Are Main Quests Necessary?
- Thread starter Bubba Doongai
- Start date
Recommended Videos
erttheking said:
This. I am so glad to know that I am not the only one who feels this way. I felt cheated that I spent all that time and got nothing.
Now that's a question !Bubba Doongai said:
As long as the world features something to do (i mean a bunch of small quests or at least some sort of periodical events like Minecrafts zombie nights), then main storyline isn't required at all.
I actually found it to be the opposite for me. I'm lv 44 and I haven't even gone to see the graybeards yet. Not just this game but others, I find that the main quests are actually the boring onesDustyDrB said:
After giving it some more thought I came up with a couple of things that would probably be required for a concept like this:
- Some sort of overarching goal
- A world that changes drastically depending on your actions
I'd be interested in seeing a game with the latter as I think it would give players sufficient motivation to keep going. I certainly know that if my actions had real consequences in the in-game world, I would be hooked. Just to clarify, when I say overarching goal I just mean a single objective you're working towards that would give your character motivation to complete side quests. It wouldn't be a main quest per se as it wouldn't be a succession of quests, just a single objective like obtaining a large amount of gold (I couldn't think of a better example).
- Some sort of overarching goal
- A world that changes drastically depending on your actions
I'd be interested in seeing a game with the latter as I think it would give players sufficient motivation to keep going. I certainly know that if my actions had real consequences in the in-game world, I would be hooked. Just to clarify, when I say overarching goal I just mean a single objective you're working towards that would give your character motivation to complete side quests. It wouldn't be a main quest per se as it wouldn't be a succession of quests, just a single objective like obtaining a large amount of gold (I couldn't think of a better example).
(I have not in fact played Skyrim)
Well that depends on the game. In a game like Skyrim, I would definetly say no. They created a whole world, least they could do is give you the freedom to effect that world in a manner of your choicing. That is to say instead of giving one main quest give several that are exclusive, taking one path of quests prevents you taking another.
That or have important characters, objects and or locations which when killed, stolen, breached/cleared change the world. Like you could choose to kill the King, and watch the Kingdom fall into Anarchy.
Well that depends on the game. In a game like Skyrim, I would definetly say no. They created a whole world, least they could do is give you the freedom to effect that world in a manner of your choicing. That is to say instead of giving one main quest give several that are exclusive, taking one path of quests prevents you taking another.
That or have important characters, objects and or locations which when killed, stolen, breached/cleared change the world. Like you could choose to kill the King, and watch the Kingdom fall into Anarchy.
It's possible, but it would be difficult.
First every action that you take needs to have some sort of effect on the environment. Second, the side quests have to explore the player character's motivation and personality. They have to have to cause the emotional conflicts that a main quest would. If it doesn't do that, it would most likely fail.
There doesn't need to be an overarching goal, but the world has to be fully alive and immersive. This includes voice acting. I don't want someone talking to me in monotone, it breaks immersion, and makes it more unlikely that I will want to complete their sidequest.
First every action that you take needs to have some sort of effect on the environment. Second, the side quests have to explore the player character's motivation and personality. They have to have to cause the emotional conflicts that a main quest would. If it doesn't do that, it would most likely fail.
There doesn't need to be an overarching goal, but the world has to be fully alive and immersive. This includes voice acting. I don't want someone talking to me in monotone, it breaks immersion, and makes it more unlikely that I will want to complete their sidequest.
In a game like Skyrim with zero focus? No, I'd say the main quest is basically redundant. Some goes for something like, say, Minecraft.
But apart from that I need focus. For example, I would hate to see a Bioware game without a main story, even if it's not as good as the optional stuff.
Without some kind of overarching focus a game is just a whole lot of piddling about with no aim or goal. I might as well spend the time throwing a tennis ball against a wall.
But apart from that I need focus. For example, I would hate to see a Bioware game without a main story, even if it's not as good as the optional stuff.
Without some kind of overarching focus a game is just a whole lot of piddling about with no aim or goal. I might as well spend the time throwing a tennis ball against a wall.
How about a game with the storyline that doesn't care about player at all ?Bubba Doongai said:
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)
I could see such a thing working as long as the player felt some level of achievement. I do like the exorcision of the 'chosen one' element. However, if the player's actions only have small impacts that revolve around themselves then I think it would be very important for the player to be invested in the character. That's another problem with RPGs, you can't really characterize someone who is supposed to be a blank slate for role-playing purposes and without that characterization then the player's investment in the character relies entirely upon themselves.JesterRaiin said:
No, it is not essential. Minecraft and Mount & Blade can attest to that.
