There was SO MUCH more thought involved in managing a camp in a hostile non instanced area than there is following a glowing quest marker to a level scaled instance where you are designed to win and there is no penalty for failure. And the quests in old MMOs actually had you think.
YOu mean so much more boring stuff, like waiting around, or loot drama?
Thank you very much ... please count me out of ANY camping in any games. I don't play games to wait in line for stuff.
No, I don't want developers spending ridiculous amounts of time and money on storylines and video cutscenes. Develop solid, immersive content/worlds and players will make their own stories. We all realize after your countless themepark defense posts that you love those type of games, but a lot of us don't. You keep pretending that you have the answers for everyone else and you don't.
It boils down to your preferences vs mine. Yours is not better, just different. I would much rather play a storyline like that in Bioshock that any half-baked player drama that is called "their own story".
Let's vote with our wallets and see what devs will do.
I didn't say all UI elements that throw something at you. I specifically said the rewarded ones.
You know...exactly the definition you established later in your post?
That same definition (tasks a character does in order to gain a reward) conclusively ends our discussion actually!
Rewarded achievements are tasks a character does in order to gain a reward.
While there's a clear difference between the molecular "kill monster" and the packaged "kill 10 monsters for this reward", there's no clear difference between "kill 10 monsters for this reward" and "kill 10 monsters for this achievement reward."
If you're going to quote Wikipedia at me, I might as well tell you you're wrong by doing the same at you. And that should conclusively end the discussion.
Also you said 'rewarded task list UI', that includes about any reward element in a UI. Which as I and the Wikipedia you quoted noted, was wrong.
You also successfully ignored the point about mechanics between these being rather fluid. And the fact killing monsters frequently is done for a reward (xp/loot) same as a quest which fills in that little difference hole somewhat save for the task being personal rather than assigned.
That's the only ground you have to stand on, calling a quest a formalized version of game events. I already told to you the difference between achievements and quests, the fact even WoW uses them should have been a hint at understanding there's a difference between the two and that there is potential flexibility in their application from being entirely meta-reward elements to in game elements.
You tailor every subject and example to fit your convenience rather than addressing the mechanics that all are or can be in play, and that means you are creating a finite and flawed argument.
So ultimately you are giving nothing but an opinion and arguing all other opinions are wrong at this point and it's not conducive to anything meaningful. I'm not talking to you about this here any more, it's not the right place. If you wanna keep going, PM me.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by AlBQuirky I think of mini-games like what WoW offered with plants vs zombies where you were taken out of the game to play another game. Actual games separated from the MMO.
Ah-ha! This is where we've been getting crossed up - when I say "minigame", I just mean an activity or block of mechanics. For example: to me, fishing is a minigame, even though it doesn't phase you of the world. I look at everything about a quest between the question between the exclamation mark and a question mark as being it's own little minigame.When I look at the way the last few themepark games I've sampled have been designed, that gameplay between the start and the end of a quest seems to be starting to take a back seat to the attempt to tell a story and I just don't think that works. If the activities of the quest are just filler between text boxes or cut scenes, then I start to wonder why you are making an MMO and not a movie or a comic book. So my argument is that in order to improve quests, you have ignore the quests, ignore the story, ignore the lore and simply ask: if there were no exclaimation marks and no question marks, is this something that I would have fun doing for a few hours?
Well... anything one does, in a sense, is a mini-game, isn't it? Combat is a mini-game in that light. It gets you from point A (level x) to point B (level y).
Question Marks? I'd rather not have them. They are a beacon in the game world that directs players, usually making them miss out on NPCs without question marks. NPCs, to me, should be so much more than filler bodies to make the game "appear" to be populated by "normal" beings
To answer your last point, for me I need to have a reason to do things in a game other than gaining levels. Quests help me with this aspect. Sometimes, just doing things to see how they work (like crafting) works for a bit, but once I see how they work, what then?
Am I doing things just to get to a new level and gain some ability or spell? That is a pretty finite activity for me.
Did that make any sense?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Two games come to mind when I think of great quests:
EQ2 for their Heritage quests
Runescape, it seems every single quest is it's own adventure.
Age of Conan tortage was a great new player experience as a whole and while it had it''s "kill 10 rats" quests along the way the meat of the quest was actually done quite well.
I also find players do not want great quests/stories, I mean how many people mashed the space bar through SWTOR just to get through all the dialogue just to get to it... while this probably isn't the best example because who wants to listed to 2-5 mins woth of chat just to "kill 5 wookies"
Furthermore, it seems quests are just a means to an end... with "happy trails" and your map lighting up like a christmas tree to show and tell you exaclt where to go takes all the advenure out of questing. BIG ARROWS saying "The bad guy is HERE" take all the immersion out of questing... but then again I am more or less being nostalgic because I remember the glory days.
