Josh Sawyer on Quest Staggering and why BG2 might have had it right

[Hormalakh]

Josh was asked about his comments on BG2 a few weeks ago and what in particular he didn't like about Baldur Gate 2's implementation of quests and he responded,

 

 

* Being flooded with quests in Athkatla - To be honest, I don't think is a controversial opinion! I've seen many other players say the same thing. BG2 has a crazy amount of quests, which is great, but the density in Athkatla was a little too crazy. I think those quests should have been spread out or staggered in some other way. PE is going to have more of an exploration focus than BG2 (though not as much as BG), so I believe that will help spread the content out more.

 

I have been thinking about this for the past several days and while I can understand the reasoning behind what Josh said, I think that I may partially disagree with him in terms of whether it was a bad thing or not.

 

Firstly, I would have to agree with the sentiment that compared to Chapter 2, the rest of the game felt fairly linear and less complex and that this detracted from the game. The following chapters were less fun than being able to mess around in Athkatla. However, at the same time, this doesn't detract from the fact that the multitude of quests in Chapter 2 was sort of fun and kept the player engaged and in fact may show that Chapter 2 was probably doing something right and the rest of the game was unfairly juxtaposed to a well-developed chapter.

 

One of the things that I think was good about the implementation of Chapter 2 has to do with the multiple paths a player can take during their gameplay and the ability to work on several aspects of the story at the same time. If a player would start to tire of a certain setting during the game, he or she could quickly change his attention over to another quest and work on that for a bit. This is ultimately the benefit of the multitudes of quests offered early in the game. It's like designing a non-linear dungeon that has multiple entrances. If the player starts to get frustrated with one certain quest, s/he can work on something else at the same time and come back to the previous quest later. Thus, it keeps the player engaged and rarely feel like he is stuck in a rut or that s/he has to "grind" his way through a certain aspect of the game to get to his reward.

 

I think this is important in a good RPG and it would behoove the devs of PE to think about this aspect of Athkatla's design. Allow the game at any time to have several opportunities for players to "work" on a multiple quests simulatenously. This limits the feeling of linearity that can come in games. If you do want to limit the content density to "spread the content" evenly through the game, make sure to give players opportunities to work on several different aspects at one time and allow them the option ot choosing which one to tackle at any time. This will limit player fatigue and keep the player engaged with the game longer. If possible, keep as many different quests/opportunities/actions to take available for the player, so that they can make the decision in what to do next. This allows the player to feel that he or she is in a sand-box type game even though it may not necessarily fit that description.

 

Anecdotally, I've realized that certain games are fairly linear in their content design, and that these games allow me to play the game only in one certain order. Thus, if I get myself in a rut or can't defeat a particular challenge, I end up quitting the game for several days and getting back to it only when I have the energy to try again. The game starts to feel like a chore, and I rarely get back to playing it. However, I've realized that games like Baldur's Gate 2 and other games that give me the opportunity to choose from several different actions at any point, allow me to change my focus and tackle another challenge. This "refreshes" my interest and I keep playing the game. And then I remember these games more favorably!

 

What do the rest of you guys think?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Morgoth Denoir]

Totally agree with you there, I also like to have a multitude of quests/paths to work on in an order that I like. I don't thik that lots and lots of quests is bad at all...I think that a poorly designed quest log is a...NIGHTMARE! A well organized quest log that will state clearly where you picked up the quest, where are you supposed to go next, what are you supposed to do there and where to deliver it (if location differs from origin) could handle large amount of quests, also I would like to see when you picked it up (Chapter 2, day 57) and be organized in that order so that you can look at the quest and have an idea. Also quests that can no longer be completed should be marked failed/expired and removed from the main section to avoid cluttering and confusion. Another thing is I am not sure how are you going to have world scale but the quest name could be in a colour which matches difficulty, red for deadly, yellow challenge, green your level, grey = not worth it. Those are just a few ideas.

