A debate on side-quests & filler content

[felipepepe]

Dragon Age: Inquisition was unanimously bashed for its "single player MMO" quest design, complete with repeatable "fetch 5 fangs" quests you could keep doing to farm reputation, just like the worst parts of World of Warcraft.

Now, those type of boring fetch quests are commonly associated to MMOs - and anyone who played them know why. I still remember The Barrens, where I spent days doing nothing but carrying packages and hunting all sorts of animals - killing 20 raptors for one goddamn claw.

Still, this isn't exactly new nor exclusive to MMOs. Chrono Trigger, for example, had the Hunting Grounds, where you would also repeatedly kill animals for fangs, feathers and claws - but it wasn't tied to a quest. You just gather them as resources, then trade them for better equipment. In theory, this is the same as Inquisition's or WoW's daily quests - to something repeatedly in exchange for equipment.

Similarly, Daggerfall is infamous for the Fighter's Guild quests, Fallout 2 would send you to hunt & skin Geckos and Baldur's Gate 1 is filled with fetch quests. You can even go back to Akalabeth - one of the very first CRPGs ever was nothing more than a series of "Kill monster X" quests, one after another. But they didn't have a questlog openly stating that. It was an adventure, not "Kill Balrog - 0/1".

The worst of side-quests: follow the arrow, kill/collect everything and return.

Another factor is that now you KNOW when a side-quest is a side-quest. Many modern RPGs even put them in a separate questlog tab. Playing Grimoire made me think a lot about that. Adventures appeared before me and I pursued them, never knowing how important or how far they'll go. A missing girl may be important, a magical flying ship may not. This makes everything feel like a true adventure, not a dull side-quest.

So, what truly makes modern side-quests so terrible? The over-use of "kill X/gather Y" design? The questlog reducing what should've been an adventure to simple mechanical actions? The fact that you know they're side-quests that add nothing to the main story?

DISCUSS!

 

[Darth Roxor]

if your game has side quests and filler content as outlined above, you have failed

 

[felipepepe]

if your game has side quests and filler content as outlined above, you have failed

Your beloved Gothic has side-quests like killing a bunch of Minecrawlers to get their hide and make an armor, selling drugs to a bunch of people in the camp or gathering food for a banquet.

Even Betrayal at Krondor has you gathering several sets of Kingdom Armor for Lord Lyton.

Why these work so much better? An would they still be great if there were a lot more of them? Or a questlog?

 

[Grampy_Bone]

I think the prevalence of side quests encourages lazy design. One thing that amazed me about older games like Ultima 6 and The Magic Candle is they're open world but have very few side quests; you have to pretty much go everywhere in the world to finish the game. Compare that to modern open-world games where you have to visit 10-50% of the world at most to finish the main story. It's so easy to copy-paste some monster assets in a generic field or cave and call it "content." Naturally, it's easy to blame Bethesda and Blizzard for this.

There were points where side quests were sparse and mostly bonus content, finding them felt like a fun surprise; like you were uncovering a secret. Now it seems like side quests dominate the content of every game and completely drown out the story. I've even heard people say they only play RPGs for the sidequests now, and never finish the main plot. Sad!

 

[hellbent]

Terrible presentation of side quests has something to do with it. If the side quest is given sufficient gravity through basic storytelling, it feels more intrinsic to the game world and becomes an important part of the story you are ultimately writing by your actions in the game.

When you are basically handed a shopping list and given a floating quest marker to follow, it's too mechanical and game-y - which breaks any immersion the story thus far might have provided. Then this task gets repeated, over and over, with the only variables being where you have to travel and what creatures you have to kill. Too often, there isn't even enough variability in the creature types encountered, the design of the dungeon, and the makeup of enemy mobs. The presentation ultimately leaves both storyfags and combatfags wanting more.

 

[HoboForEternity]

It is more of the context and delivery. Most sidequests, even main quest boil to several type, lets use 3 (over)generalization:

-fetch/deliver
-kill
-escort

You have to add in nice context, unique delivery and reward and tangle it with the unique game mechanics too.

For example, boring fetch quest would be a signboard telling you to fetch 10 flowers. You have 20k gold reward. There the location, is marked on your map.

It is lazyness and failure of a designer.