Originally posted by Axehilt Well without a quest system even if a game had the same activity variety, the player will essentially be penalized for switching between them -- much like how in archaic Endless Mob Grind MMORPGs you were penalized for fighting a variety of mob types (because it takes time to travel between different mob types, and that time is completely unrewarded without a quest system.) At least not unless we're talking about an MMORPG with every activity and mob in the same place, or where you can teleport anywhere instantly.
Players find "rewards" in many different ways. Most see them as XP or item gains. The "xp/minute" equation falls flat, in my opinion. If that is your sole basis for playing an MMO, you miss out on so much of what an MMORPG can offer.
Most of today's players would not explore if they did not get an XP reward. Most would not craft if there was no XP reward. How many of today's MMOs have a chance for failure in crafting? Not many for there is no reward in failures. Most would not quest if there was no xp/item reward. Heck, why do players kill mobs? Not because Farmer Brown has rats in his cellar. How many players just go on a killing spree for the heck of it? How many of today's players chase the "achievement" treadmill?
There is so much more that an MMORPG can offer players that they simply do not, because most players today are not seeking that kind of intangible reward. Players are "too efficient" today. No reward (XP or item) means "grind" and "boring" play experiences.
It did not used to be that way.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
We've been stuck with quest mechanics for a while and likely will be stuck with them forever. Kill, Fedex, Collect items from dead, Escort, Locate items in area, defend area against waves, click something to activate something. I am sure they're more but it's largely the gist of it.
OK, to the question how would you modify current MMORPG quest to bring freshness to SOME has become a stale aspect of MMORPG gaming?
You say you're sure there are more, and there are, but that is just it. There are only so many mechanics that can fundamentally be used. You can string them together or dress them up differently, but there is always a limited amount of base mechanics.
Killtask
FedEx (often used to vector to a new area)
Collect - either from dead creatures or from an area
Escort
Find/Use
Defend
Puzzle
Most people find things "fresh" when they've been dressed up more to seem fancier, but It is still the same mechanics.
How many ways can you kill someone/something? There is an exact finite amount of ways to do it, yet there are constantly new FPS/fighting style games. So what do they do since there are no other ways to kill things? They dress it up fancier or add in elements from other styles of games. So with FPS games they now tend to all do a leveling system taken from rpg style games, to add another element on top of the decades old kill things. With fighting games they add more epic ending moves or more amazing looking standard moves to the characters.
In other words you can't increase the number of finite mechanics. You can either dress it better or expand the game into other elements to make it more fun. So I don't expect new ways of questing to show up, as all the base elements have been covered, but I would expect games to dress it differently (such as taking quests and making public quests. Same base goals, but now a thrown together group of people is doing it on the fly) or to start bringing in wholly different elements from other games (or maybe even creating whole new elements) that have nothing to do with questing to expand the game further.
So the question should be: What new features can we bring to MMOs to freshen them up or how can we better present the current features to make them more fun?
For starters I would suggest more involved quests that have deeper story, more interactions, more puzzles and just all around more depth then "Run into this dungeon, kill everything, and either kill a boss or bring me something back or both" over and over again.
I think that is one of the reasons people complain about kill tasks the most. You can only experience "Go kill 15 X" so many times before it is annoyingly bland. Dress it up with an NPC being dragged toward a hole in the ground by 15 insects and you have to rush over and kill them all to stop them or he disappears down into the hole to some gruesome end and suddenly it is a bit more interesting even though you still have to kill 15 things, now there is some purpose, some meaning and some excitement to the task. Come up with ways to dress it even better and it continues to become more and more interesting even though you're doing the same thing you've done for years.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Let's vote with our wallets and see what devs will do.
How much do you spend on MMOs?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
If you're going to quote Wikipedia at me, I might as well tell you you're wrong by doing the same at you. And that should conclusively end the discussion.
Also you said 'rewarded task list UI', that includes about any reward element in a UI. Which as I and the Wikipedia you quoted noted, was wrong.
You also successfully ignored the point about mechanics between these being rather fluid. And the fact killing monsters frequently is done for a reward (xp/loot) same as a quest which fills in that little difference hole somewhat save for the task being personal rather than assigned.
That's the only ground you have to stand on, calling a quest a formalized version of game events. I already told to you the difference between achievements and quests, the fact even WoW uses them should have been a hint at understanding there's a difference between the two and that there is potential flexibility in their application from being entirely meta-reward elements to in game elements.
You tailor every subject and example to fit your convenience rather than addressing the mechanics that all are or can be in play, and that means you are creating a finite and flawed argument.
So ultimately you are giving nothing but an opinion and arguing all other opinions are wrong at this point and it's not conducive to anything meaningful. I'm not talking to you about this here any more, it's not the right place. If you wanna keep going, PM me.
From your article, "[An achievement] is a meta-goal defined outside of a game's parameters."
Your system: "Achievements which provide rewardsinside a game's parameters." Your system provides gameplay rewards like gold, items, or XP. These are within the game's parameters.