 

So yes, give us trillion quests to complete, even more than we can do, I do not feel obliged to complete every quest in the game, there might be some sidequests I just don't feel like doing on this toon, maybe they wouldn't match my RP attitudes for given character but would be welcome for a change of scenery with a replay for different class/alignment. What I mean by this...I don't like to do thieving, murder, illegal, evil quests on my *good alignment* character in BG1 for example but still do them if they don't drop my reputation because of the limited XP available in the game (I want as much power as I can get). But then if there were enough quests to choose from I would always go for the good/neutral choices, avoid thieves/assassins guild main story or maybe do just a few sidequests that would benefit my thief character with certain items/bonus perks.

 

All in all, give us choice but don't make us bash our heads against keyboard and spend hours googling/wiki every quest because we really have no idea where to go or what to do there. A well designed quest log is a key if you follow the multitude of quests idea (which I totally love).

[Randomthom]

I too hold BG2 up as the pinnacle of CRPGs and agree about the quest log being one of it's weaker points, I'd like to see a more modernised approach to that in PE.

 

Regarding the vast number of quests in BG2, I love that, I think that's a huge part of what gives it the replayability for which it is rightly lauded. There are so many optional quests that you feel like you can ignore some and not be hamstringing yourself XP-wise for later in the game.

 

I've never tried to play BG2 doing the bare minimum but I imagine that it will be very hard in certain areas (Kuo-Toa/Mind Flayer/Beholder dungeons in the underdark for example) but should still be doable.

 

Several other RPGs have been guilty of offering side/optional quests that aren't really very optional if you want to be strong enough to beat the game later on. KOTOR was somewhat guilty of this.

 

For PE, I'd like to see a good variety of truly optional quests where I can do all of them, none of them or, more likely, something in between.

[JFSOCC]

Well, I disagree with Josh here. However, I think what might be helpful, is if you can only have a set amount of quests active at any time, and only able to get others once it drops below 5.

 

So you'd come across someone who has quest dialogue for you

and you have 5 quests active, he'll reply "You look like you have a lot on your mind, why don't you come back later?" or some variation of that.

 

Because I don;t think the problem was the amount of content, I think it was that you got quests dumped on you up to the point that you weren't sure what quest you were working on.

[centurionofprix]

I don't think Sawyer is talking about the number of quests in general, rather than the fact that they were all concentrated in Athkatla. The city overflows with things to do whle the approach to other areas is more linear.

 

Chapter 2 does kind of work nonetheless, imo, because of the idea of raising money to follow Irenicus; you're still working for a sensible goal as you roam the land looking for things to do. It's not the greatest plot, but it does the job. The money is raised rather too easily though.

 

Well, I disagree with Josh here. However, I think what might be helpful, is if you can only have a set amount of quests active at any time, and only able to get others once it drops below 5.

 

I want to disagree about this idea; you would still have to remember which NPCs were going to offer you quests, and morevoer, you would have to go back to get those quests when you were done with your current ones. It would be an artificial and frustrating restriction, as well as requiring mind reading from the NPCs to work in character.

Edited May 8, 2013 by centurionofprix

[JFSOCC]

For that you can have a list of Dramatis Personae in your journal, which you can annotate. "Arin Astor, found in the Sunken Flagon in Big Big City 1, Merchant Quarter" (annotated: "has a quest")

[Sabotin]

I think the issue with being overwhelmed with quests is not necessarily about the number itself but by the implementation:

 

 - Pacing of quests. You know, you have some things that require you to get on as soon as possible, some that you just complete while in the area and some that are fragmented over the world and even non-quest distractions. I think if this is kept diverse it would nor put as much pressure on the player, quest wise, as having a bunch of "urgent" stuff or a laundry list minor fetch quests.

 

- Pathing of quests. With this I mean how many new quest you can encounter while doing another. It can be distracting or annoying if the game keeps trying to sidetrack the player. With a proper placement I believe the density of quests can be made to appear lower or higher, as required.

 

- Quest coherence. This might be more personal than the rest, but I think it is a factor in determining whether you're swamped in quests or not. The majority of quests should be relative to one another; you have the main quest and then the subplots and then the subplots of subplots, etc. I think it's easier for the brain to compartmentalize branches instead of areas, making the world feel more alive (specially when one quests references something from another otherwise unrelated).

[mstark]

I agree with Sabotin. Very good points.

Moderate BG2 spoilers ahead.

