The side quest choices in RPG are too easy make

[yamfun]

I think the side quest choices in RPG are too easy to make. There are no occasion where you really have to decide whether to get involved at all.

 

1. The cost for good-guy choice is too low.

It's usually like this:

NPC: "Thanks for saving my son, please, take this." *offers to give $1* (when the player is already a millionaire)

Player: [Good karma response] *refuse the $1*

NPC: "Oh my god you are the single most best bestest person in the world, hope of humanity!!!1!!1!1111!"

[Karma gained]

 

The cost is so negligible, there is not really any sacrifice, and so there is no need to decide whether to help or not.

Instead, what if:

"You want to free this slave? Why don't you pay [an amount scaled to the player's wealth, perhaps even more than it] for her contract?"

"The sentence for this street urchin is his left hand, if you want him released, then part with your hand in place of him" And from then on, you can't equip with your left hand nor use two-handed equipment...etc

"My guy saw that [important unique weapon owned by player] of yours when you entered the town, if the life of this peasant is so important to you, then let's trade"

and so on... are you willing to help everyone?

 

2. The consequence of bad-guy choice is too low

It's usually like this:

Pissing off the local crime lord who have been terrorizing the town for years as a newcomer? It's ok, they will forget everything once you step out of this room.

Instead, what if:

You are thoroughly beaten and have some items taken off.

Some merchants would be scared to trade with you lest they enrage the crime lord.

You would be hunted repeatedly and have to sneak around the town to avoid them.

and so on... are you willing to confront everything?

 

3. The outcome is too predictable.

It's always good choice = "oh thank you hero, here's a gift"

why is no one in the ghetto ****hole city-of-vice town trying to scam this newcomer at all, who is running around asking everyone basic question like a tourist?

there should be way more quests that the npc turns out to be just playing you for fool, ether outright taunting you after receiving your help and running away letting you chase them, or there is some subtle evidence that can be discovered and to confront the npc with.

For replayability's sake perhaps the npc's integrity should even be randomly determined at the start of the playthrough.

and so on... are you willing to get involved with everyone?

 

 

I think if these are addressed, then there will be much more sense of accomplishment when your character sticks to his principle, be it good, bad, greedy, pragmatic, insane. It's also much more memorable when you can't automatically accept everything and have to think about it (and when you are trolled by npc, )

[Walsingham]

Wholly agree. I would suggest that the choice woudl be instantly made more complex and interesting by having variable rewards, and a delay in them arising.

[Humodour]

As long as complex side-quests are not the only type of side-quests. Simple black and white side-quests have their place. While they certainly shouldn't comprise more than say 30% or 50% of all side-quests, they shouldn't be abandoned altogether.

 

Games are which are composed entirely of moral dilemma or ethically grey quests become extremely tiresome, not least of all because life is not like that. If you're going to create a ****ing ethically grey side-quest, give people the black and white options too for Christ's sake!

 

I'm looking at you Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Krezack

[Orogun01]

I'm looking at you Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I don't see what you mean, DE:HR had black and white options. It's just that they were presented as Corporate interest's vs the Little Guy. They are only grey if you don't view corporations as evil, which I do

[Walsingham]

If good is just people skipping through cow pastures with flowers in their hair then you may as well ship me games with the good options taken out. Save a few pennies.

[Amentep]

I think the side quest choices in RPG are too easy to make. There are no occasion where you really have to decide whether to get involved at all.

 

1. The cost for good-guy choice is too low.

It's usually like this:

NPC: "Thanks for saving my son, please, take this." *offers to give $1* (when the player is already a millionaire)

Player: [Good karma response] *refuse the $1*

NPC: "Oh my god you are the single most best bestest person in the world, hope of humanity!!!1!!1!1111!"

[Karma gained]

 

The cost is so negligible, there is not really any sacrifice, and so there is no need to decide whether to help or not.

 

And yet if you've been playing as a goody-goody character odds are you won't need the Karma point gained anyhow since Karma usually has an upper cap to it; ergo you're really opting to take the good path simply because that's the path your character would take with no inherent game related benefit.

 

Instead, what if:

"You want to free this slave? Why don't you pay [an amount scaled to the player's wealth, perhaps even more than it] for her contract?"

"The sentence for this street urchin is his left hand, if you want him released, then part with your hand in place of him" And from then on, you can't equip with your left hand nor use two-handed equipment...etc

"My guy saw that [important unique weapon owned by player] of yours when you entered the town, if the life of this peasant is so important to you, then let's trade"

and so on... are you willing to help everyone?