The wikipedia article goes on to point out that this inside vs. outside rewards is the line between Quests and Achievements, "Unlike the systems of quests or levels that usually define the goals of a video game and have a direct effect on further gameplay the management of achievements usually takes place outside the confines of the game environment and architecture."
So yes, your article also conclusively proves my point.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
From your article, "[An achievement] is a meta-goal defined outside of a game's parameters."
Your system: "Achievements which provide rewardsinside a game's parameters." Your system provides gameplay rewards like gold, items, or XP. These are within the game's parameters.
The wikipedia article goes on to point out that this inside vs. outside rewards is the line between Quests and Achievements, "Unlike the systems of quests or levels that usually define the goals of a video game and have a direct effect on further gameplay the management of achievements usually takes place outside the confines of the game environment and architecture."
So yes, your article also conclusively proves my point.
You failed to read my post and the wiki. I asked this to be absolved in PM
It gives examples of them giving in-game rewards on that page. Not quoting that part of the page doesn't make that fact not exist.
"Some implementations use a system of achievements that do provide direct benefits to the gameplay..."
Meaning you're still wrong, continuing to "conclusively" prove the point.
And as I said, address in PM, not this thread.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I rather see quests as optional and possible to be made by players. But this ofc ties in with the character progression system. If you need xp for themeparky lvl based character progression, then there also needs to be an alternative to questing for progression. If you want to keep questing as optional anyway.
This is why I prefer a skillbased progression system. Like in old SWG or nowadays Skyrim. In Skyrim you don't quest for xp, but for story. Your progression comes from the fights and side activities during the questlines.
Take this to MMO's and you could still have questlines, but they would be optional. You could add mission terminals (ala Anarchy Online, or SWG) as alternative, but you could also simply form hunting parties with other players to raise your combat related skills. Give the players a tools to create their own engaging questlines and you have crazy replayability. Get rid of the rigid class system and just let anyone raise any skill, but with a skillpoint limit so you are forced to chose. And again, more replayability.
Actually, I just want old SWG skill system, it's city/playerhouse system from the last year and nowadays graphics and performance Oh yeah and a good quest/dungeon creation tool (not the crap introduced from SWG NGE).
So, for me quests are fine. As long as they are not a mandatory lineair road during character progression.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Players find "rewards" in many different ways. Most see them as XP or item gains. The "xp/minute" equation falls flat, in my opinion. If that is your sole basis for playing an MMO, you miss out on so much of what an MMORPG can offer.
Most of today's players would not explore if they did not get an XP reward. Most would not craft if there was no XP reward. How many of today's MMOs have a chance for failure in crafting? Not many for there is no reward in failures. Most would not quest if there was no xp/item reward. Heck, why do players kill mobs? Not because Farmer Brown has rats in his cellar. How many players just go on a killing spree for the heck of it? How many of today's players chase the "achievement" treadmill?
There is so much more that an MMORPG can offer players that they simply do not, because most players today are not seeking that kind of intangible reward. Players are "too efficient" today. No reward (XP or item) means "grind" and "boring" play experiences.
It did not used to be that way.
But that doesn't address the criticism of a poorly-designed reward structure, because those things are going to be enjoyed (or not) regardless of the quality of the reward structure. Other elements may cut them off (level-based zones used to limit player freedom), but that's an entirely different topic.
Reward structures which over-penalize for switching activities are poorly designed. Without a quest system, or some method for immediately providing varied content to players (like instant travel) you end up with a pretty strong penalty for seeking gameplay variety.
If I'm car-shopping and point out to the dealer, "These tires suck," and he responds with, "You're missing out on so much of what this car can offer" then he might not be lying -- the rest of the car might be awesome. But I could go to another dealership and find a car of the same model with good tires, and have everything.
And as an aside, failure in crafting was an entirely unnecessary and poorly-conceived system. Random failure without the player's ability to manipulate the system is just bad game design. The exact same thing is achieved by grinding mediocre items with a rare chance for a truly great item, which is not only more fun and rewarding, but also more realistic (because how bad of a blacksmith do you have to be to attempt to craft a sword and end up with a completely useless lump of iron?)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You failed to read my post and the wiki. I asked this to be absolved in PM
It gives examples of them giving in-game rewards on that page. Not quoting that part of the page doesn't make that fact not exist.
"Some implementations use a system of achievements that do provide direct benefits to the gameplay..."
Meaning you're still wrong, continuing to "conclusively" prove the point.
And as I said, address in PM, not this thread.
I'm quoting the core definitions of the terms. You're trying to counter that by claiming some little tidbit later in the article counteracts what I've said.
A quest by any other name is still a quest, man. You've described a system which is very obviously questing.
An "achievement" which rewards 100 xp for killing 10 rats is a quest. How much more obvious can it get?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You failed to read my post and the wiki. I asked this to be absolved in PM
It gives examples of them giving in-game rewards on that page. Not quoting that part of the page doesn't make that fact not exist.