 

TL;DR:
BG2 "got it right" by separating the linear main quest from its open world. It got it right by opening the entirety of the world up early. However, the main quest rushes you, encouraging you to not explore. Bad quest log design not helping in case you want to finish quests picked up in the past.

I also agree with Hormalakh. The almost daunting openness of Athkatla once reaching chapter 2 is one of Baldur's Gate II's strongest points, and a large part in why I believe a lot of people choose to replay the game. It's not paced in a way that progressively unlocks optional content, the main story is made very strong due to the fact that it's linear, and fairly separate from distractions.

I'd like to briefly compare BG2 to PS:T with regards to pacing of the game. BG2 has a very clear separation between the main quest and the side quests. PS:T has more even pacing, with side quests intermingled with the linear main story as you unlock new areas.

I would prefer PE to take after BG2 in the pacing of the game. I want the world to open up quickly, and be an open playground, and I want the linear main quest to stand in strong solitude. I quite liked that you weren't given a constant stream of "new things to do" in BG2 while concentrating on the story. I have to say it's made playing PS:T feel very choppy to me; the great quest of finding out who I am is broken up by a million meaningless little errands.

I'd like to bring up why BG2 got it right, and where I think right went wrong.

Chapter 2 of BG2 is the part where you discover the game, the world is open, you can do whatever you want. However, this isn't clear to first time players due to being rushed along by the main quest. The open feeling of the early game is largely achieved by the extreme quest density at the start, as compared to having content more evenly spaced out in the main story. A huge city to explore, endless things to do.

 

I believe the strength in BG2's story lies in it being separate from the open world, and fairly separate from distractions. By good pacing, the main story even brings you back to the open world during an intermission (exiting the underdark), allowing you to complete content that you might have left half finished. However, upon returning to the open world, you've got no way of checking what quests you might have been in the middle of when you left it. In addition to that, you're instantly being rushed along again by the main quest. I think this could be solved by introducing a journal that gives each quest its own entry: it would be very easy to see that, once out of the underdark, you're given a chance to return to these quests. There was no clear way of tracking individual quests using BG2's journal, and it weakened the game as a whole.

 

The fluid, diary-style, of BG2's quest journal was a wonderful idea, but didn't work out in practice. It would have worked if it was used exclusively for the main quest, and side quests were sorted as separate entries on a separate tab.

As a side note, the game also doesn't warn you that going to Suldenesselar is the point of no return. In a game that feels open and free for the majority of it, you do not expect to suddenly be locked away from the rest of the world in such a definite way. It makes sense for the story, but I was somewhat disappointed that I couldn't go back. However, that made me compelled to replay the entire game again. Much of BG2's replayability lies in how quickly the game opens up to you at the start, so if you feel you missed something there's little content to repeat (Irenicus' dungeon) before you can get to it.


 

 

Well, I disagree with Josh here. However, I think what might be helpful, is if you can only have a set amount of quests active at any time, and only able to get others once it drops below 5.

 
I want to disagree about this idea; you would still have to remember which NPCs were going to offer you quests, and morevoer, you would have to go back to get those quests when you were done with your current ones. It would be an artificial and frustrating restriction, as well as requiring mind reading from the NPCs to work in character.

 

I disagree for the same reasons centurion brought up. Artificial limitations like those are extremely frustrating. A well structured/designed quest log is a far more appealing option. I tend to play the IE games quite methodically, I will talk to everyone, picking up every quest I can, and work my way through them one by one.

[TrashMan]

I like choice, but I don't like the idea of taking on 10 quests and then just hoping from one to another. No sense of urgency.

 

On another note, if a quest bores you, then the game is doing something wrong.

[JFSOCC]

 

 

Well, I disagree with Josh here. However, I think what might be helpful, is if you can only have a set amount of quests active at any time, and only able to get others once it drops below 5.

 

I want to disagree about this idea; you would still have to remember which NPCs were going to offer you quests, and morevoer, you would have to go back to get those quests when you were done with your current ones. It would be an artificial and frustrating restriction, as well as requiring mind reading from the NPCs to work in character.