A good quest have these recipe for them: -good context: can be done trough interesting NPCs, stories, situation, dialogue to provide exposition, make you care, etc.
-not straightforward, but plays with your expectations and let the players explore.
-make use of the game mechanics to give player options and choices.
-give a good reward, whether it items, money, new questline, permanet changes in the game world even abstract things like satisfaction of doing fun.

To take that flower example, instead of 10 flowers, make it finding a legendary flower. Put the flower in unique location. Lets say it is hidden in a legendary wizard lair where he put a magic indoor garden where full moon always shine inside.

That alone provide context that create unique situation rather than generic checklist quest.

Then integrate it with gameplay and game feature. Dont mske it "let me mark on your map" bullshit. Make the player put effort to find it. If your game has robust dialogue, make the player investigate for information. Buy information, persuade, coerce, force, interrogate. If not, then just givevthe general location, and let the player just find it and have to explore surroujdin areas based on visual, audio and other clues in the world. The point is avoid mao marker as possible. If your game have multiple classes, varied skills snd stats, make multiple routes to get to the flower.

Then the reward. Have unique items instead of generic loot or money. Have the world change, npc reaction change, etc.

These apply both to storyfag and gameplayfag games. The key is context and uniqueness.

Even a simple kill quest is more fun when it is more of a boss battle hunting instead of hunting generic enemies #93949393 a thousand times.

Instead of 10 wolves, make it six legged ultrawolf that have a giant penis fang and rape livestocks with it, etc.

But of course, in most games, especiall triple (A)ssholes games, it is expensive, tske time and casual faggots dont care about these.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

I'm trying to think of exceptions

-Baldur's Gate 2. The game is heavily focused on sidequests during chapter 2/3, but they're all pretty great. There's even some unmarked quests like the Twisted Rune, which provide awesome items.

-Darklands. The sidequests *are* the game, far and away the best experience, while the main quest dungeons are ass cancer.

 

[Delterius]

In my opinion its the same problem with Crafting in RPGs: developers lose sight of what their game is about. RPGs have been a historically bloated genre which draws from too many influences at a time. You need a combat system, a dialogue system, a faction system, puzzles, exploration and so on all tied together by a character system. Its just everywhere at the same time and it also applies to content and quest design.

'Side-quest design' works in a specific type of game: MMOs. I played a lot of them. Korean grindfests, post-WoW likes and truly open sandboxes. You name it. In each of these you've got a lot of inane activities to pad out the game and to justify your subscription. I don't mind sidequest design in those games because that's what those games are about. That delayed sense of gratification is what I came here for.

Dragon Age on the other hand isn't really about that. Its a plot driven game that is mostly told via cutscenes. What is frustrating about Inquisition is that it doesn't focus on storytelling. Its open world is busywork in between story moments. It should have been an experiment in environmental storytelling, but instead we got a whole other kind of game sticking out like a tumor.

This is why I appreciate Age of Decadence so much. Everyone likes to accuse it of being a CYOA but even so, its a damn good one.

 

[Joined on the 4th of July]

Jagged Alliance 2 has a quest log. It also has side quests.

Presentation is p. important.

 

[aweigh]

quests are often the bane of good gameplay

 

[Leitz]

If it's optional I'm ok with it. I never killed those geckos in Fallout 2. Morrowind is shit btw because of these.

 

[mbv123]

I liked Witcher 1 quests. They were mostly fetch quests (kill x monsters, collect x hides/teeth, etc.) but they fit the lore well and you needed to prep before each of them by learning the monster lore from people or reading books (which were expensive), then you also had to use potions/oils to make the job easier. It never felt like a chore because you got some decent rewards the further you progressed of which you could buy better equipment or stock up on food/booze/more potions/oil.
I did each and every one of them and was so glad I did because I had a huge stockpile of supplies by the Final Chapter/Epilogue that felt pretty rewarding because I had a solution for every possible encounter.

 

[epeli]

...reducing what should've been an adventure to simple mechanical actions?

More or less that. The streamlined, very consistent and mechanical presentation of typical MMO quests reduces them to something akin to a grocery shopping list. You look for an NPC with a quest marker above its head, click accept without ever reading the damn thing and then blindly follow your quest compass to go grind that checklist that's always on your screen. Repeat.

