Why do people HATE quest markers?

[DoPo]

So, okay, wait a second. Quest markers can't be turned off because the directions were too vague, but they can't be in a game at all because that limits exploration?

Well shit, if the NPC was too vague, whatever. You're the one who said "I want to explore more", so stop whining and do some exploring. You want quest markers removed in the first place anyways, so pull on your man pants and start trekking, you so called "hardcore gamers".

First, would you mind explaining to me what exactly have people who like the option of not having quest arrows done to you? Have they beaten you, have they stolen your food, set your shelter at fire? What? Why express this much hostility in each and every post when you are talking about them?

And second, to answer your question - Skyrim's directions are so vague, you would need to cross the entire map (possibly more than once) to find each quest location. This goes beyond "exploration" into something that is not really that.

Similarly in Skyrim, turning off your compass and just using the map to orient yourself is pretty fun at times.

This also addresses this. You cannot do it unless you get mods, but certainly not in vanilla. Requiring mods is less of a "option", though, for example, one simply does not have that option on consoles.

It's just the easiest way to get people into the game though. Directions require so much more extra voice-acting etc. to become good, and after that I can imagine people becoming very frustrated and snapping the game if they spend an hour looking for random cave 7 or old forest ruin 28 with a set of poorly written directions.

And here is the problem - you don't need voice acted directions. A spoken "Here are the directions to X" with a journal entry of "Y told me to go here and and here, which is to the northeast of here" is enough. And Morrowind, for the criticism it receives, still manages to give good directions for the most part. There are probably a dozen quests or so out of the whole game which give a bit too vague of description of where to go or even it's wrong (for the directions were based on earlier layout of the terrain). And yet QA-ing the directions is a drastically lower cost than getting more VA work and with the budget Bethesda has thrown at Skyrim, I do not see it as burden. So the actual issue you're describing is a non-issue. They could have given the option - they didn't.

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

there's nothing wrong with quest markers per se. Morrowind, for example, could have used some. They add a layer of convenience and are easily ignored. What people DO hate are waypoints in games so linear that they literally kill you the moment you step out of the pre-determined path. See Battlefield 3.

 

[TwiZtah]

I don't have the fucking time anymore to search for a dungeon for hours, I have real life responsibilities. Therefore I also love quest markers.

 

[CriticalMiss]

The only thing I dislike about markers is when they lead you directly to the exact spot of a person/item that the player would have absolutely no way of knowing where they are. Like in Skyrim when you have to go find some item or another in a dungeon or building and the marker will take you right to where it is. Now it isn'tan issue if the quest giver tells you the location or it is written in a note somewhere that you can find, but it ruins the sense of exploration or effort required. Putting a marker to get someone to the right general loaction, fine, but holding their hand all of the way is lazy game design and takes away the sense of achievement.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

In Ye Olde RPGs, we got to think and work things out for ourselves. When accepting a quest, we would need to pay attention and note relevant names, places and so on. Our journal would update with information such as "The old beggar has sent me to the Westerly Woods to find a fortune he claims is buried there. It supposedly lies beneath a dead tree north of the stream." With just that information, we would head into the woods where we would wander and explore, looking for a dead tree amongst the living ones, or a stream to serve as a reference. During the search we might engage in some combat, meet another NPC to give us another quest or wander aimlessly trying to find the needle in the haystack.

This was immersive and a little challenge all by itself. We had to pay attention to our surroundings and look closely to find what we were looking for. And when we found it, it was satisfying. It all happened "in-game" and in character.

A quest marker gives you an arrow to follow unerringly. You can and probably will skim through the area, not even needing to bother with your journal, paying little to no attention to the surroundings. You walk directly to your destination, meeting a challenge or two on the way certainly, but immersion is broken since the game is putting a floating arrow at your destination.

It isn't a "hardcore feature", it's just the way games used to be before a) everything started getting made for consoles and b) everything was made easier/broadened appeal so that it could sell to the less intelligent masses.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I'd say most people hate them because some games that include them use them as a cure all for navigation. There is little direction given aside from the marker and lets the game be lazy about naturally and subtly pointing the player in the right direction. Skyrim is particular guilty of shit directional advice without markers as far as I remember.

 

[Colt47]

They aren't quest markers, they are task markers. No one reads the text unless the game is from some famous brand and the person is interested in the lore.