 

I disagree for the same reasons centurion brought up. Artificial limitations like those are extremely frustrating. A well structured/designed quest log is a far more appealing option. I tend to play the IE games quite methodically, I will talk to everyone, picking up every quest I can, and work my way through them one by one.

 

I'm convinced, you have a much better alternative.

I also believe that having an immense amount of content (IE: Quests) allows you to have a ton of optional content and mutually exclusive content.(faction quests for opposing factions) You'll get a complete experience regardless of missing quests, which vastly increases replayability, because you will always have other paths to take, other content yet to explore.

 

On a side note; I hope to see factions which overlap on other factions interests, while not being directly opposed. This means that you can choose different ways to play, while still staying true to your ethos. (no good or evil dichotomy giving you basically 2 playthroughs)

[NerdBoner]

i want a proverbial quest bukkake the moment I step into this world; in fact I want to be so overwhelmed by quests that I will frequently have to take breaks just to catch my breath.

[Naurgalen]

I think that the density of quests in Athkatla is what made the city feel like a real, living "hub/capital" city.

 

Sigil and Neverwinter in comparison feel far small even while both were detailed, full of people and sound-art directed to feel like mayor city's. That is why I think quest (or "things to do") is what makes the difference.

[sparklecat]

I liked the BG2 method of handing you a billion quests at once, and agree that it was only the journal/tracking system that was a problem.  There's a reason I replay that game a few times a year, and having a couple dozen options for how I want to proceed when I start out isn't overwhelming, it's freeing, and awesome for immersion. Because the thing is, many of the initial "quests" in Athkatla were actually someone pointing you in the direction of a quest outside the city/in another district, rather than giving you the quest directly; you could just as easily go exploring and stumble upon them on your own.  It was more about giving you information, and what pieces of information my character was interested in, what they took the time to seek out and learn more of (never mind what they ended up actually doing), was one of the best ways of not only making different playthroughs unique, but bringing the characters themselves to life for me.

[Aldereth]

Agree with Sawyer on this.   I think he is addressing the density or disproportional density that is happening in one area.    I don't think he is against  doing many quest together.

 

Having huge number of quest is distracting especially from a plot stand point.   BG 2 was pretty much the limit.   I would argue Skyrim and Fallout 3 went beyond the limit where quest were added even walking past certain land mark.  it got to a point that the player is completely overwhelmed.   Heck, there were many time I literally forgot what my main quest or the plot was.   And the worse part is, near the end when most of those "avalanche" of quest are done, the world feel empty in late game.  Non-linearity for non linearity sake may be good for a sandbox game with a lose plot which I do not think P:E is aiming for

 

So I think there need to be a balance there.     And a staggered approach seems sensible.

[JFSOCC]

Agree with Sawyer on this.   I think he is addressing the density or disproportional density that is happening in one area.    I don't think he is against  doing many quest together.

 

Having huge number of quest is distracting especially from a plot stand point.   BG 2 was pretty much the limit.   I would argue Skyrim and Fallout 3 went beyond the limit where quest were added even walking past certain land mark.  it got to a point that the player is completely overwhelmed.   Heck, there were many time I literally forgot what my main quest or the plot was.   And the worse part is, near the end when most of those "avalanche" of quest are done, the world feel empty in late game.  Non-linearity for non linearity sake may be good for a sandbox game with a lose plot which I do not think P:E is aiming for

 

So I think there need to be a balance there.     And a staggered approach seems sensible.

this is why I like the bottleneck approach they've said they're going for: once you've completed most of an area, you can move the story on, and the place gets repopulated with some new quests and new places open up to explore as well.

[Arsene Lupin]

I agree, in part. I think sidequests need to be staggered out both chronologically (certain quests don't open up until certain points in the main plot) AND geographically.

 

I think it was... George Ziets who described Baldurs' Gate II's sidequests as being like separate little D&D modules... and I liked that. One thing I really hate is when a sidequest makes you go from one area to another in order to complete it. Done sparingly, it's fine, but a lot of quests do that for EVERYTHING.

 

In planescape torment, for example, I don't think there was a single quest that could be initiated and solved in the same ward. You constantly had to go through 2-3 areas at least for each quest, and if you did anything along the way, you'd get more quests. It had the same overall effect as Athkatla--delivering too many quests to the player too quickly.