In typical MMORPGs this is somewhat acceptable, as they derive much of their entertainment value from social interactions, be it cooping with friends, dealing with random tards, meeting new people, or trashtalking and ganking noobs in world pvp. Filler content is essential for most MMORPGs, they just need tons of simple content with streamlined presentation to keep players busy in their framework - WoW's popularity made the entire MMORPG genre a perfect example of wasted potential, but that's an entirely different topic.

But for singleplayer RPGs, such garbage content is inexcusable. Quests must be more thought-provoking and the streamlined MMO content presentation is no good. In a singleplayer game, the quests and other game events are the main dish unlike in MMOs where they're nothing more than an excuse to have some activities/goals while hanging out with people and seeing what the player dynamics throw at you today.

Even a lame sidequest to kill n mobs or whatever can be engaging and interesting as long as it fits within the worldbuilding (why are these mobs here? why's *your* help needed? what are the consequences? etc) and the representation isn't mmo-like (no quest compasses, no on-screen questlogs, no overtly mechanical quest notes) and there aren't so many of these quests that they become a predictable pattern. Basically, making any quest a good one takes a lot of extra effort. The scenario needs to be believable and integral part of the gameworld. It has to be supported with enough writing, not just the sole quest NPC mentioning it twice. Completing/ignoring the quest should have a tangible effect on something. Lots of design considerations, dialog and script writing, testing, and probably extra asset costs too. It's much easier to just pump out meaningless MMO sidequests, and unfortunately some young and naive game designers probably believe they're acceptable in singleplayer RPGs, because they are in MMORPGs.

 

[V_K]

A good quest have these recipe for them: -good context: can be done trough interesting NPCs, stories, situation, dialogue to provide exposition, make you care, etc.
-not straightforward, but plays with your expectations and let the players explore.
-make use of the game mechanics to give player options and choices.
-give a good reward, whether it items, money, new questline, permanet changes in the game world even abstract things like satisfaction of doing fun.

To take that flower example, instead of 10 flowers, make it finding a legendary flower. Put the flower in unique location. Lets say it is hidden in a legendary wizard lair where he put a magic indoor garden where full moon always shine inside.

Kinda this, though I'd go further than that. To me the problem is the idea of a quest as such - a task that you are given and have to report for reward. It just can't be not formulaic, and I wouldn't say there's much difference in that regards between newer and older quest-oriented games.
Consider on the other hand inventory-based puzzles of adventure games. In essense, they are the same as fetch quests: find an item and bring it to a hotspot. However because you aren't told anything explicitly (unless you're playing a very bad adventure), they are much more engaging. You have to put in effort, and at the same time have more agency instead of just being told what to do by the NPCs. For example, Arx Fatalis turned out a much better game for adopting this approach to quest items.

 

[CryptRat]

A game needs an interestng world and obstacles between you and your objectives, things to beat, things to find for yourself to use, things to figure out, not quests you do for various NPCs, which are a terrible way to present things. There's a reason why a lot of old games have good non-combat gameplay unlike almost every quest log based games. These old games are not built with a quest list, or even worse, with the use of a questlog in mind, and the devs were not afraid of letting you explore, discover things and be lost in a big world with some vague intermediate objectives. Sorting what you get to do is part of the fun. Recent games like Serpent in the Staglands, Lurking RPG and Legend of Grimrock 2 (he explains so much better than I do) use the same philosophy despite slightly to significatively different implementations, and that's why it's fun exploring the world in these games.

 

[Werdna's Revenge]

I think Baldur's Gate 2 is a good comparison to most modern games. The main quest slows down part way and gives time for side quests quite explicitly. The presentation is very well done too, it feels like the developers actually put some thought into the rewards and structure of these quests. Compare this to the average quest journal now which are incredibly gamey and mechanical. You don't have to read a damn thing, just follow your quest compass (the sidequests often are poorly written enough you have to use the quest compass) beat some mooks and return for a predictable reward. It feels like modern side quests are a thing you're supposed to have so devs just have some interns slap them in the game and cal it a day.

 

[buru5]

The only thing that makes side/filler quests different from other quests is the name. There is really very little variety in quest types across all RPGs ever made. It's either:

A) Go to this place and talk to this person
B) Go to this place and defeat this enemy
C) Collect _____ from enemy and return it to me
D) Go to his place and interact with this thing

So I'd like some clarification on the debate we're supposed to be having here. How is the main quest different than any of the above quest types? Because it progresses the story? Why are you playing a video game for story to begin with? Is that really more important than gameplay elements? How is story more rewarding than collecting pelts for money to purchase better gear and do more damage to do better at the game? And how is the Fighter's Guild in Daggerfall different than any of the other guilds? Have you even played Daggerfall? Every guild uses a number of generic quest types that it gives you randomly when asking for quests.

