Naming quests in RPGs

S

silverburst

First time out of the vault
I'm a long-time NMA lurker, and I rarely post, but I just started thinking about how quests are organized/named in modern RPGs I want to know what some of you guys think.

It seems that most modern RPGs have this tendency to give all quests a cutesy/cool name and then dump them in a quest list in a journal. Both of the latests Fallouts do this, so does The Witcher, Borderlands, etc. I can see the advantage that this system gives as far as keeping track of what you are doing and making things more easy and manageable compared to older RPGs,

but...

to me it really seems to cheapen and diminish the tone and atmosphere and immersion of the game. When I first played Fallout and Fallout two, I didn't feel like I was racking up quests and knocking them down in a step-one, step-two type fashion like I do in modern games. I was just experiencing the world of the game without it announcing to me "Hey! You just got a quest, and check out this funny name we clever designers gave it! Now, go complete it so you can knock it off of your funny quest name list."

It's a very simple change in RPG design that has rather drastic consequences that I'm not a fan of. What do you guys say?
 
Being coddled in quests is a bit of a bother.

Games like Oblivion/Fallout 3/Fallout: NV do this, because so many fans complained about the system utilized in Morrowind. Anyone who played that game knows what I'm talking about. Without a quest console and/or markers, it was very difficult for some people to find where they were supposed to go.

In Fallout 1 and 2, the quests were a grocery list in your Pipboy, I absolutely loved the system, and because it was 3rd person isometric, it lacked the shortcomings of Morrowind. That system is in the dustbin now, unfortunately.
 
I like how Oblivion gave a detailed journal, I don't like how it filled in the entries for you without the player to actually read anything. Make it an option!
 
Well, Morrowind's journal was voted crappy by all. The only good thing about it was you could look things up by topic, any topic you had talked to a NPC about. It also encouraged you to think about how to do stuff. Off my top of my head, the Goldbrand mission is only vaguely hinted at by two people, one of which is called 'M'aig the Liar'. In Oblivion, it would have flagged up/popped up as a mission.

Oblvion's journal was nice, it flagged up by mission. However, it made it just too easy by the popup screens that would literally hold your hand while going through missions. I never had to actully work out anything, 'cos the popups would tell me how to do it all. That and the damm green/red target system. There was never any point in reading any books (read with eyes), because ol' popup would sound when a clue was found.

STALKER's PDA was better, because it would often only give a vague direction (sometimes the marker would be wrong - I don't know if this was a bug or deliberate). Still, I didn't like how the markers would be so accurate on the main story missions.

I do think it should be able to turn it off/on. Even better, have some quests that 2 parts - 1) Find X 2) Finished. The rest is left to you. I think this would only work if your PIP/PDA/journal has the ability for you to write you own messages.
 
I guess my problem with the quest situation is more of a feeling issure rather than a structural one. In Fallout or Planescape, I never felt like I was doing "quests," where as the blatant labeling in modern games force feeds the quest idea to me. Part of the problem is in quest design probably. There are far too many fetch or kill "x" quests in a lot of modern rpgs. Even though quests are a huge part of what makes the rpg genre, I don't want them to feel like something I am just given in order to raise my xp or get a new item. The spoon-fed labeling and quest-list structure has that effect on me, though.
 
I know what you mean and I agree with that. Youre feeling in most RPGs today like the errand boy then following a story or guiding the "player" trough the world. It seems there is no motivation behind it. Some games do here a better job though. I think its mainly cause "sandbox" games are seen today as the best RPG around while the traditional rpgs as they hvae been present in Fallout 1, Planescape or BG are not seen as "modern" anymore. And in Sandbox games usualy people care more about that you can pick up that spoon or dish on the ground even when it has absolutely no meaning to the gameplay instead of a rich world story wise ~ I mean even quite a few hardcore Oblivion fans say that its exactly that what keeps them so entertained, collecting certain stuff in the world to stuff it in their house. Others loved to get all the garden gnomes in F3 ...
 
silverburst said:
I guess my problem with the quest situation is more of a feeling issure rather than a structural one. In Fallout or Planescape, I never felt like I was doing "quests," where as the blatant labeling in modern games force feeds the quest idea to me. Part of the problem is in quest design probably. There are far too many fetch or kill "x" quests in a lot of modern rpgs. Even though quests are a huge part of what makes the rpg genre, I don't want them to feel like something I am just given in order to raise my xp or get a new item. The spoon-fed labeling and quest-list structure has that effect on me, though.
Click to expand...

And old-school RPGs did not have Fed-Ex\go kill these guys quests? At best, they'd have you talk to some folks into doing something. It's a matter of presentation I guess.

