rather than making it easier to do so.
Pokémon Red/Blue:
I don't know if I'd really consider anything from these games to be sidequests as per my personal definition, as the game is all about catching and battling pokémon. It's true that one could get through the game only by doing that which the plot demands, maybe by getting a Mewtwo in a trade or something, but it's really not the point of the game. It has the same issue as Super Mario 64 in that some battling needs to happen for game completion, but when and where it happens is a choice, making other battles an endeavor in side-questing, perhaps. Unlike Mario 64, however, the battles do make you more capable to complete the game. I'd definitely consider catching the three legendary birds (or in the case of Ruby/Sapphire, the three Regi's for instance) sidequests, as they involve going to a place separate from the plot path for the sole purpose of their capture. Again, it's a very open game, but with questionable sidequesting.
Final Fantasy Tactics A2:
Great example. By now I'm sure that some of you have various objections. "Really? The level are access through an overworld." I know. "It was so text heavy, the plot practically forced itself on you." I know. "The main character dresses like he's gay and looks like a girl." He certainly does. "You've only mentioned Nintendo games since Civilization." I have to, I've got little availability, and a tight schedule. "I hate that game you mentioned in this list." None of these are critiques of the games, and I'm not interested in discussing their merits as to whether or not they are good or bad, so shut up about that." But anyway, Tactics. Again, there are some missions that are plot-based and others that are very much not so. They are given to you in the same mission-getting spots, and are similar/the same in what one needs to do to complete them. Are they sidequests? Absolutely. They level you up, they have no impact on the plot (with good strategy, you could play through the game using only the main missions to level up), they provide access to other game options and loot for weapon crafting (still not required), and which ones you do and whether or not you do them is entirely up to you. The auctions are sidequests too - they improve your ability to play by enabling you to buy weapons at lower prices. The game's overworld format would feel very closed and linear, much like New Super Mario Bros Wii, but the sidequests open it up considerably.
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
The same could be said of all Zelda games (or as Yahtzee would say, all the versions of that one Zelda game made over and over, though I'd disagree because most games in one franchise follow the exact same linear format with only slight variations in plot, like the God of War games), but Majora's Mask demonstrates it best. There are four dungeons and the lead up requirements for their access (like Gerudo's fortress and whatnot). But obtaining the masks, the bottles, the heart containers, the better sword, the better quivers, and so on are all sidequests done through exploring the areas unrelated to game completion. And there's tons of it. Furthermore, the overworld is one in that allows for a lot of sidequest discovery, as traveling from place to place allows for the distractions known as sidequests to...distract you. This is the best example I can think of.
I don't know why I wrote all this. I'm sure no one will read it, especially not all of it. I must really be desperate to procrastinate.
Civilization V:
Or really any Civ game, but I'm being specific for the sake of it. I don't know why. Civilization is a very open-feeling game, I believe, as there are many ways to play the game and multiple ways to win. It also has no sidequests. Therefore, I'd say that a game needs no sidequests to feel open, depending largely on the genre.
No More Heroes:
I wouldn't consider most of anything in it a sidequest - money is required to proceed with the plot, and missions provide it. One might say that you do the money to buy fun shirts and stuff, and that that isn't required for game completion, but the limited number of cash-generating missions means that you'll only get said cash by replaying them, and replaying a required "quest" doesn't make it a sidequest the second time around in my opinion. Perhaps the only sidequests are the "quests" (used loosely here) to beef yourself up or learn new moves via the gym and drunken bar guy (again, simply paying for something wouldn't make it a quest as per the aforementioned money collection process, as is the case with the beam katanas). But it's certainly a sandbox game in my mind, (not to the level of GTA and friends, though) what with the motorbike and the running down pedestrians and the finding cash and shirts in dumpsters or buried in the ground and all. But it doesn't feel too open to me.