"Some implementations use a system of achievements that do provide direct benefits to the gameplay..."
Meaning you're still wrong, continuing to "conclusively" prove the point.
And as I said, address in PM, not this thread.
I'm quoting the core definitions of the terms. You're trying to counter that by claiming some little tidbit later in the article counteracts what I've said.
A quest by any other name is still a quest, man. You've described a system which is very obviously questing.
An "achievement" which rewards 100 xp for killing 10 rats is a quest. How much more obvious can it get?
Considering that the core definition does not preclude the condition, and the 'tidbit' serves to add qualification, it serves it purpose accurately and fine. Information is information whether you want to regard it or not.
Anything else is just your opinion, call it a quest if you want, you'll be the only one doing so.
Obviously nothing in this regard is fairly obvious since you've blatantly disregarded my own commentary three times now in favor of continuing this pointless argument here.
If you want to backtrack and talk about the quest structure I outlined rather than nitpicking a pointless tangent that you're still wrong on, feel free to go back and re-read my comments and find something to say on them.
If you try and correct this again, all I can do is repeat that this is very obviously your opinion and nothing to do with fact, and as such isn't something for further argument. If you wish to keep doing so, I'll repeat again to take it to PM.
EDIT: For example you could address the actual point of my post which you pulled this from, seeing as I used achievements and quests as references since to most people it brings up two different things in their minds, and consequently is usually understood very simply.
If you'd like to go back to that, and if those terms are hard for you to understand ask me to explain the intended mechanics to you, we can discuss something that has to do with this thread then.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Considering that the core definition does not preclude the condition, and the 'tidbit' serves to add qualification, it serves it purpose accurately and fine. Information is information whether you want to regard it or not.
Anything else is just your opinion, call it a quest if you want, you'll be the only one doing so.
Obviously nothing in this regard is fairly obvious since you've blatantly disregarded my own commentary three times now in favor of continuing this pointless argument here.
If you want to backtrack and talk about the quest structure I outlined rather than nitpicking a pointless tangent that you're still wrong on, feel free to go back and re-read my comments and find something to say on them.
If you try and correct this again, all I can do is repeat that this is very obviously your opinion and nothing to do with fact, and as such isn't something for further argument. If you wish to keep doing so, I'll repeat again to take it to PM.
EDIT: For example you could address the actual point of my post which you pulled this from, seeing as I used achievements and quests as references since to most people it brings up two different things in their minds, and consequently is usually understood very simply.
If you'd like to go back to that, and if those terms are hard for you to understand ask me to explain the intended mechanics to you, we can discuss something that has to do with this thread then.
Does your Rewarded Achievement system reward players for doing tasks? Then it's questing.
The simple truth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well...if we can put the arguments going off course aside for a moment...
I don't see why there cannot be branching quests systems put in place. With multiple choices and/or routes to go with different outcomes and/or rewards. As well as outcomes that may or may not effect other villages, players, etc.
Quests on different timer cycles before they can be selected again..or even some that are one time deals and never surface again at all with unique items given for completion.
And epic quests (Long chain quests) that span the world and give the best items for the effort put forth to complete them. After all...isn't that what quests are? Long journeys/adventures.
Well...if we can put the arguments going off course aside for a moment...
I don't see why there cannot be branching quests systems put in place. With multiple choices and/or routes to go with different outcomes and/or rewards. As well as outcomes that may or may not effect other villages, players, etc.
Quests on different timer cycles before they can be selected again..or even some that are one time deals and never surface again at all with unique items given for completion.
And epic quests (Long chain quests) that span the world and give the best items for the effort put forth to complete them. After all...isn't that what quests are? Long journeys/adventures.
I believe an MMORPG world has to feel alive. Too many "scenes" strung in a line make it feel more like a canned play that every iteration of your characters will "act" through. I think we need to get away from that kind of thing that has pervaded the genre since 2004.
How is a branching...or arching if you prefer, quest line linear? It has multiple directions, with possible multiple outcomes. It has nothing to do with scenes...or cut scenes if that is what you are thinking. Deciding to take one option may close another option, altering the outcome and/or scenario all together.
Every decision would have an effect on either the world or the player and/or players of the world. It would still be a living breathing world. Just with quests like all others in it...with the exception of having multiple path and decisions to make which effect your character via reputation or gear acquired, etc. I am not talking ANYTHING like SWTOR or any other modern quest hub linear MMORPG.
I believe an MMORPG world has to feel alive. Too many "scenes" strung in a line make it feel more like a canned play that every iteration of your characters will "act" through. I think we need to get away from that kind of thing that has pervaded the genre since 2004.
Er, branching goes in the opposite direction of linearity.
A 10-quest non-branching questline has 1 possible end result. That's linear.