I also got annoyed by the "cool" quest names in New Vegas, since it seemed completly redundant to me. And the hand-holding may be tiresome, but having to find all these people and places in New Vegas on my own would be an ordeal. I remember wandering aimlessly in Morrowind trying to find that goddamn quest item or person, only to discover that they were in some bush that I approached from wrong direction and therefore could not see it.

But on the other hand telling you *exaclty* where to look for some thing is a bit of an overkill. It'd be nice if the quest pointer would lead you to the general area and then disappear when you are close enough.
 
IMO, Tribunal fixed Morrowind's crappy journal, and worked fine. I hate the FO3/Oblivion/NV trend of the "world GPS" that simply points me in the direction I have to go. What's wrong with exploration?
 
rcorporon said:
IMO, Tribunal fixed Morrowind's crappy journal, and worked fine. I hate the FO3/Oblivion/NV trend of the "world GPS" that simply points me in the direction I have to go. What's wrong with exploration?
Click to expand...

You can still explore....
 
Frankly, exploration in games like FO3 can get pretty tedious as you either constantly get distracted by something else, or spend a ridiculous amount of time walking. It's easy to get lost without the compass, too. There's some share of fun with that, but simply removing the quest pointer doesn't solve the problem and just makes the game tedious. Some nice in-game signs and pointers is where it's really at.

I have nothing against journals though, they seem to be an RPG staple at this point. I personally like the way it's been handled in games like BG, separating the journal proper and the quest list...
 
Fair point. One of the things I did approve of was the compass on-screen, as well as the ability to place a marker on the map. I'll admit, I did like the fast travel too, although I thought it was unfair that every locale you could fast-travel from and to.

Walking too long? Tell me about it. One of the F3 ideas I had is that you could fix up a motorbike, and you could travel around DC on it. Feed those Mad Max fantisies :)

Oblivion had horses, which did speed up travel, dispite the flaw that if you fast-travelled, you had to take your horse. Which could be a bitch if you fast-travelled right into a pile of enemies. You couldn't leave it behind.

In game pointers? That's where NPC's come in handy. In F2, people in most towns would know at least 2 other towns, and the directions to get there. If in TES 5/F 4 they tell directions on how to get there, but it only goes onto your map when you actually visit it. Perhaps here and there, you pick up a map which enters a few locales onto your PIP/map, even if you have not visited it yet.
 
In game pointers?
Click to expand...

I meant, like, actual signposts and stuff. NPCs are nice, but some sort of visual aid is always welcome in a FP game.

One of the things I did approve of was the compass on-screen, as well as the ability to place a marker on the map.
Click to expand...

The compass is nice but on occasion it gives away some things about quests it's not supposed to. Like, where exactly to look for an item or which NPC to talk to to find useful info. So imo, a well-done map would serve a better purpose, and induce some more involved, intelligent gaming. I am realizing how lazy the compass marker makes you only now that I've moved on to other games that don't have it.

but it only goes onto your map when you actually visit it.
Click to expand...

I hate this with fiery hate. If someone tells you of a location and puts it on your map, you should be able to travel there. It's logical. The "you have to go there on foot first" is BS. I know, it's tied directly to the way the whole game is designed, but it's BS game design, then. I like my overworld map and REs when the map is big. Being able to fast-travel to points of interest is crucial in absence of other travel-fastening mechanisms.

Though, like you noted, most games handle it by inserting some form of "faster" travel: horses in TES4 (never played), Dragon Form in Divinity 2, cars in Borderlands. It's an important element in every big-world TP/FP game that FO3/NV has unfortunately overlooked.

Which could be a bitch if you fast-travelled right into a pile of enemies.
Click to expand...

It's bad design if the game lets that happen. IMO, fast travel should be available to 'safe' locations only.
 
Ravager69 said:
And old-school RPGs did not have Fed-Ex\go kill these guys quests? At best, they'd have you talk to some folks into doing something. It's a matter of presentation I guess.
Click to expand...
Definetly! You can even make the most boring fed-ex quest awesome with either intereisting characters as NPCs OR realistic/authentic interaction with them.

If there is nothing more like a person with a one-liner comment, some bill board and a "chest" for the treasure once you finished the fed-ex quest then I ask my self why its even in the game.

I think old RPGs like Fallout or Baldurs Gate had it here somewhat easier. No fancy voice acting needed nor new awesome textures and skinns just for making a NPC that gives you some rather uniteresting quest (if you want so). Now you need to voice them, give them some aperance. Its easier to just have a box there with a few papers telling you "get monster x please you get reward y in this chest later!".

At least the Witcher made it a bit interesting in the way that you had a chance to meet the characters ~ and sometimes that was essential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top