It will only work that way, however, if the other content is addictive in it's own right. The less imaginative players also tend to struggle a lot with 'make your own goals' gameplay. Though I would argue in most cases this is a flaw in the player, not the game.
It will only work that way, however, if the other content is addictive in it's own right. The less imaginative players also tend to struggle a lot with 'make your own goals' gameplay. Though I would argue in most cases this is a flaw in the player, not the game.
It makes telling a story easier but you don't need it, think of Bastion, it has a story but the main quests are split up and the story telling allows for this. It is possible but it takes more effort then to make some NPCs non-killable and make the player talk to them then to have the story develop in the world.
I think about it this way; without a main quest in Skyrim, how would all the setting work? The main quest explains a lot of the game and setting, why things have happened and why some people are complete scumbags. Admittedly I've not completed the Skyrim main quest, but so far it hasn't been as bland as Oblivion's, the only game I would say is brilliant AND has an awful story; seriously, until I played it, I didn't think that possible. Bethesda games often seem to have this problem; excellent game, just terrible main story. Fallout 3's quest was like that for a while and Oblivion's certainly was; Fallout: New Vegas wasn't too bad until after you get the Chip back, or as I like to call it (thanks to a thread around here), the post-Benny Syndrome.
Edit: Forgot to say I think often the main quest in a free-roam game like Bethesda's aren't done very well; they're good, they just don't feel better than the other quests around them. Bioware game, conversely, would be crap without a main quest, but they are more focussed on the main quest with side missions not drawing you too far away.
Edit: Forgot to say I think often the main quest in a free-roam game like Bethesda's aren't done very well; they're good, they just don't feel better than the other quests around them. Bioware game, conversely, would be crap without a main quest, but they are more focussed on the main quest with side missions not drawing you too far away.
Usually, yes.
Kinda depends on the game and genre. It seems pretty important for most FPS RPGs Adventure, etc games I can think of, but there ARE times it can seem forced in strategy or simulation games.
Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries comes to mind. OLD game, but great. You were in command of a spaceship and roster of NPC pilots as well as a collection of customizable Mechwarrior battle suits. Since you were, as the name implies - Mercenaries - missions came in the form of contracts that came across your desk that would eventually expire in different time periods, forcing you to choose what missions you tackled and which ones you refused and also which ones you chose ABOVE the others, knowing that while you were doing one thing, the ship would sail on the others...
Anyway, despite the setup, after a certain point, all plot points converged with an Inner Sphere vs Clan war and out of nowhere, all contracts became related to that and you had to participate without the freedom of choice you had before. It does make story-sense that inner faction squabbles become irrelevant in the face of a extra-faction enemy, but it sorta felt like the I got drafted into a main story quest from my sandbox. I think the game would have been stronger for alternatives, but logistically, they might have just run out of resources to keep making the missions and bottle necked the options because they WANTED people to play the last levels.
Just an interesting example from a great title.
Other than that, like I said in the opening statement, in Civ style TBS games, usually there are just victory conditions or a time limit, with no place for a real main QUEST.
Kinda depends on the game and genre. It seems pretty important for most FPS RPGs Adventure, etc games I can think of, but there ARE times it can seem forced in strategy or simulation games.
Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries comes to mind. OLD game, but great. You were in command of a spaceship and roster of NPC pilots as well as a collection of customizable Mechwarrior battle suits. Since you were, as the name implies - Mercenaries - missions came in the form of contracts that came across your desk that would eventually expire in different time periods, forcing you to choose what missions you tackled and which ones you refused and also which ones you chose ABOVE the others, knowing that while you were doing one thing, the ship would sail on the others...
Anyway, despite the setup, after a certain point, all plot points converged with an Inner Sphere vs Clan war and out of nowhere, all contracts became related to that and you had to participate without the freedom of choice you had before. It does make story-sense that inner faction squabbles become irrelevant in the face of a extra-faction enemy, but it sorta felt like the I got drafted into a main story quest from my sandbox. I think the game would have been stronger for alternatives, but logistically, they might have just run out of resources to keep making the missions and bottle necked the options because they WANTED people to play the last levels.
Just an interesting example from a great title.