 

The first IMO breaks the game; why is this slave so expensive and how can the seller possibly know my carried wealth to constantly price her out of my buying range? Also as an option, this essentially gives me as the player no choice - so why include it?

 

Seems to me that if you're looking for this kind of quest to be muddied then you're better off at looking at the ramifications of the action involved - seller will only sale if you do something for them that is morally reprehensible (which is the lesser of the two evils to do?) or you buy the slave but the slave doesn't want to be free so now you're stuck with a slave affecting people's perception of you, etc.

 

The second, I can't imagine any legal system that would allow the substitute hand for punishment; it makes no sense in the intent of that kind of sentence (and taken to its logical conclusion is silly - "hey we won't hang this cattle thief but only if we can hang you instead! Because, you know, we actually are only in this to see people hang"; the player's choice is going to have to be to either take on the legal establishment or leave the urchin to their fate. Pragmatically, creating a new hand-less character model and programming the inability to use the hand might not be worth the time/effort to add it into your game.

 

The third IMO only works if its reasonable for someone to have seen the weapon (again I hate it when game characters can see into my inventory - wtf?) but could be an interesting consequence (although it'd also be nice to see nice loot you sell back be bought by people and possibly end up on your opponents too - but I imagine programming could be difficult to do that)

 

2. The consequence of bad-guy choice is too low

It's usually like this:

Pissing off the local crime lord who have been terrorizing the town for years as a newcomer? It's ok, they will forget everything once you step out of this room.

Instead, what if:

You are thoroughly beaten and have some items taken off.

Some merchants would be scared to trade with you lest they enrage the crime lord.

You would be hunted repeatedly and have to sneak around the town to avoid them.

and so on... are you willing to confront everything?

 

Pissing off any faction (as a hero or villain) should have broader consequences, I think.

 

3. The outcome is too predictable.

It's always good choice = "oh thank you hero, here's a gift"

why is no one in the ghetto ****hole city-of-vice town trying to scam this newcomer at all, who is running around asking everyone basic question like a tourist?

there should be way more quests that the npc turns out to be just playing you for fool, ether outright taunting you after receiving your help and running away letting you chase them, or there is some subtle evidence that can be discovered and to confront the npc with.

For replayability's sake perhaps the npc's integrity should even be randomly determined at the start of the playthrough.

and so on... are you willing to get involved with everyone?

 

 

This is a problem IMO between creating what's fun for a game vs what would really happen. I'm not sure the vast majority of gamers are ready to try and spend time trying to figure out which NPCs are trying to scam them; it also I think would be problematic to properly motivate the npc involved (why, for example, would they mess with the "newcomer asking basic questions like a tourist" rather than just tell them to piss off?)

[Walsingham]

I'd say Amentep was certainly right that there's an an unbridgeable (but variable) gap between what is realistic and what is game playable. It takes quite a lot of careful planning and chutzpah to wander up to someone and get them talking.

[Maria Caliban]

Yesterday, I helped my mom take in the groceries. I was very disappointed when this didn't lead to a random orphan dying or someone swearing revenge against me.

[Hassat Hunter]

Yesterday, I helped my mom take in the groceries. I was very disappointed when this didn't lead to a random orphan dying or someone swearing revenge against me.

That's what you get for playing a game with such boring FedEx quests...

[Orogun01]

Yesterday, I helped my mom take in the groceries. I was very disappointed when this didn't lead to a random orphan dying or someone swearing revenge against me.

You should move to my neighborhood then, taking out the trash it's an epic ordeal filled peril.

[Oner]

Yesterday, I helped my mom take in the groceries. I was very disappointed when this didn't lead to a random orphan dying or someone swearing revenge against me.

You should move to my neighborhood then, taking out the trash it's an epic ordeal filled peril.

A peril filled with epic ordeal?

[Walsingham]

Great. Now I want a pastry called an 'epic ordeal'. I'm thinking light and buttery with maybe some sort of pistachio praline filling. And chopped dates.

[Orogun01]

Yesterday, I helped my mom take in the groceries. I was very disappointed when this didn't lead to a random orphan dying or someone swearing revenge against me.

You should move to my neighborhood then, taking out the trash it's an epic ordeal filled peril.

A peril filled with epic ordeal?

Remind me not to type in a rush and proofread everything, will ya?