Super Mario 64:
Tough to say. While one certainly needs stars to proceed through the game, which are obtained through the various worlds, you don't need all of them to finish the game. And repeating a star-collection process doesn't get a new star, only different star missions do, which may be in the same world you used for a minimum-star requirement. However, it's even possible to skip entire worlds to reach the star quota. So are all missions sidequests? Are none of them sidequests? Are re all of them potential sidequests depending on whether or not you undertake it for the fun of it? I'd say no, as none of it would better prepare you or improve your combat ability in any way, save for the hats, which are only used to be able to accomplish missions, rather than making it easier to do so.
Pokémon Red/Blue:
I don't know if I'd really consider anything from these games to be sidequests as per my personal definition, as the game is all about catching and battling pokémon. It's true that one could get through the game only by doing that which the plot demands, maybe by getting a Mewtwo in a trade or something, but it's really not the point of the game. It has the same issue as Super Mario 64 in that some battling needs to happen for game completion, but when and where it happens is a choice, making other battles an endeavor in side-questing, perhaps. Unlike Mario 64, however, the battles do make you more capable to complete the game. I'd definitely consider catching the three legendary birds (or in the case of Ruby/Sapphire, the three Regi's for instance) sidequests, as they involve going to a place separate from the plot path for the sole purpose of their capture. Again, it's a very open game, but with questionable sidequesting.
Final Fantasy Tactics A2:
Great example. By now I'm sure that some of you have various objections. "Really? The level are access through an overworld." I know. "It was so text heavy, the plot practically forced itself on you." I know. "The main character dresses like he's gay and looks like a girl." He certainly does. "You've only mentioned Nintendo games since Civilization." I have to, I've got little availability, and a tight schedule. "I hate that game you mentioned in this list." None of these are critiques of the games, and I'm not interested in discussing their merits as to whether or not they are good or bad, so shut up about that." But anyway, Tactics. Again, there are some missions that are plot-based and others that are very much not so. They are given to you in the same mission-getting spots, and are similar/the same in what one needs to do to complete them. Are they sidequests? Absolutely. They level you up, they have no impact on the plot (with good strategy, you could play through the game using only the main missions to level up), they provide access to other game options and loot for weapon crafting (still not required), and which ones you do and whether or not you do them is entirely up to you. The auctions are sidequests too - they improve your ability to play by enabling you to buy weapons at lower prices. The game's overworld format would feel very closed and linear, much like New Super Mario Bros Wii, but the sidequests open it up considerably.
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
The same could be said of all Zelda games (or as Yahtzee would say, all the versions of that one Zelda game made over and over, though I'd disagree because most games in one franchise follow the exact same linear format with only slight variations in plot, like the God of War games), but Majora's Mask demonstrates it best. There are four dungeons and the lead up requirements for their access (like Gerudo's fortress and whatnot). But obtaining the masks, the bottles, the heart containers, the better sword, the better quivers, and so on are all sidequests done through exploring the areas unrelated to game completion. And there's tons of it. Furthermore, the overworld is one in that allows for a lot of sidequest discovery, as traveling from place to place allows for the distractions known as sidequests to...distract you. This is the best example I can think of.
I don't know why I wrote all this. I'm sure no one will read it, especially not all of it. I must really be desperate to procrastinate.
This!Worr Monger said:
When Yahtze was whinging on about not being able to see all the side quest markers at once on the mini map, all I could think of is, how about a game where you actually have to pay attention to what the NPCs say and what's going on and THINK about things.
I hate just following the pointer to the next objective, especially when it breaks the narrative because there's no way in hell your PC could know where that objective is.
I tend to not care about the anime/cartoon distinction. I think, between Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers, the former is "more anime" than the latter, yet anime fans get butthurt if you call it anime quite frequently, because it wasn't made in Japan.Richardplex said:
While Galaxy Rangers was, even though it was predominantly a Western cartoon. And I mean Western as in American, not as in Wild West, which it technically also was, because it was a space cowboy deal.
I think I just confused myself.
Then again, I think of Voltron as a cartoon and GoLion as anime, even though they're the same source material. So maybe there's just something wrong with me. >.>