Please no more "go here" quest markers!

[Hassat Hunter]

and a mark on our map that gives the general location where the next step in the quest should occur and I am happy.

That's... a questmarker.

So, no.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't mind a marker indicating a location of some kind(like a cave or town), but I dislike a floating arrow above an objective.

[Night Stalker]

and a mark on our map that gives the general location where the next step in the quest should occur and I am happy.

That's... a questmarker.

So, no.

 

I think that depends on your definition of "general location".

 

If you mean right over the NPC/item no matter the situation, then yes, you are right it is a Quest marker in the way that you dislike, if it's over the forest where you have to find the lost cabin (and the NPC pointed out that it was in that forest) or the general market area where you are told the caravan master is resupplying his food stores, then I personally think it's fine.

 

For me it depends on context: If there is someone knowns exactly where something is, then I have no problem with the location being precise, if they have a general idea, then the general area should be marked, and if they have no clue then I guess I will have to figure it out myself. Finding a lost trinket and then immediately knowing who owned it, and where they are, for instance, is not something I would like in this game.

 

If you rail again the very idea that there should be any form of marker update on your map when you are given your next objective in a quest chain (even when it makes perfect sense for the NPC to mark it on your map or there is a perfectly clear description of where it is, so it would make sense the PC marked it on his map), then I guess we just have different tastes.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Night Stalker

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, BG(2) style most important locations and NPC's already have an icon... so pointing to "Lady Esmeralda's House" doesn't even need a special marker, since you just look up the map and find the house.

Same with special locations like fortresses.

 

So overall, I just think it's obsolete more than a bad idea...

[Cultist]

There's a huge difference betwen landmark and "go here" arrow. BG2 landmarks were a common knowledge.

[Hellfell]

its very important to make comprehensive descriptions of a quest so a player whouldnt go nuts trying to find the specific place or npc.

[Hassat Hunter]

Unless, of course, intended...

"somewhere in the woods"... 4 wood maps, no clue where, or on which 4.

Away with all 'legendary items' being findable without doing some effort.

[Agelastos]

Luckily, in most of the games you mentioned, it was possible to get rid of the quest markers through modding.

However, since the journal entries weren't as thorough as they used to be back in the IE days, that sometimes made it insanely hard to find the intended destination or NPC (especially in the open world games, like TES).

If they do include quest markers, they should add an On/Off toggle to the Options Menu, and at least include some hints (no matter how obscure) as to where you're supposed to go in the journal.

[rjwest0004]

its very important to make comprehensive descriptions of a quest so a player whouldnt go nuts trying to find the specific place or npc.

 

Yes, I am all for no quest markers If and Only If, there is a good journal system. If the system can break down Main Quest and Side Quests, and further have an entry for each side quest which highlights the important information relevant to that side quest in a journal format, then that would be great. I don't think I have ever seen a system designed quite like that.

 

Example:

Main Quest ---

Side Quests ---

---Find Lost Relic

------NPC1 mentioned that a Lost Relic could be used to forge superior weapons/armor

------NPC2 said relic was last seen in Forbidden Forest

------Relic may be in a cave controlled by Dwarven bandits

------Dwarven bandits were seen in the northeast of the Forbidden Forest

------NPC3 saw a cave in the northeast of the Forbidden Forest, just east of Forest Lake

---Side Quest 2

---Side Quest 3

------Details

 

I think this would encourage more dialogue with the NPCs while trying to piece together the information you need to achieve the objective. This would require a lot of work to implement, but that is in my opinion the best option as far as discovery and immersion. Barring something like that, I would prefer quest markers to at least get you in the general area. As someone who loves games but where time is a premium, I hate coming back into a game a week to a month later and trying to figure out what the heck I was supposed to be doing or where the heck I was supposed to go to do it. All it does is make me go to the walk through websites and wikis to find the next step.

[Sabotin]

I do not like quest markers either. Just make sure the journals are informative and that's it. I especially hate quest markers that pretty much reveal more info that you're supposed to know. It happened that in some game or other I got a quest and had no idea where to go (yes, I was paying attention), with the quest marker pointing the way instead. I'd really like that avoided.

 

And honestly I think in an non-continuous world they're not really needed.

[ReyVagabond]

Personaly i like my arrows, of this is where the stuff you need is, yes morron, yeah right in front of you, yeash, read the dawm jurnal you lazy!!

I have been spoiled for far to long!

 

So make it a togle, stating in default in off, and you can turn them on in the option sections.

[Lephys]

 

I hate quest markers. I would prefer it if they are not in the game at all to them being an optional feature. It seems like games that have a quest marker system invariably have awful quest instructions; because they can rely on fantasy GPS, they have no need to explain each objective thoroughly. I just played Dishonored, which had the option to turn quest markers off, which was cool. I did beat it without ever using them, but there were quite a few parts where they didn't even try to tell the player where to go. One specific instance I can remember is where they tell the player to talk to Pindleton. Naturally, I checked his room, with no luck. Then I scoured the entire house. Checked in the yard, the basement, and finally found him outside, hidden behind a small tower in an area I had never been to before. They could have just said, "talk to Pindleton by the tower" or something, but because they knew people could just turn on quest markers at any time it wasn't important to them.