 

Seriously though, do we really want sidequest to be real or mission related such as working the logistics of it beforehand. Although I'm partial to the idea having to stake out a place before breaking into it.

[Tale]

I wish more sidequests wove into the greater plot arc. Instead of having to deal with my party member's parental issues that are in no way relevant to beating the bad guy, I'd rather deal with the thugs he hired to steal stuff for his side operations.

 

Am I on-topic? I hope so.

[Bos_hybrid]

Given that many RPG's, don't allow you to be evil anymore, I would just like that choice restored. Let me play as a cat stroking psychopath.

[Amentep]

I wish more sidequests wove into the greater plot arc. Instead of having to deal with my party member's parental issues that are in no way relevant to beating the bad guy, I'd rather deal with the thugs he hired to steal stuff for his side operations.

 

Am I on-topic? I hope so.

 

I'm of mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, sometimes quests that don't have any connection to the main plot can be WTF? moments (particularly if the end resolution of the quest proves harder than the end of the game). On the other hand, its nice to not have everything be connected easily to the overarching plot either in that it gives the game world an illusion of breadth; that everything hasn't up and stopped to deal with the opponent's plan.

[Tale]

On the other hand, its nice to not have everything be connected easily to the overarching plot either in that it gives the game world an illusion of breadth; that everything hasn't up and stopped to deal with the opponent's plan.

That's fair. I can understand that. I think my main issue is primarily that with so many side quests in RPGs nowadays, I often find myself completely losing touch with the plot. I'll spend 3/4th or more dealing with completely tangential issues while the supposedly big issue just sits around for no reason. Side quests woven into the main plot could give a sense that you are dealing with it, you're just dealing with it more broadly. And can give a sense that the big problem isn't just sitting still, it's doing all the stuff the sidequest is doing.

 

Let me get some specifics here. The game that first brought this idea to me was Mass Effect 2. There's only a handful of missions that have anything to do with Collectors. But most side missions are barely motivating personal crap. I had a hard time justifying involvement with people's daddy issues outside of being a completionist. I found myself thinking, "now, if this had at least some relevance to fighting Reapers, I could get behind it." Tali and Legion could be played off that way. Jacob and Miranda? No.

 

I think tying side quests into the main quest's plot could do a few other things. It makes the bad guy look like he's more involved, instead of isolated. He can now be running a war against the local thieve's guild and paying raiding parties to attack local towns as a distraction from what he's doing. It gives an opportunity to explore the consequences of major events. The town he destroyed in the opening of the game has to resort to banditry to survive since their crops were destroyed. And it gives greater resolution. It gives people an idea of how the side quest problems all seemed to magically pop up at the same time, and why the player character is the only one who can deal with them. And when the player defeats the big bad, they can take some comfort that the other side problems aren't going to pop up right away again.

 

Even something as simple as thinking that the only reason the Fiends were able to operate is because everyone is distracted works for me. The big problem caused the smaller problem. Or that the Draugr of Skyrim are waking because their dragon masters are back. It certainly feels better to me than thinking Skyrim is constantly on the verge of zombie apocalypse.

[Blodhemn]

Personally, if there were some actual interesting dialogue going on then the quests would all feel more part of the main world. Look at something like Bloodlines - yeah the game is much more story oriented, however all of the dialogues are so well written that all of the side quests feel like they're part of the story too. With a game like Fallout, it's just too big with too much filler material and also that's simply not the style of game they were trying to make anyway.

 

So basically, I prefer a writer who can write memorable characters and dialogues in whatever situation they may be, main quests/side quests/static dialogue.

[Nonek]

A lot of those problems could be diminished by making the acquisition of wealth much more realistic, how many times in rpgs are we richer than Croesus fairly early on into the story. Dragon age 2 was supposedly the story of a refugee struggling to survive in a foreign and hostile city but i'd amassed enough of a fortune to render the end quest of chapter one pointless after a dozen hours of questing. Of course what breaks most of these systems is simply the tyranny of loot, our obsessive compulsive natures and competitive drive task us with exploiting the system to recieve maximum reward and we thus spoil the game for ourselves.

 

I'm not saying loot should be entirely dropped, just that it be much harder to acquire, carry and maintain than the usual quick trip out to the bandits lair to pick up a few dozen suits of chainmail for the player. An easy way to achieve this is to limit what the player can carry, the original witcher game did this remarkably well with the ability to only wear one suit of armour and carry two weapons on the back, one at the hip and a dagger strapped to the thigh. The rarity of new armour or weapons that are lovingly described, uniquely useful and fully upgradeable would be a real reward for the player, rather than the endless procession of undescribed loot that we'll most likely dump on a merchant after a quick trawl for the optimum pieces.