 

[No Great Name]

if your game has side quests and filler content as outlined above, you have failed

Your beloved Gothic has side-quests like killing a bunch of Minecrawlers to get their hide and make an armor, selling drugs to a bunch of people in the camp or gathering food for a banquet.

Even Betrayal at Krondor has you gathering several sets of Kingdom Armor for Lord Lyton.

Why these work so much better? An would they still be great if there were a lot more of them? Or a questlog?

Gothic did have a quest log.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Your beloved Gothic has side-quests like killing a bunch of Minecrawlers to get their hide and make an armor, selling drugs to a bunch of people in the camp or gathering food for a banquet.

nobody says they are good

Even Betrayal at Krondor has you gathering several sets of Kingdom Armor for Lord Lyton.

unsurprisingly, it's the worst part of the game

 

[Crichton]

...

The worst of side-quests: follow the arrow, kill/collect everything and return.

...

So, what truly makes modern side-quests so terrible? The over-use of "kill X/gather Y" design? The questlog reducing what should've been an adventure to simple mechanical actions? The fact that you know they're side-quests that add nothing to the main story?

DISCUSS!

I think you have two conceptual problems here; one is that "side-quests", i.e. optional quests, are not inherently different in terms of the quality of content from the main quest. Many TES side-quests are more interesting than the main quest, half-ogre conspiracy quest in Arcanum, etc. Relation to the main story really doesn't enter into it.

As for the 2nd point, why simple quests (go to X and kill this group of bandits / go to Y and give this item to Z) are bad, they aren't. You don't need multiple pathways and complicated exposition to use these quests to flesh out the world or your character's role in it. Ex. the quest to go kill an orc in Gothic II isn't particularly deep (although there is an alternate pathway...) but it tells you several things about the gameworld; Orcs are a constant threat, most people are afraid to fight one one-on-one, they kill you in one hit, but it takes about twenty of yours to kill one, so you have to be skilled to beat one, any NPC can shrug off monster blows like water, so maybe you can take advantage of that.

Similarly having content which is locked depending on the skills or disposition of a character, no matter how simple, can reinforce the idea that different characters have different roles in the gameworld (without sucking up too many development zots). Neither robbing or defending the Shrouded Hills Bank is particularly intricate from a quest design standpoint, but doing one or the other helps to establish that good and evil characters interact with the world differently. This is something that commonly cannot be done in the main quest (I'll save Neverwinter because I'm a hero! / I'll save Neverwinter, but it'll cost ya! / I'll save Neverwinter because I act randomly!)

 

[Carrion]

I liked Witcher 1 quests. They were mostly fetch quests (kill x monsters, collect x hides/teeth, etc.) but they fit the lore well and you needed to prep before each of them by learning the monster lore from people or reading books (which were expensive), then you also had to use potions/oils to make the job easier.

The Witcher's fetch quests had two clear purposes: giving you actual witcher's work to do, and introducing characters that would become important later on. They also tied neatly into the alchemy system by requiring you to do some research on the plants and monsters. Because of this the quests worked pretty well despite being pure fetch quests structure-wise.

In general a "fetch quest" can work reasonably well if you put it in the right context. Generally the best such quests are the ones where the act of fetching is not that important, and the quest instead serves some secondary function: introducing a character, faction or game mechanic; feeding you exposition about the setting; making you explore areas you haven't been to before; throwing an interesting fight on your way. A simple quest to deliver a letter to the head of a guild might lead to you entering a previously unexplored district of a city, meeting the members of the guild, finding out more about its purpose in the game world and perhaps even joining it in the end. Fetch quests aren't necessary bad in moderation, but of course they're often just a lazy way to add content ("go get my family sword from that cave for 100 gp") and lack a context that would make them meaningful. Add in a quest compass, and you'll suddenly find yourself just clicking at the edges of the screen or pressing the W key with your brain turned off until you die of boredom.

 

[Sigourn]

So, what truly makes modern side-quests so terrible? The over-use of "kill X/gather Y" design? The questlog reducing what should've been an adventure to simple mechanical actions? The fact that you know they're side-quests that add nothing to the main story?