 

I am SO with you on this one.

 

I don't like artificial quest markers. They are something that is purely a game mechanic and in no way a part of the game world. Damage, on the other hand, is something that is a mathematical interpretation/organization of the effects of wounds in combat, and wounds in combat are a natural part of the game world.

 

Anywho... Quest markers = bad. The ones that literally just mark unknown quest objectives. That's what I'm calling a quest marker. The only information you should get is the information your character has. So, if someone knows EXACTLY where someone's lifeless corpse washed up after it was tossed into a river because they FOUND it, then totally tell my character (and thus, me) where it is. However, I STILL believe that the line should be drawn at locations. Only the location to which you need to travel should be directly marked. The rest should be directions. Of course, "directions" brings me to my 2nd point, which SunBroSolaire's quote, above, remound me of:

 

Directions should be intuitive! If you're in a retail store and you ask someone where the syrup is, they're most likely not going to say "On the same aisle as the honey, to the northeast." and go on about their business. They're MOST LIKELY going to say something like "Oh, that's on aisle 12. Go down this aisle (points in the direction), then take a right when you get to Electronics. It'll be past the Christmas stuff, on your left."

 

Boom! Now you know that, WHEN YOU GET WITHIN VISUAL RANGE of the correct aisle, you can look for a "12" somewhere. AND you know which the hell direction to start out in from where you are currently.

 

I know that in a fantasy world, people are most likely going to tell you the cardinal direction that something is from you, but, in a town, you can't just walk straight to things, usually. Streets go various ways, and there are often fortifications and gates to go around/through in certain places, so telling me that something is "to the northwest" doesn't really tell me where to go when I walk away from you. Often you start heading northwest, only to run into a large structure or cliff face, upon which an entirely different section of the city resides.

 

Getting back to quests, this becomes particularly annoying at times. When someone says "it's north of town," I'm going to leave town to the north and head as straight north as I can, assuming that if I keep my eyes peeled, I'll encounter what I'm looking for. Then, 2 hours later, I find out that it's actually 90% north of town, then east into a thicket of woods about 1,000 feet. So, really, the person, KNOWING where this place is, should have given you some other visual marker or something at which you could turn east. OR, some kind of contextual aid. "There are blue flowers that only grow near that cave." Great, now, you just point me near enough to the general area in which I need to find the cave, and when I see blue flowers, I'll know that I need to turn towards the blue flowers. They won't necessarily lead me straight toward the cave in a pretty little breadcrumb line, but at least I know that it's "somewhere over here" now, instead of "somewhere within this 1,000-square-mile forest."

 

What would be even better is if NPCs would, whenever it was feasible, provide directional information for things that were in their vicinity. That way, someone might say "I just know that a man with a red feathered hat and large silver medallion left town 2 nights ago on the northern path." Then, you travel north, and you bump into someone else, and ask them if they've seen him. They say "Ahh, yes, he had a wagon and several guards, I think? They turned west through the forest here."

 

Boom... now you get to actually track in a quest, but, at the same time, it's not just "Find the man in the red feathered hat. He's somewhere in the mortal plane."

 

Also, regarding the "where the hell is that NPC I'm supposed to talk to, who lives in this town?" problems, you could ask someone "Hey, have you seen Will Vingleton? He's not at his shop." And, unless he's a friggin' ninja, SOMEONE's going to be easily found who can help you out, and they'll say "Oh, yes, I saw him head down to the riverfront (once again, /POINT). I think he went fishing for the afternoon." And if heading the way the person points doesn't take you directly to the waterfront, they should break it down a bit with the visual markers. Head down the hill on your right, just past the blacksmith's forge. He'll probably be on the pier by the big willow tree." Unless the riverfront's 7 feet wide, in which case I guess I don't need to know which pier to look for.

 

So basically, you shouldn't ever have a giant, artificial User Interface beacon flashing on your objective, because it's completely unnecessary and unimmersive. As many have said here already, descriptions and directions are MORE than sufficient tools of getting you to your objective. And lastly, the descriptions and directions should be both detailed and intuitive.

 

That still has nothing to do with whether or not you should know where things are, though. That is completely dictated by reason and context. You should only know what you should reasonably be able to find out. If something was stolen, or someone went missing, or there's a secret (the key word being "secret") passage in someone's manor, then someone who didn't DO the stealing, or kidnapping, or constructing of the secret passage shouldn't be able to direct you straight to the objective. But they should provide very clear and useful directions. If Tara Sharinval saw something the night of the kidnapping, or supposedly knows more about the secret passage, I shouldn't have to "explore" just to find her. This person obviously knows her, and they live in the same town. How can they not be able to point me to her?

 

That's the ONLY thing quest markers get right. But, I'd much rather have non-artificial systems direct me and not skip immersive dialogue and such. "GO FIND STEVE!" *Steve instantly marked by heavenly aura*