A 10-quest branching questline where each quest ends in two unique other quests with two possibilities, there are 1024 possibilities and it's a complete mess to write out on paper. That's nonlinear.
Which leads to the answer of why this isn't done more often:
A given user is going to experience 10 of those 1024 quests.
So in a 2-faction game if the dev team implements 2048 total quests (which is a god damn lot!), a player will be expected to enjoy 1024 quests.
With branching, you get 10 quests.
Now obviously nobody's suggesting the extreme of "implement ALL the branching!" but this is why it's difficult to do branching in the first place -- especially since in most cases you're racing to get enough content out there in the first place and that "1024" number is actually far lower (more like 75-150)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Deivos Like I noted already, that's your opinion. Do with it whatever you want.
When something precisely matches the definition of a word, that's not opinion.
It's simple truth.
Except it isn't given you take only a segment of it's description.
So it's an opinion, which you are free to have.
And again, if you wanna keep arguing trivial semantics like this, PM me. You aren't even addressing the point in my posts, you're just railing on about the semantics of a meaningless definition. Even if I agreed with you that it's a quest, it's still a different approach than normal and my whole point in the example and argument remains entirely the same.
So please. For the love of all things gaming just shut up about your opinion on what a word means already. You want to call achievements a for of quests because they can give you an in-game reward, that is entirely your own thing no matter which way you spin it. It's only by saying things that aren't true, such as assuming that different things can share the same mechanics, that you have any form of argument to make.
So again, either shut up about this as it doesn't have to do with the topic or my own commentary any more, or send me a PM.
EDIT: For example, let me change my argument to conform to your opinion. Since obviously you can't rationalize what I mean when I say using an achievement instead of a quest I'll break it down a different way.
Instead of a task given at a specific or general location, the player is provided with persistent tasks they can choose to do at any time. So rather than having to break every so often to do a round of turn-ins and such, the player instead will get their reward prompt automatically at a given milestone.
Thus eliminating the 'non-fun' aspect of having to wander off and deal with turn-ins.
It's easier to refer to persistent tasks as achievements, as that's generally understood that it is what they are, you simply have them and you can do them, and they'll give you something.
Where quests in this context very obviously meant what the average gamer would think of when you say the word, a task that's given to the player by an in-game means, and reward collected via an in-game means.
And again as well, I noted before that I'm not looking to eliminate quests from a game, I'm talking about ways to change them.
You wanna call it a quest system that's like an achievement system? I would agree to that. It's a functional description of the idea.
Your entire definition argument is fundamentally wrong because even the sources you quote contain information that serves to contradict your stance. Very notably they don't talk in absolutes as you do, as the case with the achievement page explicitly stating that it can give in-game rewards, and several games using such a mechanic.
In such cases they are not being called quests even though they share the mechanic of fulfilling a task because it's present in a much different fashion from how quests are treated.
Iunno how long ago I said it. you're trying to say these things exist exclusively to define quests, that's straight up wrong. Yes, a quest operates in more or less the same way mechanically as an achievement, they are called different things though because we use them in different ways.
Your semantic bickering changed absolutely noting about my example save for me using the terms of the mechanics themselves instead of an encompassing term.
You can state that Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola have much the same contents, and that therefore they are the same thing. In a sense you are right, but you're also wrong. That's been you this entire time.
If you really want me to say it, then yes, the mechanics that go into achievements can define it as a quest system.
However, it's not a quest system, because it's not setup as one, it's setup as an achievement system, making it an achievement.
I told you this in PM, to which you failed to respond. Instead you opted to continue an inane rant here. So I ask again, that if you really want to keep this up, either go back to talking about points that relate to my and the OP posts, or PM me and stop saying misleading comments here.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Not really. Take those story books of the 1980's where you had an adventure and on a page it might give you two or three choices, and send you to page 5, 17, or 39. While the branching had several threads you could veer down, threads are still threads (i.e., lines) and the story was still contrived with definite directions and endings.
I would like folks to get away from the idea that an MMORPG has to propel you along a story. A MMORPG should give you a world, with rich history, lore, events, factions, etc... But your chosen path is YOUR path, and personal storylines (or branching questlines) serve only to confine you and to hand you fake victories.
Right it's not the "opposite" of linearity and I more clearly reposted the thought.
Branching represents less linearity; it's a step away from linearity, even though it's not the "opposite" of linearity.
Any nonlinear game you think of has a finite (but uncountably large) number of branching possibilities, so it's not like whatever game you're thinking of is nonlinear either :P But we call something nonlinear when there are a ridiculous number of possibilities (sorta like the 1024 different possibilities in my example)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
YOu mean so much more boring stuff, like waiting around, or loot drama?
Thank you very much ... please count me out of ANY camping in any games. I don't play games to wait in line for stuff.
It boils down to your preferences vs mine. Yours is not better, just different. I would much rather play a storyline like that in Bioshock that any half-baked player drama that is called "their own story".