 

[Padwolf]

Well they are useful to have but they do take away some immersion. I don't hate them personally. What I do hate is in some MMO's where you have the quest journal and all you have to do is click on the name of the thing you are meant to kill, or the place you are meant to go and the game autopilots you. Really there was one mmo where I literally didn't have to do a thing because it auto piloted the way for me, auto attacked everything, then all I had to do was click where to hand it in. THAT I don't like.

 

[Weaver]

My only problem with it is when it's like "Help I lost my book, can you find it?" then you open your map and there's an arrow pinpointing its exact location. Like, why even make me go do that?

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Why would you need directions when you have a map? The quest giver points out where the cave is because they know where the cave is. How you get there is your own business. An having an arrow on your compass telling you the cave is NNE from your position is good because you know its NNE, its on the damn map. An i would say not being given a long list of directions is more immerse as your left to make your own way there as you see fit. Getting lost and side tracked as you continue your journey and exploring. Where as being given a long list of directions means you cant deviate from the path because the directions take you from the quest giver to where the quest is. If you forget or get distracted you have to start again.

Compare it to traveling to meet a friend. Whats more interesting, them saying meet me out side x train station, or, a big list of directions to get to that train station? Both systems have their merits, and is part of why i like Morrowinds system, which worked because of the detailed map showing every road and landmark. Direction can be more like a breadcrumb trail. Where as an arrow where your destination is can feel more immersive because you have to make your way there yourself. As long as they only pin point the cave, thats fine, but when it shows you the exact thing the quest wants you to find/kill then thats stupid. Might as well not have a cave to explore.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

So, okay, wait a second. Quest markers can't be turned off because the directions were too vague, but they can't be in a game at all because that limits exploration?

Well shit, if the NPC was too vague, whatever. You're the one who said "I want to explore more", so stop whining and do some exploring. You want quest markers removed in the first place anyways, so pull on your man pants and start trekking, you so called "hardcore gamers".

As has been stated, because of the random generation of quests, most will not even give you the name of the place, but will just say "I lost my ... in a cave. Can you get it back for me?" That cave could literally be anywhere across the entire map, and you didn't even get a name, so you have to use the quest markers. Place names and exploration don't come into it, you just go straight there. That is not good for immersion and players who want to roleplay and get immersed in the game need more information to play it realistically.

I have nothing against quest markers, it's when they are the sole method of gameplay for locating stuff that I get an issue, because in something like Skyrim I want the exploration to be immersive, not an unreal mechanic that is divorced from the game world.

 

[AkaDad]

I'd like to thank all the people who don't like quest markers for explaining how to play games correctly, since you're the sole arbiters of how games should be played. I also appreciate your playful teasing when you call people lazy and mindless, because you're not at all sounding like condescending douchebags.

 

[Something Amyss]

From what I can gather, a bunch of morons have basically decided that gaming is NOT in fact something in which you can mess around and have fun or get anything done easily, but rather some kind of god damn military fitness test where you must play on some insane fuckin difficulty level or not play games at all.

Having fun? You must be one of them casual gamers! I only play games on extreme difficulty while blindfolded and being prodded with red-hot pokers!

Quest markers take away any sense of exploration. You're not wandering an alien landscape, you're just following the pointy arrow like a good little boy or girl.

Not if the game has any real sense of exploration. There are several instances in Skyrim where following the quest marker blindly will dead-end you and force you to retrace your path. Probably more than that, too, but I don't have the average of 7000 hours invested in the game.

Also, I wouldn't call hardcore gamers a "minority". Dark Souls is basically tailored to hardcore gamers and it made shitloads and cost less than the bigger AAA titles.

One game that sold 2.5 million is hardly a trendsetter for "hardcore" gaming. The fact that it was successful is based on the fact that they didn't try and make it a game that required 30 million to make money. But they're still successful with a very small number of the overall player base. And that's fine. While I can't be arsed with a game like DS, I appreciate the place for niche games. I just wonder why people need to pretend they're something more than niche.

Why do we dislike the work of five year olds made for five years olds? Because that isn't how we wanted to play the bloody game, and why these designs persist in games supposedly for adults is beyond me.

Consider you're not the target audience if that's "not how you want to play the game." Honestly, this sounds like a sense of false entitlement. And maybe don't rail on people for not being "adults" for not playing the same way you do.