DISCUSS!

The proper answer is: there is nothing to remember them by.

As always, the greatest RPG ever made (Fallout: New Vegas) illustrates this perfectly. Image if James Garret would have said this:

- "One of our wealthiest customers has a thing for Pre-War wine. I need you to fine samples of the following wines, and I will pay you significantly for each one of them: Pre-War Wine A, Pre-War Wine B, and Pre-War Wine C. Return as soon as you have them."

The quest could have gone many different ways. By far the most banal one would have been to have three quest markers directing you to random, forgettable locations, and returning with the three items. And that would be it: you get your reward. Now compare it with the actual quest you get in game:

- "Our wealthiest client has a thing for ghouls, and a thing for cowboys. He wants an escort who can satisfy both fetishes. Plenty of customers have said they'd be willing to pay extra for a suave talker, someone who can fake the "boyfriend experience" real good. And then there's these disgusting robot fetishists you may have heard about? Well, those creeps want a sexbot. Have you ever run across a sexbot? Not that I'd ever want one within 100 feet of me - but I gotta be a businessman about it."

The quest is essentially the same at the very basics: "find these three things/persons, bring them to me and I'll pay you". What makes that hypothetical wine quest so drastically different from Wang Dang Atomic Tango is that there's much more to the quest than "find, bring back". For one, there's plenty of dialogue and characterization involved. Then, there's also different ways in getting to your objective. And finally, the quest would perfectly do without the quest markers: if you have explored Freeside a bit, you will know where to find almost everything.

The reason modern sidequests (a.k.a. "kill quests" and "fetch quests") fail is because they require no intelligence at all to do, and because they aren't memorable in any way or form. The quests themselves aren't memorable, the steps themselves aren't memorable, and more often than not the rewards themselves are crap as well.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Similarly, Daggerfall is infamous for the Fighter's Guild quests

Every guild quest in Daggerfall is optional. The player can simply reject the Fighters Guild quests concerning wildlife intruding into local homes in favor of quests that require dungeon-crawling.

 

[felipepepe]

I think Baldur's Gate 2 is a good comparison to most modern games. The main quest slows down part way and gives time for side quests quite explicitly. The presentation is very well done too, it feels like the developers actually put some thought into the rewards and structure of these quests. Compare this to the average quest journal now which are incredibly gamey and mechanical. You don't have to read a damn thing, just follow your quest compass (the sidequests often are poorly written enough you have to use the quest compass) beat some mooks and return for a predictable reward. It feels like modern side quests are a thing you're supposed to have so devs just have some interns slap them in the game and cal it a day.

Yes, and I think the scope & unpredictability of the quests play a huge part. In theory, both BG2 and Inquisition use the same format - in BG2 you gotta do side-quests for money, in DA:I you gotta get power, influence, allies, money, etc.

The difference is that BG2 has things like exploring the astral sphere, retaking a castle, breaking out of a planar prison, rebuilding a lich, investigating a cult, etc. They would take hours, offer unique rewards and sometimes even new companions. You never know ho far they'll go.

DA:I goes "kill those bears", "kill those bandits", "gather food", "gather herbs", etc. All you usually get is XP and influence or gold. Truly indistinguishable from any lame MMO quest, no matter how many voiced cutscenes they use to present it. And the questlog clearly shows they're only that.

Moreover, while in DA:I you have a huge map with one quest objective in each corner - they are isolated. On the other hand, BG2 has you travelling across dense areas and usually finding many other quests in the way. Getting Lilarcor in the sewers may be simple & self-contained, but you probably only went there because of the slaver quest. Or you're going to start it as soon as you try to exit the sewers by the opposite exit. As such, it feels like a seamless adventure, not "get quest, do quest, report back - next quest".

This might be one of the most important things here. BG2 also has very short and simple side-quests, but they're usually used as hooks to send players to other areas, where a much bigger task awaits. In modern RPGs they're just that - short and simple tasks.

 

[Anthedon]

MMO side-quests are terrible. Properly written side-quests that fit well into a game are great. That's not much of a discussion. Or is someone advocating for the beheading of all side-quest givers, no matter what?

There's the usual narrative dissonance of doing a ton of side-quests while the supposedly super urgent main-quest just sits in the log. Very few games address that issue. I'm not entirely sure how you could without putting a timer on everything (which is rarely "fun").