Are Main Quests Necessary?

[Twilight_guy]

Sort of. Games needs to have some driving force to keep the play motivated and interest or at the very least to give them some focal point.

As an example, there's Minecraft which takes most ideas of game design and lights them on fire. Minecraft is just a stripped down level editor with more elements of a game then an actual game in most aspects. Of course it does have a focal point, "make stuff" which serves as its main quest or alternately "survive" if you're not into making stuff (in which case the game is as boring as paste).

 

[Dandark]

In most games yes, but not all. I have been enjoying Mount and Blade: Warband recently and that has no main quests at all, it's a compltely free form game.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

if you don't want said game to be one of the thousands of MMO titles then yes, it needs a main plot to follow otherwise you'll inevitably get bored

 

[go-10]

your question does bring about another question
IF the main quest is taken out and instead you have millions of side quest each with their own unique story in a world like that of Skyrim. Basically that means the world is not in danger, there's people on the wrong side of the law but they've always been there anyways and you travel the world helping people. So the world is in no danger of ending, there's no ancient monster or anything of the sort, you're just a normal guy in a fantasy world making a living. It would be like The Sims meets Skyrim and honestly I wouldn't mind playing something like that

 

[Haxxle]

Although Main-Qeusts have become to feel more of a 'Optional' path to take, Main-Quest acts more as a compass and a information point for the Player to follow if they are at a loss with what to do.

 

[Byrdy]

I want to see a game with no story plot or anything to restricing. Like imagine skyrim,dragon age or mass effect with no story no nothing just a giant world to explore and help people with there problems but every quest has multiple endings like you could kill the person, bribe him, persuade him, blackmail, threaten, help out the list is endless. That would be an true open-world rpg

 

[RJ 17]

I'll keep my response short as I'm certain that in the previous 40 somethin' responses this has likely already been covered.

Yes, games need a main storyline, even completely open-world games. If for no other reason than to give the game an anchor, something to say "Well if you're bored doing whatever the heck you want, you could always go do the main quest and see where that takes you." Believe it or not, many gamers (myself included) buy a game looking forward to the story contained there-in. If I had gotten Skyrim and found out that your powers as a Dragonborn were essentially pointless, that there was no real meaning or grand destiny for your character, then why the hell should I even care?

In short: the main story of open-world games gives the main character a purpose, without a main questline you realy are just playing as "random jackass #184" going around doing odd-jobs and random tasks for people. Granted, my older brother is playing Skyrim and has made it to lvl 52 yet he hasn't even climbed the big mountain to speak with the Greybeards yet. Yes, he is finding his own entertainment without doing the main questline, but like I said: the main story is always there as a solid anchor for a player to return to.

 

[TitanAtlas]

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

 

[Atsumi_Warrior]

All i read was "are main quest's necessary and "COD" in the same paragraph.
You are what is wrong with Gaming.
Get out *points to door*

OT
yes, yes they are they are very important to gaming.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

It really depends on the genre of the game. RPGs need some sort of central point and some reason for the player character existing, whereas Minecraft proves that you can pretty much also make a game that's all about building your Personal Doom Fortress (TM) while staving off undead and exploding critters.

I think a minimal amount of justification is always needed. Otherwise, what's left? "Drive Cars 3: Sedan Edition" or "Kill Stuff with Space Guns"? Just knowing that I'm a pro racer or a generic bald Space Marine is important, even if it does sound rather perfunctory.

 

[The Last Nomad]

In some games like Skyrim there is no real need for them. At least not a singular main quest line. The Dark Brotherhood are a good example of what I mean. They have an overall story that you can complete, but its far from the main one. If they had a number of different quest lines to the end that would be cool, each leading to a different but distinct ending.

But Skyrim workd well with a main quest. Said quest being Stop the dragons (Basically), which really adds to the game in the form of dragon fights. Not that you need to complete the main quest to fight the dragons, but the main quest gives a reason for the dragons to exist.

 

[Bubba Doongai]

your question does bring about another question
IF the main quest is taken out and instead you have millions of side quest each with their own unique story in a world like that of Skyrim. Basically that means the world is not in danger, there's people on the wrong side of the law but they've always been there anyways and you travel the world helping people. So the world is in no danger of ending, there's no ancient monster or anything of the sort, you're just a normal guy in a fantasy world making a living. It would be like The Sims meets Skyrim and honestly I wouldn't mind playing something like that

That's essentially how one of my playthroughs has ended up. I've been role-playing with self imposed limitations and master difficulty and it has become pretty much what you've described. I've substituted my time slaying dragons for helping out the people of Falkreath but it feels just as good, if not better, because I'm more invested in my character and the world around me.

Massive snip

That did clear things up and I like the idea. I know many people detest 'realism' in games but I tend to enjoy it in my RPGs. It'd be nice to play a character who doesn't seem so ridiculously important as in most RPGs, just an average person trying to make a difference in the best way they can. The example you provided seems to shine in terms of immersion (another word people seem to hate) because of what I've already mentioned and the fact that the world would seem to be 'alive' to the player.

Now thats not to say you can't be tricky here. Something I find to be rather silly is the idea that a main quest has to be obviously seperate to the sub quests. Rather, a better idea, would be to have the main quest woven into the threads of the sub quests. That the players choice of subquests, their actions within' those subquests act as the wires of a story that forms slowly, eventually culminating is a full blown epic main quest.

I wish Bethesda would do something like that with their games. I find one of their problems in both fallout 3 and skyrim is the massive disconnect between the side and main quests. I think this is something Obsidian did better in Fallout: New Vegas as the majority of side quests were encountered as you made your way towards New Vegas. Whereas in Fallout 3 I only found most of the side quests when I looked up their locations online.

 

[Mallefunction]

So after hearing lots of people praise Skyrim for its open world nature and exploration aspects I began to think; in such a game, is the main quest really necessary? To be honest, the inclusion of a main quest in Skyrim seems like the inclusion of single player in Call of Duty. It only appears to be there because that's just the way things are done. I mean, if the main quest were omitted that could be more time spent on something else, perhaps giving the smaller side quests more context. The only problem I could really foresee would be that the game would never give any closure since it wouldn't have a 'proper' ending. So what does everyone think? Are main quests necessary? Are there any games that have gone without them, and if so, were they successful?

Personally, I say yes they are needed for a game to really work in the long term, especially for an RPG. See the problem with games like Skyrim is that you lose narrative focus very quickly and in my case, that usually loses my interest. This is not the case for all people, but I am less likely to see a game through to the end because I don't care about what is happening around me. I don't care about any of the NPCs (and as a result, am less likely to take time out of my day to help them or side with them). It makes the world around me less compelling in general and after a while, endless exploration becomes a chore rather than fun or exciting.

Just my personal take on the matter though.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Well i think they are... In Saints Row: The Third i think i'd frankly have gotten bored with the game if i couldn't break up the activities and challenges with sections of actual storyline.

Same with Shadow of the Colossus, because as fun as it was to collect fruit and glowing lizards i still have to go knock out a colossus every now and then so i won't get freakin' insane >_>

 

[XMark]

The big word to keep in mind here is context. A main quest gives context to your actions, even if the bulk of the time you spend playing the game is on sidequests.

 

[Bubba Doongai]

All i read was "are main quest's necessary and "COD" in the same paragraph.
You are what is wrong with Gaming.
Get out *points to door*

Do you mind clarifying that for me? I don't understand what the problem you're getting at is.

 

[Wolfram23]

I think it depends what you mean. If Skyrim only has one or two main quests - ie: rebellion and dragons returning - then no they are not necessary. But I think a variety of well fleshed out quests is vital, and to a large degree lacking, in Skyrim. The guild quests, for example, could be so much better. Especially the theives guild - seriously, this secret guild and some random guy comes up to me to invite me to the party? Yeah, right, because my mage with 0 pick pocket skill looks like such a thug.

Anyway, as I said, plenty of fleshed out mini stories are great and then a main quest isn't necessary. However, it is also nice to see the world change from your actions, so for example if there was a big quest line in Whiterun, maybe by the end you've chosen a new Jarl like either a Battle Born or a Grey Mane and of course that would have other repercussions in the city and for the rebellion.

EDIT: I'd like to point out I sunk 105 hours into Skyrim without completing the main dragon questline, or most of the guild quest lines (only did mage's, part way into DB as well as theives on a diff char). But there's a shit ton of other interesting sub quests I did.

 

[kokirisoldier]

I'm level 24 in Skyrim and I've only done the main quest enough to kill the dragon at the watch tower so I can shout. That's literally it, nothing more. No, I do not want to meet the Grey beards at high hrothgar. I just want to complete other peoples quests and see the world change that way.

 

[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.