Other than that, like I said in the opening statement, in Civ style TBS games, usually there are just victory conditions or a time limit, with no place for a real main QUEST.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Achievement you say... You don't see how it may work...Bubba Doongai said:
It's because we got used to playing video games (and while at that - specific genres of such games) in this or that way. Pretty much every cRPGame makes us the godsend solution to problems that affect at least whole globe.
Let me elaborate on my "siege" scenario (i don't have anything in particular on my mind, i'm simply going with the flow)...
Please first read the "possibilities" part - it's vital for the rest of what i want to say.
---------------
For example you're just some low-rank officer serving in some castle. The ruler of said castle acquired the information (and many Bothians died, ahem...) that his stronghold will be attacked pretty soon, however it's not 100% sure info. So, you may for example volunteer (via quick time event) to go and check if there are indeed some forces marching towards castle. Or, you may stay and try to help in preparing some defenses. Each scenario has different possibilities.
- You could simply ride to the point where supposed armies are and then try to run as hell back with the information. You may also try to infiltrate the enemy army and gain additional information.
- But you may want to visit some seer living in some dungeon near your castle. He can fall into some sort of trance and give you insight about true state of matters. It's no easy task to reach him, because the vault is populated by monsters and traps, but it's definitively faster.
But you've chosen to stay, weren't you ?
- So, which side you join, those who try to build defenses or those who chose to run away ? You created a talker character, so you'll have to play a part of mediator, demagogue, that either rally men to fight or convince them that's better to leave everything behind and go. But, here's the catch. You don't want all citizens to share your point of view. Most people already decided - you're working with those still unconvinced.
- But wait, you are a warrior. Man, that changes the situation. You may want to change the attitude of this unconvinced minority, but you're better with training the little part of soldiers that will be responsible for defending some part of castle, let's say they will be waiting right behind the main gate, ready to kill those who enter. No, wait, you're an archer, so your and yours subordinates place is on the walls. Well, either way, you'll have good fun trying to gather your people (some want to run away), make them ready for slaughter.
- Ummm, what's that ? Yeah, there are additional forces that you can gather. Around the castle in the woods and mountains live some people. There, on the east lies three villages with crafty men. In the near forest the band of stealthy rogues have their camp. And it is said that near mountains, the giant going by name Bulg has his lair. You're sure you want to spend your time to acquire their help ? Well, it's worth the try.
Ummm... So, you want to leave. How could you ! But, uhhh, if it's your will, you can try to.
- So who you want to run with ? Oh, you have the family, wife, child, relatives, friends. But they aren't convinced. You must talk to some of them, make them believe in you and your agenda.
- And how do you think we should escape ? We need a plan, we can't go on foot. We need resources, protection. And do you think that our ruler will simply let us go ? It will be difficult. Difficult indeed...
----------------
There you go. Achievements. Tadaaaaa, you acquired another one for your cause. Tadaaaaaaaa, you've found aditional equipment - fire arrows for your archers. Tadaaaaaaaaa, giant Bulg will come to aid in defending the castle. Tadaaaaaaaaa, you convinced the bandits to side with you. Tadaaaaaaa, you managed to talk Hrothgar out of drinking (he mourns his wife), grab his sword and become soldier once more. Tadaaaaaaaaa, on your way back from reconnaissance you managed to rescue a damsel in distress. Tadaaaa...
In the meantime world around you lives.
People do something, organize themselves. You may witness some events or no - if you're on the marketplace near the castle Friday/2 PM then you'll witness a soldier chasing a thief, but if you're somewhere else, this event won't be started.
I hope i cleared things a bit...
Not partically.
I've never completed the main quest of morrowind or Oblivion but have play both beyond what is healthy. I've only completed Skyrims main quest cause I feared it would soon be spoilt and I ran out of appropriate guild quests for a theif/assassin.
The idea that you would forego it is foolish though as a good main quest is never a bad thing and a little progression or world shaping crisis gives depth and shape to the world (such as a fear of disease that is present in Morrowind or a fear of daedra/magic that should of been present in Oblivion).
I've never completed the main quest of morrowind or Oblivion but have play both beyond what is healthy. I've only completed Skyrims main quest cause I feared it would soon be spoilt and I ran out of appropriate guild quests for a theif/assassin.
The idea that you would forego it is foolish though as a good main quest is never a bad thing and a little progression or world shaping crisis gives depth and shape to the world (such as a fear of disease that is present in Morrowind or a fear of daedra/magic that should of been present in Oblivion).