 

Bethesda's games are notoriously bad in this respect. They routinely craft quests that require the player to travel from one end of the game world to the other, and unless you ignore everything, you could spend 30-40 hours clearing the huge number of dungeons and other sidequests that would pop-up. The cool thing about the D&D-module style sidequests of BG2 was that they were self-contained. That was really cool. The only real problem I had was that most of the Amn quest lines had their "hooks" in Athkatla--the areas outside the city should have been on the map from the begining, you shouldn't have had to start a quest in Athkatla to complete the quest a dozen miles away from the city.

 

Am I making any sense here?

[Rostere]

I think Baldur's Gate 2 hit the perfect spot in that regard. Ironically, in order to create a great game with a sense of freedom you have to give the player more (side)quests than he/she can remember to do or keep track of. Most people will miss a few quests and that will create the illusion of a large, exporable world. If they player is fed the quests one at a time on appropriate levels you get the feeling of a small, articifial game world. It's also good to keep as many quests as possible "hidden away" and not shoved in the player's face. NPCs who state a quest (oh I hate that word) in their first window of conversation is the worst idea ever. Quests given to you as soon as you enter an area is even worse, obviously. Completing a side quest should give you the feeling of exploration, not ticking off another box on the list of what the developers wanted you to do on your playthrough.

 

So while superfluous quests might seem like bad game design it's actually good game design.

[jamoecw]

storyline has to fit the pacing, this is the problem with both BG2 and P:T, in BG2 imoen is in pretty immediate danger from the moment you get out of the dungeon, and you are racing to save her.  this is right when you have thousands of distractions and such to keep you from doing what needs to get done NOW.  while in P:T it is made pretty clear that you have all the time in the world to deal with stuff from the start, but this isn't when you get all of the side quests, instead as you find out what needs to get done, and that it may be a pressing concern, you are given more and more distractions.

 

BG2 should have had pacing like P:T and vise versa.

[Lephys]

 NPCs who state a quest (oh I hate that word) in their first window of conversation is the worst idea ever. Quests given to you as soon as you enter an area is even worse, obviously. Completing a side quest should give you the feeling of exploration, not ticking off another box on the list of what the developers wanted you to do on your playthrough.

 

Yeah. I'm with ya there. I especially hate how you run into "Sara wants you to go and pick up her delivery from Steve's shop," and it's a quest. Sure, it's irksome that it's just a fetch-errand, but... wait, what if it isn't? What's irksome is that, the actual, involved QUEST doesn't start 'til you get to Steve's Shop, and he's missing, and there's blood on the floor or something. NOW something's up. Yet, in many games, it's all "congratulations! You made it to Steve's shop! 100XP for the first segment of that quest!"

 

No! You didn't do anything yet! The errand simply LED you to an interesting situation that now constitutes a quest.

 

It may seem like silly semantics or something, but I think the structure of such things should really just be divided into two separate things: Thus-far mundane happenings/context/leads, and actual quests.

 

Ehh, kind of like how Arcanum does it. When someone tells you something, you just jot it down in your journal, even if you don't know what you're supposed to do yet. "Sara would like someone to check on her undelivered package." It doesn't say "QUEST: Find Sara's undelivered package!". There's no unsolved mystery yet. Maybe she can't leave the house, and she just thought she needed to go pick it up, instead of waiting on it being delivered the next day. It's not a missing package. It simply wasn't delivered yet.

 

*shrug*. But, I digress a bit.

[TrashMan]

I think Baldur's Gate 2 hit the perfect spot in that regard. Ironically, in order to create a great game with a sense of freedom you have to give the player more (side)quests than he/she can remember to do or keep track of. Most people will miss a few quests and that will create the illusion of a large, exporable world. If they player is fed the quests one at a time on appropriate levels you get the feeling of a small, articifial game world.

 

You speak as if quests are the only think that make the wrold feel alive/artificial or big/small.

I have to disagree.

 

Having a bajilion quests doesn't make the world feel alive. Quite the contrary, it makes it feel even more fake as every Tom, **** and Harry on the continent seems to wait just for you to get s*** done.

Everyone else is incompetent.

