Quote:what would happen if you did the same thing for the map and the quest log?

You'd probably just irritate the player.

The thing with quest compasses is that they're not really handholdy. Observe:

A) Game A doesn't have a quest compass. In Game A, and NPC tells you to retrieve object XYZ from house ABC in the city, and they give you fairly specific directions to that house.

B) Game B does have a quest compass. In Game B, and NPC tells you to retrieve object XYZ from house ABC in the city, and they give you fairly specific directions to that house, and then the quest compass also points it out.

Which game is less handholdy?

The answer is that it doesn't matter because it's ultimately another simple and linear fetch quest where the mental effort expended to actually find the target MacGuffin is beyond minimal either way.

Variation:

A) Game A doesn't have a quest compass. In Game A, and NPC tells you to retrieve object XYZ from house ABC in the city, but doesn't really tell you which house or where it is. You're just supposed to randomly look around for it.

B) Game B does have a quest compass. In Game B, and NPC tells you to retrieve object XYZ from house ABC in the city, but doesn't really tell you which house or where it is. You're just supposed to randomly look around for it. Only you don't need to because there's a compass.

Which game is less handholdy?

Again, it doesn't matter because in case A the quest mostly involves the player lucking into the quest target which is horribly lame and dull, and in case B it's still a stupid fetch quest.

Variation 2:

A) Game A doesn't have a quest compass. In Game A, an NPC tells you talk to an NPC at position XYZ. Actually finding the NPC isn't that important. Instead, the quest focuses more on an elaborate dialogue you have with them.

B) Game B does have a quest compass. In Game B, an NPC tells you talk to an NPC at position XYZ. Actually finding the NPC isn't that important. Instead, the quest focuses more on an elaborate dialogue you have with them. Still, a quest compass directs you to said NPC.

Which game is less handholdy?

AGAIN, still doesn't matter because actually finding the NPC is not salient.

Conclusion:

If your game doesn't rely on a bunch of search-and-find quests, then quest compasses really don't matter much. If your game DOES rely on a bunch of search-and-find quests, then congratulations, your game is *really boring*.

Here's an observation I made when playing Gothic 2:

In most games that have open worlds that also have a main story arc/questline of some sort (TES, Might and Magic), the sidequests are typically very separate from the main quests. There's an unspoken idea that you're supposed to do the sidequests to get strong enough to do the main quests, but they're still not that related.

Gothich 2 actually does something interesting with that, in the sense that it uses the main quests to provide very concrete goals and uses the subquests as a very concrete means to achieve those goals.

For example, early on you need to get into the game's main city. There are three or so sidequests that you can undertake to do that, or if you're really creative you can find some way to jump/climb into the city.

Once you're in the city you need to get an audience with the local government (which is your MAIN goal for the chapter). To do that, though, you first need to gain access to the upper part of the town which is off limits to non-citizens. Hence, you need to become a citizen (Secondary goal). Again, a whole bunch of ways to do this: Apprentice to a craftsman, join the militia, etc. So, rising through the ranks of the militia or getting accepted as an apprentice become your tertiary goals, with their own associated set of sidequests. And it sort of branches down.

And yeah there are a few sidequests that really aren't that related to your overall goals, but the game does a really good job of connecting quests like that. It's not "do sidequests till I get a high enough level/better equipment to do the next main quest." Every quest actually has a meaningful outcome. There's progress. There's purpose.

Anyway.

I wouldn't really look to old games for good quest design. They didn't... really tend to do it in an interesting fashion. They tended to rely too much on fetch quests, which can still be fun, but...

So, what would I recommend?

* As I said before, I think the quest should focus more on interacting with the quest targets/givers/whatever, and less about just finding things. Case in point, Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey just gave me some quest to find a demon. I had to search across three different worlds because the dude kept moving around, and it was really annoying because the directions for finding the guy were often... not at all helpful. I'm also not a huge fan of the trading sequences in the Legend of Zelda games for a similar reason, although they were way less obtuse in the Oracle games than in, say, OoT (although I still felt they were sort of tedious and nowhere near as interesting as the inventory/skill based puzzles, which the series has always excelled at).

* I've been playing Call of Pripyat, lately. So far that game's had fairly interesting quests, but one thing I found really cool was the stashes, which are caches of weapons and armor and supplies. You can get them marked on your map as quest rewards and stuff (although you can also find them by exploring). Anyway, even if you do have them marked on the map, which makes it easy to find what building/general area they're in, they still tend to be hidden, leaving it up to the player to figure out how the player actually needs to *get* to them.

