Could you explain what you mean by that ?CatmanStu said:
I'm sure there's some kind of misunderstanding.
Are Main Quests Necessary?
- Thread starter Bubba Doongai
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm sure there's some kind of misunderstanding.
I see two options here.Anthony Wells said:
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.
wait so if i understand correctly, your argument is that they should cut out quests so they could focus more on quests? wouldnt it make more sense to just cut out some of the tedious side quests and spend more time creating a more fulfilling main quest? i dont think skyrim would be as fun for me if it didnt have a main quest. im close to the end of the main quest so ive been doing a bunch of side quests and quite frankly, the game is boring me now. i like having a final goal, it gives me more motivation to keep going. i can only do the "i need to kill a bunch of things because that guy over there told me to" quest before i start asking myself why im doing this
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:
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
If you like that, try the Mount&Blade games. Straight up no story, just you and demi-realistic fantasy sandbox world.
For the OP question I would say yes and no. What we have now in these games is a distinct separation between 'main quest' and 'side quest'. The main quest is a series of goals you follow from point A to point B to point C and so on, moving you towards a final confrontation/conclusion. But at any time you can put the main quest on hold at your leisure and wonder off to explore and do any number of 'side quests'.
In my opinion it's the contrast of the two that can break immersion for me. A main quest that sets up some impending world destroying apocalypse that only you can stop, but at any point in time feel free to put all that on hold to go save some random strangers cat to get some extra loot. This game design model has served it's purpose, but we've been stuck here for over 10 years and two full console generations now, I think it's time for something better.
So back to the OP question I say yes because a game should have some final goal, and no because I don't think always needs to be in a linear fashion. Since the start of the current console gen I've been waiting for these games to become more dynamic and organic, yet nothings really changed. Rather than dropping you into an open world and giving you an immediate option to 'follow main quest' or 'go off explore and do your own thing', why not just have the latter designed in such a way that it contributes to the overall end goal?
Using Skyrim for example, with that big open world they've created rather than starting as a prisoner on a chopping block who is suddenly thrust into a destined role, why not start the game as just a normal person free to explore the world? Of course the destiny of the Novakim or whatever (still haven't played it just yet) will eventually catch up to you, but in the meantime you're free to travel the land, join a guild, partake in the rebellion, etc. Just whatever you please with no pressure giving you an opportunity to explore the land and build a back story, and then the dragons hit and you become Novakim and have to save the world.
In my opinion it's the contrast of the two that can break immersion for me. A main quest that sets up some impending world destroying apocalypse that only you can stop, but at any point in time feel free to put all that on hold to go save some random strangers cat to get some extra loot. This game design model has served it's purpose, but we've been stuck here for over 10 years and two full console generations now, I think it's time for something better.
So back to the OP question I say yes because a game should have some final goal, and no because I don't think always needs to be in a linear fashion. Since the start of the current console gen I've been waiting for these games to become more dynamic and organic, yet nothings really changed. Rather than dropping you into an open world and giving you an immediate option to 'follow main quest' or 'go off explore and do your own thing', why not just have the latter designed in such a way that it contributes to the overall end goal?
Using Skyrim for example, with that big open world they've created rather than starting as a prisoner on a chopping block who is suddenly thrust into a destined role, why not start the game as just a normal person free to explore the world? Of course the destiny of the Novakim or whatever (still haven't played it just yet) will eventually catch up to you, but in the meantime you're free to travel the land, join a guild, partake in the rebellion, etc. Just whatever you please with no pressure giving you an opportunity to explore the land and build a back story, and then the dragons hit and you become Novakim and have to save the world.
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:
Well, games are always carried by a couple of main events.
For Skyrim, without the dragons, focus might just as well be with the war between the Imperials and the Stormcloaks.
That said, when you finish the main storyline, the game is just like you describe it. And believe me, a lot of people keep playing the game after they finished the main storyline. That doesn't mean they just have to leave it out if they're not going to put anything in it's place...
For Skyrim, without the dragons, focus might just as well be with the war between the Imperials and the Stormcloaks.
That said, when you finish the main storyline, the game is just like you describe it. And believe me, a lot of people keep playing the game after they finished the main storyline. That doesn't mean they just have to leave it out if they're not going to put anything in it's place...
When you're younger you want to help out, you want to do things for people, you want to explore. But as you get older you start to ask 'what's the point?', and without a main quest driving the story to a proper conclusion you lose focus and get bored because it all feels a somewhat meaningless diversion from more important matters. So yes they're essential if they want to keep you fan base as large as possible (i.e. older gamers who don't just game because they have 10 hours free to waste each day).
The only way it might work was if those side quests were teaching you something about yourself through NPCs reactions to your characters actions. And the level of writing/storytelling in is just not at that level yet.
But also those quests and character building need to be working toward some level of permanence otherwise it also feels like a waste of time. A main story at least gives it that.
If they were to release two games like that, nobody who played the first would play the second because they would feel they'd already done it all already and they were just starting over. It's the reason they don't release a new WOW. If they did then people will realize the futility of all their hours. The players need to feel that 100 hours has gone into something. They need a goal, they need a main quest, they need to feel they answering a challenge, a question. Even if it's only the challenge of completing what the programmers have developed. And a 'free roaming - do what you like' style of game would not give them that.