 

Cash would then be rarer, much harder to acquire and more satisfying to use or recieve. Quality armours would need to be fitted to the wearer and maintained by the smith as most enemies would be marred in combat, weapons could be picked up and used but would also require honing, oiling and occasionally replacing if not of enchanted or exemplary craftsmanship. This verisimilitude would fix a problem in most modern rpgs that sacrifice sense for accesibility and makes those side quests choices all the more meaningful and crucial.

 

I think i've been wanting to get that off my chest for awhile, thank you for the opportunity OP.

[Blodhemn]

That is a bit too much micro managing for me with the armor. There is a problem with the way loot/money is managed in RPGs but I liked the way New Vegas handled it. The game rewarded you for exploring with unique weapons, something few games do, plus there was something useful to be purchased with the game's currency, i.e. the implants at the medical lab. The Witcher's armor and weapons were more of a non entity, they felt very general and bland just like clothing on your back. The fact that you only change armor a couple of times in the game didn't really make it more special to me.

[Orogun01]

That is a bit too much micro managing for me with the armor. There is a problem with the way loot/money is managed in RPGs but I liked the way New Vegas handled it. The game rewarded you for exploring with unique weapons, something few games do, plus there was something useful to be purchased with the game's currency, i.e. the implants at the medical lab. The Witcher's armor and weapons were more of a non entity, they felt very general and bland just like clothing on your back. The fact that you only change armor a couple of times in the game didn't really make it more special to me.

So you commend NV for giving unique weapons to explorers and rip on the Witcher even though they did the same thing? I'm confused.

[yamfun]

Ok my examples might be flawed, but the point is that things are currently too formulaic, brainless and predictable. As you play more and more RPGs, you simply just know what would be the outcome of a choice. When an outcome is known beforehand, it is very boring. The most horrible recent offender is of course some certain age of dragons part deux which templatize the good/neutral/bad responses, it's so predictable that I had to go to bed mid quest. It had made me much more aware of the quests predictableness from then on.

[Blodhemn]

So you commend NV for giving unique weapons to explorers and rip on the Witcher even though they did the same thing? I'm confused.

 

My point was that the Witcher barely had any change in armor or weapons throughout the whole game. So it felt very pedestrian instead of "special". New Vegas has a lot more of the unique/personalized weapons that also are worth extra coin. I liked the Witcher, but for me the armor and weapons were something I didn't really think twice about in that game.

[Maria Caliban]

I think the story and the character's role in it should have more influence on whether side-quests are tied into the main plot. If, for example, you're Cmd. Shepard, who's been brought back from the dead specifically so you can fight an unimaginably powerful group of entities that are going to harvest all organic life in the universe, then the vast majority of side-quests should have something to do with the main plotline. You are the ONLY ONE who can save LIFE ITSELF. No dilly-dallying please.

 

If you have something like Bloodlines where your character is a neonate who thinks he/she is just doing some odd jobs for the Prince, then it makes sense for the PC to do a lot of stuff not connected to the main quest. They don't know that there is a 'main quest.'

 

I'm opposed to the idea that consistently doing good things would mean my PC ends up blind, maimed, penniless, and covered with open sores. It would make sense for a game where the thematic point was that selflessly doing good is stupid and we should all look out for number 1 - and I wouldn't object to playing that game - but I don't see that sort of thing as inherently more satisfying than getting rewarded whether you do 'bad' or 'good.'

Edited December 15, 2011 by Maria Caliban

[Nonek]

Apart from Aerondight and Ravens armour I agree with you Blodhemn, the witchers swords and armour though well modelled were just tools to be used in his job. However I was advocating the games limit on what Geralt can carry, most games we're carrying around a few hundred pounds of bulky gear without any visible pack, mule or overburdened manservant like patsy. It's a trifle disconcerting, I always wondered where Morte in Torment kept his inventory items.

 

Point of fact I think obsidian handles side quests a lot more responsibly than most, Kreia's admonishment of the exiles thoughtless charity on Nar Shadaa was both surprising and satisfying. The fate of the dapper old gent in Dungeon Siege still tasks me, and the maze of repercussions that can be navigated in Alpha Protocol is obviously an excellent example.