 

[Something Amyss]

As has been stated, because of the random generation of quests, most will not even give you the name of the place, but will just say "I lost my ... in a cave. Can you get it back for me?" That cave could literally be anywhere across the entire map, and you didn't even get a name, so you have to use the quest markers.

Or you could explore, which is what people say they want.

That is not good for immersion and players who want to roleplay and get immersed in the game need more information to play it realistically.

It's perfectly realistic that a person not know where they lost something, so where's the immersion issue?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

As has been stated, because of the random generation of quests, most will not even give you the name of the place, but will just say "I lost my ... in a cave. Can you get it back for me?" That cave could literally be anywhere across the entire map, and you didn't even get a name, so you have to use the quest markers.

Or you could explore, which is what people say they want.

It's perfectly realistic that a person not know where they lost something, so where's the immersion issue?

It IS realistic if it was framed like this:

"Crap i dropped my ring, go find it, I THINK i was in X town, but then again I was walking from there toward the tundra to gather plants, so it MIGHT be there"

rather than

"I lost my ring. Could be in the tundra, could be in the desert. Could be middle of the ocean. For some reason im unwilling to share ANY of that information at all".

I want to explore the game world in the way you would with a real life mission or quest. Given enough information to make an informed start and then using my own perception to figure out the rest. The two options are NOT tell me EVERYTHING and tell me nothing.

You and that racecar guy just keep presenting utterly farcical strawmen. Its irksome. What we want is a narrative that fits what a REAL person might say if they had a problem. Does no one see ANY issue with "Kill some rats for me." Ding. Quest marker added at Inhallybon cave on the east side of the desert of Urdan. Its just immersion destroying.


You cant honestly believe that when you lose something you cant narrow it down AT ALL from "The moon" or "my bedroom" when asking others for help. Honestly if thats how you conduct a search its a miracle you have any possessions at all. Work on those communication skills so you can actually FIND stuff or admit you're being extremely dishonest when presenting what we actually want. In fact ill concede the entire freaking arguement if you can succinctly explain what kind of information i think is reasonable for a quest giver to give you.

If you want a game that says:

"I lost my X in a cave, I was exploring this cave that I discovered outside of town to the east. Its fairly nearby" DING quest marker. Thats fine. As long as i can turn it off too I dont see how that option ruins anyones good time.

Why are you people opposed to making game dialogue more immersive and giving the player more options? Ive literally never seen someone argue dialogue should be WORSE and less interactive until this thread so the company saves money. Its frankly bizare. If thats the only motivations worth considering fuck voice acting, dialogue and scripts all together. Click on a character, insert quest marker on map.

Im fine with people playing however they want. But when people point out reliance on a game mechanic is causing designers to not put any effort into creating a believable and tangible world everyone gets furious.

You know what someone already made this argument for me, you can find it on a website.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

As has been stated, because of the random generation of quests, most will not even give you the name of the place, but will just say "I lost my ... in a cave. Can you get it back for me?" That cave could literally be anywhere across the entire map, and you didn't even get a name, so you have to use the quest markers.

Or you could explore, which is what people say they want.

That is not good for immersion and players who want to roleplay and get immersed in the game need more information to play it realistically.

It's perfectly realistic that a person not know where they lost something, so where's the immersion issue?

I was in Dawnstar, at the top of the Skyrim map. I talked to a ship captain and he asked me to retrieve a shipment pirates had stolen from him at sea while he was coming from Dawnstar.

That was the extent of the directions. He asked me to hunt down the pirates and retrieve the goods. Were they in a cave? a fort? a bandit camp? He didn't specify. The only way I had any hope in hell of ever completing that quest was to use the map marker, which pointed me directly to a chest, at the bottom of a cave... in South Markarth. Literally the other end of the map.

The main quest isn't so bad, but if you want to achieve any of the other quests, they are all like that. Frankly you are extremely lucky to get a placename, but you will most of the time just be told 'a cave', or 'a fort' or sometimes not even that much. You cannot play immersively in those scenarios, because you have to rely fully on the quest markers to achieve everything, and the only other option is to not play the game.

As I said, I don't mind quest markers, but I would want them to be supplemented with an alternative way of getting information on where to go - spoken or written directions, even vague areas, because they are not a preferred gameplay mechanic by many players.

 

[Colt47]

As has been stated, because of the random generation of quests, most will not even give you the name of the place, but will just say "I lost my ... in a cave. Can you get it back for me?" That cave could literally be anywhere across the entire map, and you didn't even get a name, so you have to use the quest markers.

Or you could explore, which is what people say they want.

That is not good for immersion and players who want to roleplay and get immersed in the game need more information to play it realistically.

It's perfectly realistic that a person not know where they lost something, so where's the immersion issue?

I was in Dawnstar, at the top of the Skyrim map. I talked to a ship captain and he asked me to retrieve a shipment pirates had stolen from him at sea while he was coming from Dawnstar.

That was the extent of the directions. He asked me to hunt down the pirates and retrieve the goods. Were they in a cave? a fort? a bandit camp? He didn't specify. The only way I had any hope in hell of ever completing that quest was to use the map marker, which pointed me directly to a chest, at the bottom of a cave... in South Markarth. Literally the other end of the map.

The main quest isn't so bad, but if you want to achieve any of the other quests, they are all like that. Frankly you are extremely lucky to get a placename, but you will most of the time just be told 'a cave', or 'a fort' or sometimes not even that much. You cannot play immersively in those scenarios, because you have to rely fully on the quest markers to achieve everything, and the only other option is to not play the game.

As I said, I don't mind quest markers, but I would want them to be supplemented with an alternative way of getting information on where to go - spoken or written directions, even vague areas, because they are not a preferred gameplay mechanic by many players.

Yeah, some of that quest text in skyrim definitely needed a second pass. I actually remember that quest from Dawnstar and a few others like it where it's completely depending on a quest marker instead of having NPCs around town mention pertinent information on the subject.

 

[Something Amyss]

"I lost my ring. Could be in the tundra, could be in the desert. Could be middle of the ocean. For some reason im unwilling to share ANY of that information at all".

You just accused me of farcical strawmen, yet you phrased that in such a deliberate way as to be completely absurd. Perhaps practice what you preach?

I was in Dawnstar, at the top of the Skyrim map. I talked to a ship captain and he asked me to retrieve a shipment pirates had stolen from him at sea while he was coming from Dawnstar.

That was the extent of the directions. He asked me to hunt down the pirates and retrieve the goods. Were they in a cave? a fort? a bandit camp? He didn't specify. The only way I had any hope in hell of ever completing that quest was to use the map marker, which pointed me directly to a chest, at the bottom of a cave... in South Markarth. Literally the other end of the map.

You're using an example of pirates? Isn't it possible, for realism and immersion purposes, that these pirates weren't waiting around in one place for you to find them?

This sounds like people less want immersion or realism than game tropes. Like the lone goblin guarding ancient treasure locked in a 5*5 room in D&D. I mean, if you want to play it the way you want to play it, fine. Don't play it up as realism or immersion, especially if your example is pirates who stole something but are bound by the rules of fair play to hang out nearby so the player has a sporting chance. That's contrivance.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

You just accused me of farcical strawmen, yet you phrased that in such a deliberate way as to be completely absurd. Perhaps practice what you preach?

Your point was that when you lose something its not "immersion breaking" for you to have literally ZERO idea where it is and be unwilling to narrow it down at all for someone to help you find it. Thats ridiculous. So naturally my example did look ridiculous.

"It's perfectly realistic that a person not know where they lost something, so where's the immersion issue?"

Its perfectly realistic that a person not know EXACTLY where they lost something. Its totally absurd that they literally cannot narrow down the search in THE ENTIRE NATION of skyrim for you. Which was the point the person you quoted was making.

Can we at least agree on that. That is how regular humans behave when talking to other regular humans? Yes or no.

If you asked someone in real life to help you find something and you literally couldnt/wouldnt give them any information about where it is within the whole county naturally they would call what youre saying absurd. It IS absurd. How could anyone describe it as anything else.

Can we agree if someone did that to you it would be REALLY weird. Yes or no?

Since you used DnD for an example you should know how a good DM avoids contrivance. What priates stole it from him? What flag did they fly? Can we ask some sailors if they KNOW these pirates? Maybe one has some idea where they operate from. Maybe someones on the vessel that sunk the pirate vessel. If a dude playing DnD can think of inventive solutions so can game designers.