I know I haven't made my point utterly convincingly. I don't have the time or clarity of thought to do that right now. But consider why we play games, and how that reason is linked to why we listen to stories, and how that reason changes as we get older.
The only way it might work was if those side quests were teaching you something about yourself through NPCs reactions to your characters actions. And the level of writing/storytelling in is just not at that level yet.
But also those quests and character building need to be working toward some level of permanence otherwise it also feels like a waste of time. A main story at least gives it that.
If they were to release two games like that, nobody who played the first would play the second because they would feel they'd already done it all already and they were just starting over. It's the reason they don't release a new WOW. If they did then people will realize the futility of all their hours. The players need to feel that 100 hours has gone into something. They need a goal, they need a main quest, they need to feel they answering a challenge, a question. Even if it's only the challenge of completing what the programmers have developed. And a 'free roaming - do what you like' style of game would not give them that.
I know I haven't made my point utterly convincingly. I don't have the time or clarity of thought to do that right now. But consider why we play games, and how that reason is linked to why we listen to stories, and how that reason changes as we get older.
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:
DustyDrB said:
i agree to disagree with you. BUT i am also skilled in making grilled cheese sandwiches so have at thee heathen!! In all seriousness though i respect your opinion but it is not my own and thus we disagree on the subject but by no means does that make either of us wrong. opinions cant truly be wrong if they are of the subjective type like this one.
No.
The instinctive reaction is yes, the basic assumption says yes, but, you know what? If there were a lot of dangling plot threads spread about the world, maybe some interwoven, others not, just lots of potential story scattered around the world and each thread well written with as much (or more) variety than a single main story quest would have had...that would be pretty damn interesting.
I think its something that a lot of people would instinctively think is a bad idea, but if it was done and if it was done well? It could find itself with a sudden amount of support and enjoyment. I'd consider it a potential innovation, even.
Edit: Also, I'd consider it to be potentially similar to how some people run tabletop games, lots of potential plot hooks, but its up to the player what they pick up on, what things their character decides to get involved in and on what side.
I don't think Fallout 3 without the main quest would be much less involving. Lacking a main quest doesn't mean lacking an origin, doesn't mean losing the vault intro. It also doesn't mean you don't have the chance to try and track down your father...but it means you don't HAVE to. It might even mean that there could be more than one story relating to that, with different outcomes. If you go to one place early, follow one plot thread, its the story of you hot on your dads trail, finding and helping him with what he wants, and the plot thread comes to an end somehow, reconciling and him settling down to research, or having to kill him yourself because he's a mad scientist. If you wander off to the far reaches of the earth, or get sidetracked helping save people from stuff, or whatever...then its the story of you finding him, an innocent wanderer murdered, then getting revenge for him. Its hard to explain, but I'm hoping the possibilities are clear.
It means that there isn't some point of no return, after which there is some big climactic moving on in plot, some big battle, then a final choice and game over.
The instinctive reaction is yes, the basic assumption says yes, but, you know what? If there were a lot of dangling plot threads spread about the world, maybe some interwoven, others not, just lots of potential story scattered around the world and each thread well written with as much (or more) variety than a single main story quest would have had...that would be pretty damn interesting.
I think its something that a lot of people would instinctively think is a bad idea, but if it was done and if it was done well? It could find itself with a sudden amount of support and enjoyment. I'd consider it a potential innovation, even.
Edit: Also, I'd consider it to be potentially similar to how some people run tabletop games, lots of potential plot hooks, but its up to the player what they pick up on, what things their character decides to get involved in and on what side.
I don't think Fallout 3 without the main quest would be much less involving. Lacking a main quest doesn't mean lacking an origin, doesn't mean losing the vault intro. It also doesn't mean you don't have the chance to try and track down your father...but it means you don't HAVE to. It might even mean that there could be more than one story relating to that, with different outcomes. If you go to one place early, follow one plot thread, its the story of you hot on your dads trail, finding and helping him with what he wants, and the plot thread comes to an end somehow, reconciling and him settling down to research, or having to kill him yourself because he's a mad scientist. If you wander off to the far reaches of the earth, or get sidetracked helping save people from stuff, or whatever...then its the story of you finding him, an innocent wanderer murdered, then getting revenge for him. Its hard to explain, but I'm hoping the possibilities are clear.
It means that there isn't some point of no return, after which there is some big climactic moving on in plot, some big battle, then a final choice and game over.
Fallout's plot may be ideal although is this still counted as a main quest?: finding a water chip and destroying the mutant invasion. It is more of a goal that you can progress to at your own pace.
Mount and Blade barely has quests, and it's one of the best games I've ever played. No, the main quest is not indispensable. You still need good design though, obviously.
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:
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!
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!
Imagine if in minecraft instead of being able to place and destroy blocks you mined things from the blocks (but they didn't vanish), the blocks were now empty and you combined them into a new item which you could only have or use in a specific way. You'd eventually run out of things to make because eventually you'd have made everything. I think the number one rule is that if you make a game like this you need to be able to directly affect the world, not just complete events within the world that changes it in scripted ways because those will always be finite.
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: