Quote:

Original post by Wavinator You say you'd have a problem because you wouldn't know what to do. So this needs not only to be obvious, but to be built right into the gameplay. What I mean is that if a game started with you on a sinking ship, I wager you'd know what to do, right? So let's assume that there are mechanisms built right into the gameplay and world that clarify your focus. Further, imagine that its simple in the beginning, but gets more intricate as you succeed, with new doors and options becoming available. One reason you play is to see how well you'll do, and another is to see where the heck this world is going.

To some degree, it is a quest. It's just dressed up differently & doesn't have a NPC pointing you in the right direction.

Maybe something more like you land in the world and a NPC tells you about the evil wizard X who is planning on destroying the sun and the king Y who is setting out to stop X. You now have a choice as to joining X or Y, but you could also take to stop X yourself w/o Y's help or beating X to the punch and do the job yourself. [evil] (which to some degree remind me of the which way books)

I think the biggest problem/challange would be/is talking a studio (major or independent) into creating a huge amount content that a might only be seen/exp by a small percent of players (if at all).

Personally I think the route from the quote is better direction of "quests". Dress them up & don't make them feel like the typical quest, but they have clear choices with multi ways of getting it done (at least in terms of a single player game, MMOs is another story).

*edited for typo*

If you're on a sinking ship, just standing there, IRL, someone is going to yell at you and tell you to grab the life boat. There's your quest. If you're having a conversation with an NPC and they begin to cry about a lost turtle without specifically asking you to find it, that's still a quest. If a town is about to be attacked by hordes of ogres, and the villagers are yelling about needing more help, you're still getting a quest.

If the player is given something - anything to do, you're still giving him quests. You're just not asking him to confirm his decision to help.

Quote:

by Wavinator OT, but I think this is the secret sauce of The Sims and why so many hardcore gamers can't relate.

Yeah, I bought the game for my wee sister (she's 10), and I am amazed at the pedagogical it is. She essentially recreates her situation (my mum and her living alone) and sees what happens. As I was teaching her how to play, she was realising stuff about real life that up to now, despite being told, she couldn't understand (why my mum has so little energy left to take care of her all the time, for a start). It's not a great game, but it's a bloody impressive toy (forget about Barbie dolls, that's what I say)

On topic:
OK, I love he ideas about the fact that quests are directions, essentially, like signs on the road for the clueless players.

But to go back to my initial argument, I think Quests are only necessary (in their explicit form) for the Achiever type of players. (I am, again, using Richard Bartle's taxonomy)
An Explorer like me doesn't care much about Quests as long as he can go around and do stuff. The act of discovery is the reward, for me.

So to answer your original question, if you take away Quests, you are left with:
-Exploration / Discovery(explicitly or more metaphorically speaking),
-Socialising (a la Sims ?) whether it is with other live players, or with AI crafted for that purpose (not AI designed to be walking pinatas, as someone so aptly pointed out)
-err... and Killing? I am not sure how that translates, since the greatest motivation of Killers is grieving other players, so... [looksaround]

by removing Quests in their explicit form, you are removing the main mechanism Achievers use in the game. Personally I am all for it since I am an anti Achiever to the core.
I agree that one can (and IMHO should) always transform "meta game" elements into "in game" elements. To put it another way, I think taking away the explicit "New Quest acquired! Go and fetch a foobar!" nature of Quests and transforming them so that they become more "in character" is a noble endeavour.

But I also think it might be detrimental depending on your audience.

Philippe

Quote:

Original post by ahw I agree that one can (and IMHO should) always transform "meta game" elements into "in game" elements. To put it another way, I think taking away the explicit "New Quest acquired! Go and fetch a foobar!" nature of Quests and transforming them so that they become more "in character" is a noble endeavour.

I really don't think players will be fooled by "quests" replaced with "nameless quests". Depending on your point of view:
1) A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
2) No matter how much you polish a turd, it's still just a piece of ****.
Fallout made quests "in character", but I don't think it fooled anyone who doesn't like quests.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator When we quest what do we want? We often want things to matter, and to be different, and to convey a sense of progress. How do you make something matter? You can tell the player explicitly, as with story revelation, or implicitly, as when new gameplay emerges (often via items or enemies in an RPG-like game, but that's not the only way). So what exactly is different? Well, it's a variation on the previous concerns I've had. Less or more resources, greater or lesser influence (as in killing an enemy in 1 hit rather than 2), more or less interactions of a particular type, etc.

This is where you won me over. I'm picturing two takes on the same scenario, in which a band of ruthless bandits is terrorizing a region:

Take 1: A poor villager from the region asks you if you will please do something about the problem. They, or another villager mentions that if you kill the leader of the band, they should disperse. Your "quest log" is updated accordingly, and you set out, knowing that there will be a nifty XP bonus when you return to tell the original villager of your success.

Take 2: As you approach the village, you notice that a number of the outlying farms have been gutted, and may be attacked by roving bandits. If you care enough to ask the frightened villagers, those that trust an outsider like yourself mention the bandit raids, and some may have even seen a charismatic leader directing the attacks. If you're a righteous do-gooder, this is probably enough motivation, but even if it isn't, there's still the issue of the bandits, and as long as you're in the region you're going to keep running into them. You can leave, you can deal with them as you find them, or you can decide to end the annoyance.

Quote:

You can tell the player explicitly, as with story revelation, or implicitly, as when new gameplay emerges (often via items or enemies in an RPG-like game, but that's not the only way)

The same is very true of screen writing as well and there's good reason for it. Why should we care about Jack the peasant if someone simply tells you he's a decent guy. Wouldn't it be more meaningful to see WHY people think he is a good guy rather than be told as much (ie see him holding off evil minions with a pitch fork to give villagers time to escape over a bridge etc)?

Action is what makes us care. Seeing something we can judge for ourselves.

In many games quests are just a means to get the player to do things they'd already do to pretend that there's some meaning.

Like many games will have a quest which says 'Kill 10 Bears'. Well you could kill the 10 bears anyway. The gameplay would be exactly the same except now there's some guy who will give you something in return.

Players aren't stupid. They know that this is just an attempt to direct you to do something that you could have done anyway.

But by elimating quests, we are asking our players to not only come up with their own means to fufill a goal, but we are asking them to come up with their own goals.

I think that this would be really cool. I think the trick is that the player must be given a consistant set of ways of interacting with the world. As long as the rules are consistant the player will find interesting things to do and ways to interact. So, I agree, Wavinator, it has to be built into the game's rules.

However, I think many players will not find this game very fun if they are the type that wants to be told what to do. So you may exclude some types of players. But the explorer types would love it.

Interesting question. A few things comes to mind:

I played Morrowind, granted, it's a good engine, good RPG elements, but the problem is that it was very broad, you can do almost anything you want. I felt lost, what am I supposed to do? I played GTA for a bit too. I had fun stealing cars and totaling them, but I was at loss at what I'm supposed to do. So the fun fades away.

But on the other side, linear RPGs, like Diablo 2, I quickly lost interest in. One time through is enough. Final Fantasy 7 is excellent, but have low replayable value. Those kind of RPGs are "One-Time-Shot"

So we need to find a balance in quests/sidequests and lineariness (don't know the word, so made up one :) ) Allow for flexibility, but not too flexible.

Seems like there's almost always 2 sides, the good and bad. What if there were three or more sides, and you can determine your side by your actions?

One game comes to mind, Quest (Nintendo 64) ironically :) Despite the name, it doesn't really have much main quests, just mostly sidequests. I liked the game due to its simplicy, and ability to combine elements.

Quote:

Original post by Kest If you're on a sinking ship, just standing there, IRL, someone is going to yell at you and tell you to grab the life boat. There's your quest.

I'm curious why you introduced a third party to the example. I didn't say that you're on a sinking ship filled with people.

Even if there were other people, I didn't say they spoke your language, or wanted to help you in any way.

Quote:

If a town is about to be attacked by hordes of ogres, and the villagers are yelling about needing more help, you're still getting a quest.

And what if the villagers are calm and resolute, have paid homage to their gods, and are so deluded they don't know they don't stand a chance without you?

I think it's very hard to break free of the thinking that you're supposed to be explicitly told what to do. I think there are entire libraries of situations we could come up with where the "what to do" is implicit, naturally arising out of world and rules.

Quote:

Original post by Zeraan I played Morrowind, granted, it's a good engine, good RPG elements, but the problem is that it was very broad, you can do almost anything you want. I felt lost, what am I supposed to do? I played GTA for a bit too. I had fun stealing cars and totaling them, but I was at loss at what I'm supposed to do. So the fun fades away.

Okay, you're definitely the kind of player I'm interested in learning from. As Nazrix mentions above, the folks who like exploring for exploring sake are going to be fine, but those that want the world to validate and reinforce their actions are going to have a hard time constantly making up new goals. (Heck, I'm an exploration fiend and I even started getting bored.)

So if the game world put a constant pressure on you, no matter whether you were getting involved in stories or finding new places or not, would that help to always make you feel like you had something to return to? This could be as simple as "you're a vampire, you MUST keep drinking blood" or "an inhuman bounty hunter is chasing you; you can rest a bit from time to time, but you'll have to keep moving or he'll catch up."

Or what about constantly building something? Either something huge, like "no matter what you do, you've got to find parts for your crashed starship" or "you've been charged with keeping alive the king's magical familiar, and you have to roam looking for exotic objects."