Could you explain what you mean by that ?CatmanStu said: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.
I'm sure there's some kind of misunderstanding.
Could you explain what you mean by that ?CatmanStu said: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.
I see two options here.Anthony Wells said:snip
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 lameerttheking said: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.
Oh sorry, but I still think that there should be some sort of main quest, some sort of end goal that you should work towards, mainly because attacking copy pasted bandit camps gets boring after awhile.starhaven said: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 lameerttheking said: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.
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
I'm not saying all games should get rid of them, judging from some responses I don't think I explained myself extremely well in the OP. My proposition is less that Skyrim should get rid of its main quest to appease me and more that perhaps future games in the same vein should consider abandoning the main quest in favour of a less traditional structure. I'm not saying that all future games should do so, I'm more interested in whether this kind of structure could work and the ramifications of it.lacktheknack said: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.
No objective at all is not the same as no MAIN objectiveTitanAtlas said: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
DustyDrB said:I see two options here.Anthony Wells said:snip
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.
Acctually i always considered Minecraft to have an Objective... at first it was Find diamonds, and now it's dragon slaying in THE END.him over there said: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.TitanAtlas said: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 see where you're coming from and it was silly of me to say that it has no objective. I think a better way to put it is that with the exclusion of the end (which was a dumb idea) you can't beat minecraft. The point of the game is you can make anything you want and because creating things is forming the world instead of creating something new within the games code then you never run out of stuff. Think of a game like Skyrim without a main quest. Sure you could roleplay to artificially extend the game and create new characters but what happens after you finish everything? A single player game even without a main quest will have finite things to do. That's why a game like WoW or ToR has so much appeal to people. Sure you can finish every quest and do everything but so long as there are new players there are new experiences.TitanAtlas said:Acctually i always considered Minecraft to have an Objective... at first it was Find diamonds, and now it's dragon slaying in THE END.
And for minecraft the fact that you run around with not much to do, is the reason modders are bound in creating new mechanics for adventure maps. If it's not that, theres RP multiplayer servers in wich you participate in wars, and have the goal of becoming the best of bests in those maps.
Saying Minecraft has no Goal, excuse me to put this in these words, but it's somethign stupid to say. If night comes you NEED to have a house, if monsters attack you NEED to have a sword to fight, if you want better materials you NEED to dig to get them (for iron or even diamond).
Minecraft might not have a direct and ending Goal or mission, but it is built in a way that it can be catgorized to have countless objectives to do, in a way you can have food (so that you never starve), or in a way you can gather resources to protect yourself.
You don't enter minecraft and think, oh... i'll just run around, and be oblivious to everything. No. If you are hungry you gather food, if you are un-safe to the world around you, you create defenses and so on. You fullfill these objectives so that you can fullfill your goals (getting diamonds, getting obsidian, going to the nether, finding fortress, going to the END, slay dragon).
I'm dwelling too much on the matter and say we both have different views on this especific game, that are BOTH valid. I for myself think Minecraft has goals and objectives (heck it even has a Ending now xD), and you consider it to have no direct objestive, that it is a sandbox at it's purest (wich i also agree, considering the possibilities of what you can do are endless - hence game within a game, if you recognize the reference ;D ).
Hope you in no way feel offended by this discussion, or anything else, and thank you for beeing a part of it!![]()
What if the main dish is utter crap and the side dishes are delicious? Do you just abandon the main dish entirely or do you take a few nibbles here and there? If it is garbage, what is the point of eating it at all?NiPah said:A game is like a good meal, there are many side dishes but there is always a main dish to pull it all together.