Let's vote with our wallets and see what devs will do.
If you're going to quote Wikipedia at me, I might as well tell you you're wrong by doing the same at you. And that should conclusively end the discussion.
Also you said 'rewarded task list UI', that includes about any reward element in a UI. Which as I and the Wikipedia you quoted noted, was wrong.
You also successfully ignored the point about mechanics between these being rather fluid. And the fact killing monsters frequently is done for a reward (xp/loot) same as a quest which fills in that little difference hole somewhat save for the task being personal rather than assigned.
That's the only ground you have to stand on, calling a quest a formalized version of game events. I already told to you the difference between achievements and quests, the fact even WoW uses them should have been a hint at understanding there's a difference between the two and that there is potential flexibility in their application from being entirely meta-reward elements to in game elements.
You tailor every subject and example to fit your convenience rather than addressing the mechanics that all are or can be in play, and that means you are creating a finite and flawed argument.
So ultimately you are giving nothing but an opinion and arguing all other opinions are wrong at this point and it's not conducive to anything meaningful. I'm not talking to you about this here any more, it's not the right place. If you wanna keep going, PM me.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Question Marks? I'd rather not have them. They are a beacon in the game world that directs players, usually making them miss out on NPCs without question marks. NPCs, to me, should be so much more than filler bodies to make the game "appear" to be populated by "normal" beings
To answer your last point, for me I need to have a reason to do things in a game other than gaining levels. Quests help me with this aspect. Sometimes, just doing things to see how they work (like crafting) works for a bit, but once I see how they work, what then?
Am I doing things just to get to a new level and gain some ability or spell? That is a pretty finite activity for me.
Did that make any sense?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Two games come to mind when I think of great quests:
EQ2 for their Heritage quests
Runescape, it seems every single quest is it's own adventure.
Age of Conan tortage was a great new player experience as a whole and while it had it''s "kill 10 rats" quests along the way the meat of the quest was actually done quite well.
I also find players do not want great quests/stories, I mean how many people mashed the space bar through SWTOR just to get through all the dialogue just to get to it... while this probably isn't the best example because who wants to listed to 2-5 mins woth of chat just to "kill 5 wookies"
Furthermore, it seems quests are just a means to an end... with "happy trails" and your map lighting up like a christmas tree to show and tell you exaclt where to go takes all the advenure out of questing. BIG ARROWS saying "The bad guy is HERE" take all the immersion out of questing... but then again I am more or less being nostalgic because I remember the glory days.
What are your other Hobbies?
Gaming is Dirt Cheap compared to this...
Writing and Delivery are King
Jason was on a quest to retrieve the Golden Fleece.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Most of today's players would not explore if they did not get an XP reward. Most would not craft if there was no XP reward. How many of today's MMOs have a chance for failure in crafting? Not many for there is no reward in failures. Most would not quest if there was no xp/item reward. Heck, why do players kill mobs? Not because Farmer Brown has rats in his cellar. How many players just go on a killing spree for the heck of it? How many of today's players chase the "achievement" treadmill?
There is so much more that an MMORPG can offer players that they simply do not, because most players today are not seeking that kind of intangible reward. Players are "too efficient" today. No reward (XP or item) means "grind" and "boring" play experiences.
It did not used to be that way.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
There should be less quests, but the goals should take longer to complete.
Heritage quests in EQ2 were great
You say you're sure there are more, and there are, but that is just it. There are only so many mechanics that can fundamentally be used. You can string them together or dress them up differently, but there is always a limited amount of base mechanics.
Killtask
FedEx (often used to vector to a new area)
Collect - either from dead creatures or from an area
Escort
Find/Use
Defend
Puzzle
Most people find things "fresh" when they've been dressed up more to seem fancier, but It is still the same mechanics.
How many ways can you kill someone/something? There is an exact finite amount of ways to do it, yet there are constantly new FPS/fighting style games. So what do they do since there are no other ways to kill things? They dress it up fancier or add in elements from other styles of games. So with FPS games they now tend to all do a leveling system taken from rpg style games, to add another element on top of the decades old kill things. With fighting games they add more epic ending moves or more amazing looking standard moves to the characters.
In other words you can't increase the number of finite mechanics. You can either dress it better or expand the game into other elements to make it more fun. So I don't expect new ways of questing to show up, as all the base elements have been covered, but I would expect games to dress it differently (such as taking quests and making public quests. Same base goals, but now a thrown together group of people is doing it on the fly) or to start bringing in wholly different elements from other games (or maybe even creating whole new elements) that have nothing to do with questing to expand the game further.
So the question should be: What new features can we bring to MMOs to freshen them up or how can we better present the current features to make them more fun?
For starters I would suggest more involved quests that have deeper story, more interactions, more puzzles and just all around more depth then "Run into this dungeon, kill everything, and either kill a boss or bring me something back or both" over and over again.
