I feel that Dr Bartle's taxonomy of MUD players is rather useful, here.
If you look at his graph, you realise that:
there are no other players in a typical cRPG. So the Killer/Socialisers are bound to be dissapointed. Then, let's face it, most cRPG are more about Acting in the World, rather than Interacting with the World. So essentially, cRPGs are more or less for Achievers people. With the other three types only getting bits and pieces to keep them fed, but barely.

If you dropped quests as a main feature of gameplay, then you better think of something to come and give someone something to do, no?

For me personally, a game like GTA San Andreas is a God sent gift, because of the amount of Interaction is allows. I am a strongly Explorer oriented person, and GTA:SA answers this need like no other games so far. Everywhere I go, something to do. But more importantly: places to go!
Now, I find myself dreaming of a medieval equivalent of GTA:SA [rolleyes]

I don't think quests should be removed, though. I think they are a valuable thing, in that they cater to a given part of the players population, but I feel trying to reach a wider audience is perhaps more important than trying to get rid of quests, as a goal.

How to reach the people interested in Players rather than World?
Now that's a tough nut to crack... (without resorting to the cheap trick of multiplayer)

Philippe

In some ways I think quests are needed because of a lack in content in MMORPGs (possibly related to other RPGs but on an MMO tangent here). In MMORPGs, without the quests, what goals do you have to reach? Most of the games I've played its level, equipment and maybe player status. Level is usually simply grinding along, equipement is not much different from level, player status might require a bit more work. What if more goals were made available though added content?

The MMORPG I'm developing (on the back burner to www.conflictomega.com for the moment) is purely text based for the first few phases of it because I want to concentrate on content as opposed to graphics. Instead of the infinite hunt, gather loot, sell, rinse and repeate, I want to have more available. I want to give players the ability to mine the planet, then either sell or collect the ore. From there, give players the ability to refine ore and sell or collect the metal. Then give players the ability to purchase land and construct buildings.

Basically I want to give the players a small "town" to start from in a large world and let the players expand the world. This allows me to focus on other components of the game while players create the expansive world themselves.

Also, instead of the normal MMORPG where if you have a war with sides, the players are the all determining factor of how the war goes, let the world handle this. There was a few posts in another thread of how the land of a thousand heroes thing doesn't work for MMORPGs since there are no "normal" people around so all the heroes become normal. What if the two sides of the war in the game world were controlled by NPC generals (prefereably AI but thats another topic) that would control how the forces in the war move?

Then if the player decided to join one side (as opposed to being a mercenary, trader or neutral party) they would always be following orders of the NPCs until they gained enough status/rank. At that point they would be allowed to lead men on their own into battle.

More or less what I'd like to do is turn the whole game into a quest so to speak but it's a quest determined by the player. Do you want to build your own little empire with your own military to defend it? Do you want to become the mercenary that is known for being successful on any job no matter how hard? Or do you want to become the military officer that lead the capture of ten enemy outposts? Choose what every you want.

Maybe I'm too idealic here but I think this could be done...

I suppose one way to go about getting rid of the formulaic quests would be to create a need system instead. Players relate more to things that may be possible or at least believable in the real world.

If for instance you have a rpg where exploring is a major goal and then have the player encounter a blocked route. Talking to nearby villagers reveals that a work party could be organised but, no-one likes anyone else enough to agree to team up with them. Some people don't believe that they should clear the road without getting something in return etc. etc. This automatically lends itself to multiple solutions such as hiring a work party or persuading people that they can trade better if the road is clear etc. etc.

Such tasks are not seen by the player to be handed out to them. Instead the players need to progress has forced them to create the road clearing solution. Allowing the player to wait until the villagers get desperate enough to finally pull together and clear the road should also be a solution (all be it a slow one).

Have players forge their own weapons and armour instead of buying it. This has the effect of making the player set theor own quests. Such as needing to find five dragon teeth to make a dragon tooth blade or needing to hunt a few mountain lions to make lion hide armour. None of these things need to be done by the player but, the option to do them means that the players will most likely try. I call this quest building without overtly setting the quests.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator In my book, if it has shopping, character improvement, a strong focus on an avatar or small group and customization, it's an RPG.

It's funny how it's so difficult to define the RPG genre. GTA has shopping, character improvement, and the strong focus. But I doubt most would consider it an RPG (not that I want to challenge anyone who does). In fact, GTA has nearly all of the same qualities as Zelda. Just that Zelda focuses on puzzles, where GTA focuses on action.

As Trapper Zoid mentioned, it pretty much comes down to how the game feels. But I like the shopping thing. That is probably the most constant RPG-only element.

Sorry for the off-topicness. I personally think side quests can be a good thing, as long as they make sense. It's pretty lame to ask the player to weed someone's garden or find the missing dog. But then look at Fallout. Fallout was pretty much nothing but side quests.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Sorry for the off-topicness. I personally think side quests can be a good thing, as long as they make sense. It's pretty lame to ask the player to weed someone's garden or find the missing dog. But then look at Fallout. Fallout was pretty much nothing but side quests.

Maybe that's the best way to "get rid of" quests: everything is a quest! [grin]

Seriously, when I played Fallout 1&2, "quest" never entered my mind. The Pipboy's quest list seemed more like "things to look into", like a notebook of ideas. Another thing that helped was that some quests were mutually exclusive (help the mayor or the crime boss?) or not available to certain character types (No unarmed? Good luck boxing).

