i would have to say oblivion. i rarely play the story line. i just run around doing everything but
Extra Punctuation: Sidequests Good and Bad
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
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. >.>
Except you didn't always use them. Further, trying to argue the logic to me, the element of "for me" no longer works. Please, don't try to cop out.vivster said:
That doesn't make the one more realistic than the other, your claim. It just makes you more willing to rationalise one over the other, my claim.
But you just discounted the real world in your last post. Now you're trying to apply the real world in a modern sense where the prior old-world examples would more likely apply. You're kid of proving my argument. Back before modern society, traveling hands WERE common.
Which only works if you're not the only one who can do things, or the chosen one, or the hero of legend, all common tropes.
So you're choosing. Awesome. Your choice is silly.
I'm telling you not to hold a double standard, and not to argue it to me. You're choosing that double standard, fine. Choice doesn't make it not a double standard.
Oh man, how I miss that game. It's too bad Yahtzee doesn't like Bethesda games as a rule, because they do side-quests better than almost every other developer out there.Worr Monger said:
That said, yeah, there were massive frustrations at times. Hey, so there's this guy on an island and it's somewhere northeast of Tel Branora. I hope you have a good water-walking spell, nerevarine. Or, there's this dead Ordinator somewhere north of this mountain, find him and bring back his goddamn pauldrons.
Loved the hell out of that stuff. That's why I'm really dismayed by that spell in the Skyrim video previews that draws a magical line to where your next quest point is. COME ON.
I enjoyed your summary of side quests to main quest percentages by comparing them to television serials. It actually does allow a pretty clear mental picture of how the two interact. I also appreciated your points on how location of a side quest giver can alter both a person's desire to do it and the player's view of the quest giver's motivations. I had not actually thought of side quests as a lure to draw the player out to explore more of the game map, but it made a lot of sense, at least when the game has been done well. Keep up the interesting insights on your Extra Punctuation!
Yahtzee's articles continue to enlighten me on what small features of a game can either make or break it (for me at least). Game Industries really do need more Yahtzees to sit there in-front of all their meetings and brain-storming sessions and simply question every idea they throw. Then offer alternatives and solutions to the problems he identifies
the alot side quest are distracting from the more interesting quests,its easy to forget why your killing this certain character
If I wasn't already agreeing enough with Yahtzee, we once again have something in common. We used to watch Pokemon on its first season. I remember I really liked it but I guess I forgot about it because I probably won't like it now. Like Dragon Ball Z it probably runs out of steam after the first season.