I think that is one of the reasons people complain about kill tasks the most. You can only experience "Go kill 15 X" so many times before it is annoyingly bland. Dress it up with an NPC being dragged toward a hole in the ground by 15 insects and you have to rush over and kill them all to stop them or he disappears down into the hole to some gruesome end and suddenly it is a bit more interesting even though you still have to kill 15 things, now there is some purpose, some meaning and some excitement to the task. Come up with ways to dress it even better and it continues to become more and more interesting even though you're doing the same thing you've done for years.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
From your article, "[An achievement] is a meta-goal defined outside of a game's parameters."
Your system: "Achievements which provide rewards inside a game's parameters." Your system provides gameplay rewards like gold, items, or XP. These are within the game's parameters.
The wikipedia article goes on to point out that this inside vs. outside rewards is the line between Quests and Achievements, "Unlike the systems of quests or levels that usually define the goals of a video game and have a direct effect on further gameplay the management of achievements usually takes place outside the confines of the game environment and architecture."
So yes, your article also conclusively proves my point.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You failed to read my post and the wiki. I asked this to be absolved in PM
It gives examples of them giving in-game rewards on that page. Not quoting that part of the page doesn't make that fact not exist.
"Some implementations use a system of achievements that do provide direct benefits to the gameplay..."
Meaning you're still wrong, continuing to "conclusively" prove the point.
And as I said, address in PM, not this thread.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I rather see quests as optional and possible to be made by players. But this ofc ties in with the character progression system. If you need xp for themeparky lvl based character progression, then there also needs to be an alternative to questing for progression. If you want to keep questing as optional anyway.
This is why I prefer a skillbased progression system. Like in old SWG or nowadays Skyrim. In Skyrim you don't quest for xp, but for story. Your progression comes from the fights and side activities during the questlines.
Take this to MMO's and you could still have questlines, but they would be optional. You could add mission terminals (ala Anarchy Online, or SWG) as alternative, but you could also simply form hunting parties with other players to raise your combat related skills. Give the players a tools to create their own engaging questlines and you have crazy replayability. Get rid of the rigid class system and just let anyone raise any skill, but with a skillpoint limit so you are forced to chose. And again, more replayability.
Actually, I just want old SWG skill system, it's city/playerhouse system from the last year and nowadays graphics and performance
Oh yeah and a good quest/dungeon creation tool (not the crap introduced from SWG NGE).
So, for me quests are fine. As long as they are not a mandatory lineair road during character progression.
But that doesn't address the criticism of a poorly-designed reward structure, because those things are going to be enjoyed (or not) regardless of the quality of the reward structure. Other elements may cut them off (level-based zones used to limit player freedom), but that's an entirely different topic.
Reward structures which over-penalize for switching activities are poorly designed. Without a quest system, or some method for immediately providing varied content to players (like instant travel) you end up with a pretty strong penalty for seeking gameplay variety.
If I'm car-shopping and point out to the dealer, "These tires suck," and he responds with, "You're missing out on so much of what this car can offer" then he might not be lying -- the rest of the car might be awesome. But I could go to another dealership and find a car of the same model with good tires, and have everything.
And as an aside, failure in crafting was an entirely unnecessary and poorly-conceived system. Random failure without the player's ability to manipulate the system is just bad game design. The exact same thing is achieved by grinding mediocre items with a rare chance for a truly great item, which is not only more fun and rewarding, but also more realistic (because how bad of a blacksmith do you have to be to attempt to craft a sword and end up with a completely useless lump of iron?)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm quoting the core definitions of the terms. You're trying to counter that by claiming some little tidbit later in the article counteracts what I've said.
A quest by any other name is still a quest, man. You've described a system which is very obviously questing.
An "achievement" which rewards 100 xp for killing 10 rats is a quest. How much more obvious can it get?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Considering that the core definition does not preclude the condition, and the 'tidbit' serves to add qualification, it serves it purpose accurately and fine. Information is information whether you want to regard it or not.
Anything else is just your opinion, call it a quest if you want, you'll be the only one doing so.
Obviously nothing in this regard is fairly obvious since you've blatantly disregarded my own commentary three times now in favor of continuing this pointless argument here.
If you want to backtrack and talk about the quest structure I outlined rather than nitpicking a pointless tangent that you're still wrong on, feel free to go back and re-read my comments and find something to say on them.
If you try and correct this again, all I can do is repeat that this is very obviously your opinion and nothing to do with fact, and as such isn't something for further argument. If you wish to keep doing so, I'll repeat again to take it to PM.
EDIT: For example you could address the actual point of my post which you pulled this from, seeing as I used achievements and quests as references since to most people it brings up two different things in their minds, and consequently is usually understood very simply.
If you'd like to go back to that, and if those terms are hard for you to understand ask me to explain the intended mechanics to you, we can discuss something that has to do with this thread then.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Does your Rewarded Achievement system reward players for doing tasks? Then it's questing.