This sort of thing can make fetch quests a lot more interesting. If you're told to get XYZ from some dungeon, but find that XYZ is hidden by some puzzle mechanic/in a place that seems like it'd be out of reach/something to force the player to think about how they actually get it

* Multiple quest outcomes. Let the player pick whether they want to screw over the quest giver or not.

* Multiple quest solutions. Quest for Glory 2 is awesome about that. Almost every puzzle has either a magical, fighting-based, or stealth/thievery based solution. Which one you use partially depends on your stats, but I mean, sometimes you just go with what comes up to your first. It's a *really* neat way of handling things. Also, the game has a fairly smallish number of sidequests proper, but they're all heavily scripted and, again, more about puzzle solving and being creative. Also QfG2 VGA is freeware and you really have no excuse to not play it.

* Planescape: Torment is interesting in that it sort of replaces combat with conversations, as conversations are things you can very much win or lose in some PS:T quests. Actually, the NPC diplomacy/manipulation-type quests in PS:T are some of the best, and even the more basic fetch quests tend to be handled in more interesting ways in that game.

* As much as I'm not a proponent on relying too much on story, there's nothing wrong with using sidequests as a way of developing/fleshing out your world.

You know I was playing a game a couple of months ago..and I didn't realize it had a map function..spending 3 hours in a desert trying to find the exit was a pain, there was nothing fun about it..I have a poor sense of direction.

So I for one, like having a map so it doesn't feel like my time is being wasted.

What I find annoying about modern rpgs..is their the same as old rpgs, its like the only thing improving is the graphics..

I think what I would like is one where the story was a bit more loose..save the damsel, kill the damsel it should be a choice and the story should reflect that choice..dragon age for example gives you the choice..but in the end you will become a gray warrior and you will kill the current leader of the darkspawn, the end is nearly cosmetic in nature.

Fable for another example gives you a lot of choices, but in the end the choices are hollow..but you can't say rebuild a town that was destroyed and make it your home base.

Its prob to much to ask, since you do need content for all this..

For old rpgs I like most of the sukioden games, 108 characters so it felt like i had the choice of who my party was, and building up your base and conquering other bases, I find enjoyable.

I can't think of a new rpg that has over 10 characters..the closest to town building Ive seen is white knight chronicles..that that was quite limited for solo play

So stop with the graphics, they look great..now work on putting content into the game.

What i want..is why im more interested in mmos..cause mmo content can keep expanding, solo rpgs are pretty much limited to whats on the disc, so there is always an end..

Quote:Original post by MeshGearFox
Things like quest compasses exist for a reason. Case in point, Daggerfall. As soon as you got into a dungeon, actually finding the quest object came down to whether or not you were lucky enough to stumble upon it. Actually finding it was just an exercise in seeing how much you could have your patience taxed before breaking down and cheating. Endlessly wandering around in circles is not fun.

But surely you can see that the problem and the solution are mismatched?

The problem is that the game's presentation has changed in such a way that it's harder to spot a quest target. (In Daggerfall, this was probably because you had miles and miles of autogenerated content that all looked the same.) To fix that with a magical knowledge of where you need to be is not quite right.

I'd say that the solution should be aimed at the problem more precisely. Maybe that requires better quest writing, or clearer graphics regarding quest items, or a hint system that works from within the game fiction. Glowing markers on a map or on the compass just seem to be missing the point for me.

Quote:In any case, my point is that a lot of stuff players refer to as "dumbing down" were things created in response to valid complaints.

There are 2 issues, I think:
1) Some of us didn't make those complaints in the first place. (Admittedly, we are the minority.)
2) The complaints, although valid, were fixed in a way many would consider invalid.

Quote:I mean, while we're at it, we could complain about how automated quest logs/journal entries dumb down the experience, because it means the game takes notes for you.

I used to enjoy taking down the notes, but I don't consider the automation of that to be dumbing anything down, because you still had to collect the information, and you still have to look through it to find out what you have to do.

What is dumbed down is when you speak to some guy who gives you some vague instructions that require more thought, then look at your quest log and magically it's become precise instructions with markers placed on your (pre-existing) map for you.

Quote:You could also argue that oldschool PC RPGs could've benefited from SOME handholding because a lot of time it's less a matter of solving a puzzle or a quest and more a matter of figuring out whatever moon logic the developers were working with/deciding whether or not they were on crack when they programmed the game.

Definitely. But to some degree, that's part of the game. It's not part of the story/fiction, and it's not part of the simulation, but it can be considered part of the game. Playing 'hunt the verb' in a text adventure can be a bit frustrating for jolting you out of the story, but it's just as valid a device as any number of abstract mini-games that we see in RPGs and other genres.

Quote:Original post by MeshGearFox
Which game is less handholdy?

The answer is that it doesn't matter because it's ultimately another simple and linear fetch quest where the mental effort expended to actually find the target MacGuffin is beyond minimal either way.

Your example was not a truly representative one though. In games like Oblivion or Baldur's Gate, you rarely fetch items, but you often have to find people. That could be a time when a tracking skill would be useful. Or employing social skills to ask about the person's whereabouts. Or a magic spell to divine the location. Or simply having to search methodically, perhaps trying to find some high ground so that you can see further. Exploration can be fun. But if your map just has a moving marker on it telling you exactly where you need to be, that aspect is stripped out from the very content it should apply to.

My favourite cRPG (and it is not actually listed as being an RPG) is "Sword of the Samurai". In this you take on the role of a Samurai as the Head of a household and you have to fight your way to Shogun of Japan.

The plot is very linear (you start as a lowly Samurai and work up to becoming Shogun - and that is the entire plot), but how you go about it is not linear. What happens is that semi random (as far as I can tell it is a weighted random based on your interactions with the various NPCs) events occr and you have various ways of dealing with them.

If a member of your family is kidnaped by a rival, then you can sneak into his castle to rescue them, leave your family member to their fate, give in to the demands of the kidnapper, etc. You even have actions that you can take that won't get your family member back but could fullfill other desiers (eg revenge, etc).

Althoguh there is a fair amount of combat (sword fights in a beat-em-up style, sneaking into castles in a dungeon crawl style, army combat in an rts style and so forth), what the game is mostly about is your relationships between your character and the NPCs. If you have a good relationship with important NPCs you can advance to the next level (or you can just slaughter your way though them if you want ;D - but it is much harder), but in establishing these relationships with important NPCs you will almost certainly foster resentment with others who are also trying to advance themselves. Sometimes it is best to help a weak NPC to become strong so that they can then be in a position to help you later (but you have to maintain that relationship over a long time).

It is this aspect, the relationships between your character and the NPCs that I think make this one of the best cRPGs I have ever played, even though it was released in 1989.

It is a common complaint that in cRPGs it is too dificult to have NPCs act like real people, but they did it in 1989, so I think we could improve on it now, it has been over 20 years and computers are thousands of time more powerful than they were back then.

Quote:Playing 'hunt the verb' in a text adventure can be a bit frustrating for jolting you out of the story, but it's just as valid a device as any number of abstract mini-games that we see in RPGs and other genres.

It's not a valid device. It's a limitation of crappy features from an era when language processing was even more poorly understood than it is now. It's annoying. It's not fun. Anything that's not fun is not a valid game device.

Quote:In games like Oblivion or Baldur's Gate, you rarely fetch items, but you often have to find people. That could be a time when a tracking skill would be useful. Or employing social skills to ask about the person's whereabouts. Or a magic spell to divine the location.

I don't like character skills for a few reasons, namely:

* They're hard to balance. You usually get limited points to distribute between your skills, and the more skills you have, the more you either have to specialize or the thinner yo have to spread your points around. So in a lot of games you end up with some skills that are essentially useless, or others that are kind of useful but so specifically, contextually, and infrequently useful that they're practically useless. Which is what the tracking skill would be.

* They emphasize player character skill's instead of actual player skills which I find deeply awful.

* Skills also tend to prevent you from doing things, which is sort of punishing the player in a... roundabout way. I think if you use skills they should provide, like, a bonus, but not be required to do something. Like, in System Shock 2, you can't repair at ALL if you don't put points in it. Same for a lot of things. The RPG elements are why I really didn't like SS2 much (also the whole Van Braun looks like a shopping mall in space thing).

Quote:Or simply having to search methodically, perhaps trying to find some high ground so that you can see further.

Methodical searching is never not boring. I'm not ten anymore. I don't have the patience for that kind of thing.

Quote:It is a common complaint that in cRPGs it is too dificult to have NPCs act like real people, but they did it in 1989, so I think we could improve on it now, it has been over 20 years and computers are thousands of time more powerful than they were back then.

Having NPCs that act like real people is a conceptual issue, not a technological one. Part of the problem is that 99% of people writing for games should never, ever be allowed to write. Hence, dialogue sucks, and NPCs are unbelievable. The other problem is that doing stuff without scripting involves some heavy AI, and realistic human behavioral AI is not really that well understood.

Quote:Original post by MeshGearFox

Quote:Playing 'hunt the verb' in a text adventure can be a bit frustrating for jolting you out of the story, but it's just as valid a device as any number of abstract mini-games that we see in RPGs and other genres.

It's not a valid device. It's a limitation of crappy features from an era when language processing was even more poorly understood than it is now. It's annoying. It's not fun. Anything that's not fun is not a valid game device.

That's an opinion. I see your point but a lot of people do enjoy word puzzles. I wouldn't add one by choice these days, but that's not to say people can't enjoy that sort of thing.

Quote:

Quote:In games like Oblivion or Baldur's Gate, you rarely fetch items, but you often have to find people. That could be a time when a tracking skill would be useful. Or employing social skills to ask about the person's whereabouts. Or a magic spell to divine the location.

I don't like character skills for a few reasons [snip]

Again, it's opinion. Character skills are a staple of many RPGs and have been done well in many games. Which leads me to this comment:

Quote:The RPG elements are why I really didn't like SS2 much (also the whole Van Braun looks like a shopping mall in space thing).

It seems like you're trying to comment on ways to improve RPGs, when you don't seem to be much of an RPG fan in the first place.

So are you really talking about improving RPGs, or about making them more like some other kind of (perhaps hypothetical) adventure game that you prefer? And would this involve removing most of the elements that make them an RPG?

Quote:

Quote:Or simply having to search methodically, perhaps trying to find some high ground so that you can see further.

Methodical searching is never not boring. I'm not ten anymore. I don't have the patience for that kind of thing.

I can see we're not going to agree here, since you don't have much patience and want to be guided through the content, whereas I like the act of working to discover it. It makes me enjoy the payoff even more when I get there. But I know some people are very different. They don't see the point of playing games yet they love films, and I think that's a similar thing.

Quote:The other problem is that doing stuff without scripting involves some heavy AI, and realistic human behavioral AI is not really that well understood.

Not at all. I think this belief of the need for complex AI is where these attempts fail. When they try to do is to make them too general, too much like a real person and they enter the Uncanny Vally.

Look at the responses people get to things like tamagotchies. Theytreat them like real pets. They invest a lot of emotion into them, and yet the algorithms running the are extremely simple (they ahve to be becasue of the processors that are running them).

Instead of attempting to recreate behaviours like a person, you instead need to get the player to emotiaonlly invest in the NPC. This is a completely different approach to the problem, and it in fact redefines the problem entierly.

The problem never was about amking the NPCs more human like (although there is some aspect of that in it), the problme was about having the p[layer emotially invest in them. See players aren't stupid, they know they are playing a game, so even if you were to perfectly replicate the behaviour of a person as an NPC, the player would still knwo that it was an NPC and you will still have faild to achieve the result you want from the NPC. But, if you get the player to emotionally invest in the NPC, then you have actually achieve the gaol you set out with: which is to have the player empathise with the NPC.

Quote:I don't like character skills for a few reasons

Actually the problem I ahve with skill in cRPGs is that if a skill exists, then it should be used. In a way it is about balance, but it is about balance of use, not gamplay balance.

It is actually a trivial matter to balance the bonus you get from a skill to the dificulty of a taks, you simply make the target number higher or lower as needed. However, it is a completely different matter for having the skill balanced for use.

For example (as an extreme example), if you had two skills: Lockpicking and Arcane Knowledge and you had to choose which skill you wanted, but at the time you didn't know that Arcane Knowledge was never used in the game but you had slected it as your skill, then you would have wasted all the skill points you put in that skill.

Many players do this for games because they think the skill will be useful, but it can end up being a worthless choice because a skill is not used, or under used in the game.

The flip side is if you make every skill needed in the game, then players can not afford to specialise in any skills because they would not be able to meet the challenges for the skills they didn't specialise in.

A bad solution to this is to make every skill able to be used to bypass every challenge in the main plot, or not to have skill a requierment to pass chalenges in the main plot (if so, then why are there skills at all?). In fact, there is no real solution to this at all except not to have skills in the first place (but then this restricts the customisation of characters).