[mstark]

I think it was... George Ziets who described Baldurs' Gate II's sidequests as being like separate little D&D modules... and I liked that.

While I agree with your entire post, I'll just quote this bit for emphasis. I really liked how many (if not all) of the more major side quests were strongly separated from each other (and from the main quest). Not only did it make it easier to focus on one single quest branch at a time, it also made it a lot easier to switch between them without getting lost in a tangled mess (although the Quest Journal didn't quite support this).

 

They all had dedicated areas, with little to no intermingling.

 

Trademeet is also one of my favorite bits of the game (the only fairly large settlement available outside of Athkatla), and it functioned as a smaller quest hub. If I remember correctly, it's one of the few places outside of Athkatla with access to the same conveniences the larger city provides. I'm kind of guessing the Stronghold in PE will serve a similar role, based on what they've said about it.

Edited May 9, 2013 by mstark

[Rostere]

 

I think Baldur's Gate 2 hit the perfect spot in that regard. Ironically, in order to create a great game with a sense of freedom you have to give the player more (side)quests than he/she can remember to do or keep track of. Most people will miss a few quests and that will create the illusion of a large, exporable world. If they player is fed the quests one at a time on appropriate levels you get the feeling of a small, articifial game world.

 

You speak as if quests are the only think that make the wrold feel alive/artificial or big/small.

I have to disagree.

 

Having a bajilion quests doesn't make the world feel alive. Quite the contrary, it makes it feel even more fake as every Tom, **** and Harry on the continent seems to wait just for you to get s*** done.

Everyone else is incompetent.

 

 

In no way are "quests" the ONLY thing which can make a world feel alive. On the other hand, having a lot to explore does, quests being one of these things in the sense that a "quest" is an interactive event with an effect on the game world.

 

I think you also have an own idea of how quests must look like. I've already mentioned how I don't like the word "quest". When I use the word, I don't mean "quest" in the WoW sense, where you approach an NPC with a "questgiver" mark over their head which proceeds to give you some errand. I'm really just talking about a piece of interactive narrative content, which sadly has become synonymous with "quest" in modern RPGs.

[redneckdevil]

I think I have to agree with josh on this one and I believe alot of people are not getting what he was stating.

In bg2, in most chapters besides chapter 2 felt linear and felt...Mmm I giess the word would be sparse in the amount of "dnd modules" u received when comparing it to the second chapter. I spent wayyy more time in the second chapter than most of the other chapters combined.

And I believe thats what josh is stating. Hes not against giving us a ****load of quests, no we will get a ****load of quests. What he is stating is that the majority of quests wont be given at a certain point where points before and after feel barren, but give alot of quests spread out in all areas.

 

Not to focus on giving the player the majority of amount of quests in single chapter and have the other chapters give alot less, but to give players alot of quests spreaded out so that we wont feel that before and after a certain feels barren because of the amount of quests available because most of the quests were given in a certain chapter area.

 

dunno if that makes sense. We will get alot of quests throughout the game, hes against giving out a majority of the quests in a single point of the game but spread it out.

Edited May 9, 2013 by redneckdevil

[Kjaamor]

If you're going to operate in chapters, and I'm not certain that's a terrific medium in the first place, some chapters should have plenty of room for extra quests if it fits the setting. Other chapters can be more sparse - say, if you're stuck inside an asylum or trying to get back home. If everything is even, there is no sense of pacing.

[mstark]

I like the use of chapters, if only because it gives the game more of a "story" feel. It's like a story book where the story isn't just being read, parts of it is literally being experienced by you. In BG2 the chapters were exclusively tied to how far you had progressed through the main quest, whereas side quests didn't affect your progress in the same way (making chapter 2, and 5(iirc?) feel far longer than other chapters due to them taking place in the open world. Didn't at all mind that, since (and I'm repeating myself) I really liked the modular feel of BG2, with the main quest separate from distractions.

 

As amazing as many parts of PS:T are, I'm liking it less and less due to the constant flow of miniature quests. Yes, they introduce amazing characters and great dialogues, but the constant running back and forth feels a lot more like a chore compared to BG2's linear modules, where story lines aren't allowed to intermingle to the same extent.

Edited May 9, 2013 by mstark