The more I think about it, the more I think that's the way to go. I think you need one overall quest to give things a purpose. I've known only one person who couldn't care less about whether or not there's a story so long as there's a world to explore, and he spends as much time in the game editors as he does actually in the game (and a game without an editor is clearly inferior to one where it comes included). However, most people I know would quickly get bored if there isn't so final goal that all this character networking and character customization is going to affect. Of course, you can make whatever game you like, but I, personally, will probably drop it fairly quickly without an end goal. First time I played SimCity, I was seriously addicted. Then, after a while, I was curious what I was working toward. Couldn't find anything (self-sufficiency? But a basic city can maintain that. 1,000,000 people? But that's just as arbitrary as 500,000 or 2,000,000. etc.) and it hasn't been able to keep my interest since (and I've tried, I remember how much fun it was).

So, I was thinking, how about one overall quest, to keep the interest, but then the game is just a play ground and you can take whatever path you like to complete that one overall quest? The problem is that this would require a decent world simulation. On the other hand, a rich subquest system is a good approximation to a world simulation. Again, Fallout did this well. The world felt like it reacted to your inputs, but it was just quest flags. Maybe having the quests defined by the end goal and allowing more freedom on how to reach that goal would help disguise the quests even more.

I think a rich quest system, properly disguised, is the best way to "get rid of" quests.

By the way, I've been cut off from games for a little while now. Is Fallout the only game like it? Just curious, because it's pretty old (by most gamers' standards) but still gets referenced. Or is it just the first to have done that well (e.g. remember when FPS's were called Doom-type games?).

Isn't this just another way of saying "get rid of static storylines and replace them with dynamically generated plots/quests and an emergent storyline influenced by the player's actions"?

I guess I don't understand how this thread is different from the many "dynamic story arc" type threads we've seen here before. Please elaborate/explain/correct/smack me.

Dobbs:

from Wavinator's original post:

Quote:

What kinds of options and gameplay would you need to have in order to never miss quests / missions in an RPG-like game? ...snip... Because they're so traditional, it may not be possible to get rid of them. But what would a game need to offer if they could be dropped from an RPG-like game?

*smack*

[grin]

Maybe some of us make you think this thread is no different, but that is a failure on the part of us the repliers, not on the part of Wavi's question.
Now, maybe you can answer with something better than us?

(my answer to his question is that indeed Quests are a traditional aspect, and they do cater to one type of player. I think his question should not be how to get rid of them, but rather how to cater to the other types of players out there, as defined and partially answered by Richard Bartle)

Philippe

I've actually been thinking on this problem for a long time. I was a big fan of EQ until the "quests" started becoming really transparent. In fact, I got to a point where I didn't even talk to NPCs to learn about quests; I just asked who I was supposed to give "Orc Belt X" to in order to get "Reward Y".

I think it's helpful to make the player feel like they were "investigating" or "exploring", then combat results as a natural consequence of that exploration. To that end, dynamic/emergent quest/NPC systems are a necessity.

Why? Well, if quests were static, I could just look up the EverQuest3 FAQ to know where to find a quest-giver and quest-solution. If they're dynamic, you can't pin down a quest into a FAQ.

Then, there's the problem of quest variety. Did anyone play Spiderman 2 on PS2/XBOX? Web-swinging was absurdly fun, but the missions were about as varied as EQ.

Has anyone had any ideas on "alternative" quests? I've always thought it'd be neat to have a quest that was literally just to investigate something. Imagine being a cop and having to interrogate witnesses to piece together a crime.

I think the problem is with the fact that quest and missions are generally fixed entities with fixed obstacles and rewards. If they where free form and tied into the world they would seem more real and better bit the player playing style. This one of things I was trying to achieve with Cappella Corporation but I generally found that when refereed to things like missions people having the fixed form of quests in mind rather then the player formed ones that I had in mind.

Take the example of the Supercomputer.
The player needs one this is a mission or quest. The problem is that the traditional game view dictates that there is only one supercomputer per path. So there maybe be killer path where the player can acquire one by force or a mechanic path where the player can do a number of smaller missions to get the parts needed to build their own either way those are the only two options available to the player.

In a player formed mission style of game the various VIPs and factions would have assets and relationships with the player. The player can then use the games tools to determine who has a supercomputer or the parts the need and then use those game tools to acquire one. In this way the designer only needs to give the player the goal and can then allow them to accomplish it anyway they choose. Various techniques can be used to seed the game as the player progresses to ensure there are always supercomputers available to them when it comes time to acquire one.

This is an interesting but pointless debate that has missed the crux of the matter completely. Quests are not at the heart of what matters at all - it isn't the mechanism itself that makes games fun / unfun.

Like anyone else, I want something interesting to do, I want it to matter, and I want to be adequately rewarded for it. If there are no quests, I still need something I find interesting, something that matters to the game, and something that is rewarding.

The problem with games is that quite frequently we don't feel sufficiently rewarded for our actions. In such cases, we are often inclined to move on to other material that would be more rewarding. To give players a sense of reward and accomplishment, you need to balance interesting work / play with appropriate and entertaining rewards. This is why most sequels fail, and why some small developer houses with low budget succeed - someone has (or lacks) the ability to recognize what is a fun reward versus what is stingy or WAY too easy.

Being told to take a box of junk to so and so isn't fun. Receiving 50 silver for the task might be fun depending on the value of 50 silver. Fighting through a horde of monsters to deliver the junk might be cool, especially if they think the junk is terribly valuable. Finding out that the junk was actually a critical component for a particle accelerator that enables intergalactic teleportation and opens up an option of incredible exploration could be amazingly exciting - especially when coupled with a quality cutscene.

"The world is there and you do what you want" isn't a formula for success - or failure. Whatever the game is, players want/need/expect:

1. Something fun / interesting to do.
2. Something that matters.
3. Adequate reward.