The simple truth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Zero.
You should have no problem out-voting me.
OTOH, i am free-riding on the whales votes, so good luck!
Well...if we can put the arguments going off course aside for a moment...
I don't see why there cannot be branching quests systems put in place. With multiple choices and/or routes to go with different outcomes and/or rewards. As well as outcomes that may or may not effect other villages, players, etc.
Quests on different timer cycles before they can be selected again..or even some that are one time deals and never surface again at all with unique items given for completion.
And epic quests (Long chain quests) that span the world and give the best items for the effort put forth to complete them. After all...isn't that what quests are? Long journeys/adventures.
How is a branching...or arching if you prefer, quest line linear? It has multiple directions, with possible multiple outcomes. It has nothing to do with scenes...or cut scenes if that is what you are thinking. Deciding to take one option may close another option, altering the outcome and/or scenario all together.
Every decision would have an effect on either the world or the player and/or players of the world. It would still be a living breathing world. Just with quests like all others in it...with the exception of having multiple path and decisions to make which effect your character via reputation or gear acquired, etc. I am not talking ANYTHING like SWTOR or any other modern quest hub linear MMORPG.
Er, branching goes in the opposite direction of linearity.
A 10-quest non-branching questline has 1 possible end result. That's linear.
A 10-quest branching questline where each quest ends in two unique other quests with two possibilities, there are 1024 possibilities and it's a complete mess to write out on paper. That's nonlinear.
Which leads to the answer of why this isn't done more often:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Except it isn't given you take only a segment of it's description.
So it's an opinion, which you are free to have.
And again, if you wanna keep arguing trivial semantics like this, PM me. You aren't even addressing the point in my posts, you're just railing on about the semantics of a meaningless definition. Even if I agreed with you that it's a quest, it's still a different approach than normal and my whole point in the example and argument remains entirely the same.
So please. For the love of all things gaming just shut up about your opinion on what a word means already. You want to call achievements a for of quests because they can give you an in-game reward, that is entirely your own thing no matter which way you spin it. It's only by saying things that aren't true, such as assuming that different things can share the same mechanics, that you have any form of argument to make.
So again, either shut up about this as it doesn't have to do with the topic or my own commentary any more, or send me a PM.
EDIT: For example, let me change my argument to conform to your opinion. Since obviously you can't rationalize what I mean when I say using an achievement instead of a quest I'll break it down a different way.
Instead of a task given at a specific or general location, the player is provided with persistent tasks they can choose to do at any time. So rather than having to break every so often to do a round of turn-ins and such, the player instead will get their reward prompt automatically at a given milestone.
Thus eliminating the 'non-fun' aspect of having to wander off and deal with turn-ins.
It's easier to refer to persistent tasks as achievements, as that's generally understood that it is what they are, you simply have them and you can do them, and they'll give you something.
Where quests in this context very obviously meant what the average gamer would think of when you say the word, a task that's given to the player by an in-game means, and reward collected via an in-game means.
And again as well, I noted before that I'm not looking to eliminate quests from a game, I'm talking about ways to change them.
You wanna call it a quest system that's like an achievement system? I would agree to that. It's a functional description of the idea.
Your entire definition argument is fundamentally wrong because even the sources you quote contain information that serves to contradict your stance. Very notably they don't talk in absolutes as you do, as the case with the achievement page explicitly stating that it can give in-game rewards, and several games using such a mechanic.
In such cases they are not being called quests even though they share the mechanic of fulfilling a task because it's present in a much different fashion from how quests are treated.
Iunno how long ago I said it. you're trying to say these things exist exclusively to define quests, that's straight up wrong. Yes, a quest operates in more or less the same way mechanically as an achievement, they are called different things though because we use them in different ways.
Your semantic bickering changed absolutely noting about my example save for me using the terms of the mechanics themselves instead of an encompassing term.
You can state that Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola have much the same contents, and that therefore they are the same thing. In a sense you are right, but you're also wrong. That's been you this entire time.
If you really want me to say it, then yes, the mechanics that go into achievements can define it as a quest system.
However, it's not a quest system, because it's not setup as one, it's setup as an achievement system, making it an achievement.
I told you this in PM, to which you failed to respond. Instead you opted to continue an inane rant here. So I ask again, that if you really want to keep this up, either go back to talking about points that relate to my and the OP posts, or PM me and stop saying misleading comments here.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Right it's not the "opposite" of linearity and I more clearly reposted the thought.
Branching represents less linearity; it's a step away from linearity, even though it's not the "opposite" of linearity.
Any nonlinear game you think of has a finite (but uncountably large) number of branching possibilities, so it's not like whatever game you're thinking of is nonlinear either :P But we call something nonlinear when there are a ridiculous number of possibilities (sorta like the 1024 different possibilities in my example)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver