Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
SIDEQUESTS/ERRANDS
Posts
Adon237
View playlists
CloseIn games, rpgmaker or commercial, sidequests have been a must for me. Straying away from the main storyline a little, and getting a chance to train and get epic items made the game much more enjoyable. What's your view on sidequests? Valuable? Worthless?
(UnVague?)
Like in FF12, where you had to go around and complete little errands for people to get to ride in the vehicle or whatever, did you feel like that was needed?
Or sidequests in games, do you feel like it would be worth the extra time to complete them? The extra training, and etc?
(UnVague?)
Like in FF12, where you had to go around and complete little errands for people to get to ride in the vehicle or whatever, did you feel like that was needed?
Or sidequests in games, do you feel like it would be worth the extra time to complete them? The extra training, and etc?
In certain situations, a certain amount of side material may or may not be appropriate, while in other certain situations a different amount of side material may or may not be appropriate.
If you could apply some UnVague(tm) to your OP, this topic could be much more productive and go somewhere.
If you could apply some UnVague(tm) to your OP, this topic could be much more productive and go somewhere.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Typically the problem I have with sidequests is that they often make the main quest too easy. Especially in games where a lot of your power comes just from fighting and gaining XP and AP and money.
FF12 is a great example of this. The game has a major main questline, but it also has tons of sidequests at every point in the game. It sends you on bounty hunts, it gives you enemies to fight for random drops so you can synthesize new equipment, and it has a bunch of other sidequests that sometimes are even plot-related.
Now, if you do none of these at all, the main quest is exactly the right difficulty for me. If you do just a couple of them, it still feels fine, and becomes more managable for a less skilled player. But the game makes you want to do most or all of them. Like most RPGs, it uses classic psychological tricks to make the player feel compelled to do the sidequests. Rewards, in the forms of both items and cut scenes, handed out gradually over time with big ones at the ends of each of the sidequests. And when you have all, or even half, of the rewards from sidequests, you can plow through the entire main quest effortlessly and all the strategy is removed from the game. So the designers of FF12 give the player two choices: skip half the game, or make the other half of the game boring and lame. In both cases, the player feels unsatisfied by the way he or she handled the game.
It's definitely possible to have sidequests that don't result in this problem, though. It just requires either:
A) making the sidequests only "optional" in the loosest sense, so the main quest is balanced around the idea that you've done all or nearly all sidequests
-or-
B) making the rewards from the sidequests provide extra versatility without actually providing much extra power
-or-
C) making enemies in the main quest scale to the player's power
I find B to be the preferable result for major rewards at the end of missions, like earning new equipment/spells/characters, but it's hard to get XP to work that way. And for some types of sidequests, like optional dungeons or item synthesis, you are pretty much guaranteed to get a good chunk of XP in the process.
FF12 is a great example of this. The game has a major main questline, but it also has tons of sidequests at every point in the game. It sends you on bounty hunts, it gives you enemies to fight for random drops so you can synthesize new equipment, and it has a bunch of other sidequests that sometimes are even plot-related.
Now, if you do none of these at all, the main quest is exactly the right difficulty for me. If you do just a couple of them, it still feels fine, and becomes more managable for a less skilled player. But the game makes you want to do most or all of them. Like most RPGs, it uses classic psychological tricks to make the player feel compelled to do the sidequests. Rewards, in the forms of both items and cut scenes, handed out gradually over time with big ones at the ends of each of the sidequests. And when you have all, or even half, of the rewards from sidequests, you can plow through the entire main quest effortlessly and all the strategy is removed from the game. So the designers of FF12 give the player two choices: skip half the game, or make the other half of the game boring and lame. In both cases, the player feels unsatisfied by the way he or she handled the game.
It's definitely possible to have sidequests that don't result in this problem, though. It just requires either:
A) making the sidequests only "optional" in the loosest sense, so the main quest is balanced around the idea that you've done all or nearly all sidequests
-or-
B) making the rewards from the sidequests provide extra versatility without actually providing much extra power
-or-
C) making enemies in the main quest scale to the player's power
I find B to be the preferable result for major rewards at the end of missions, like earning new equipment/spells/characters, but it's hard to get XP to work that way. And for some types of sidequests, like optional dungeons or item synthesis, you are pretty much guaranteed to get a good chunk of XP in the process.
Ever since I played ChronoTrigger I've had a great appreciation for the sidequest. Considering where I am saying this, I don't think I have to explain why that is. Also one of the coolest experiences for me was maximizing the strength of my FF7 party. Having once been constrained by geography, giant snakes, antagonists, "we" were able to hop onboard "our" airship and soar above it all and in the meantime face new challenges known as the Weapons.
I think sidequests are essential to certain types of games as a gamer.
As an amateur/student/hobbyist game developer, when it comes to game design I think sidequests are the area where the game's world keeps honest with itself. If I were to design a game tomorrow, I would make it branch out in such a way that the main quest would be 10hours long, but the sidequests would be 35 hours long. The true resolution/ending of a good RPG should always be found within the sidequest.
I think sidequests are essential to certain types of games as a gamer.
As an amateur/student/hobbyist game developer, when it comes to game design I think sidequests are the area where the game's world keeps honest with itself. If I were to design a game tomorrow, I would make it branch out in such a way that the main quest would be 10hours long, but the sidequests would be 35 hours long. The true resolution/ending of a good RPG should always be found within the sidequest.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
See, the basic idea of a sidequest - the definition of it - is that it's optional. It's something many people will skip, that you don't expect people to necessarily do. You can make them feel compelled to do it, but you can't make them need to do it to beat the game, or it's no longer a sidequest by definition. So why would you put your best material in places that people aren't necessarily going to see? I'd think you would put the best material in the main quest, so that everyone experiences it.
I mean, think about it. You have a great, fun, exciting dungeon with well-made cut scenes and a climactic boss battle at the end. You put it in the game. What's your motivation to make it skippable? Is that reason really worth all the problems it causes, which I detailed in my previous post?
The fact that you enjoyed games that did something is never a good enough reason to do it in your own games. You have to examine why they did it, why it worked, what side-effects it caused, how that game mitigated those side-effects, and how it can be done better.
My personal reasons against sidequests are all balance-related though. I know all the "mushy feelings" reasons in favor of them, but you can get mushy good feelings from the player in tons of other ways that don't decimate the game's challenge factor. I will be surprised if anyone actually responds to the core gameplay problems caused by sidequests in RPGs.
I mean, think about it. You have a great, fun, exciting dungeon with well-made cut scenes and a climactic boss battle at the end. You put it in the game. What's your motivation to make it skippable? Is that reason really worth all the problems it causes, which I detailed in my previous post?
The fact that you enjoyed games that did something is never a good enough reason to do it in your own games. You have to examine why they did it, why it worked, what side-effects it caused, how that game mitigated those side-effects, and how it can be done better.
My personal reasons against sidequests are all balance-related though. I know all the "mushy feelings" reasons in favor of them, but you can get mushy good feelings from the player in tons of other ways that don't decimate the game's challenge factor. I will be surprised if anyone actually responds to the core gameplay problems caused by sidequests in RPGs.
Shinan
4314
I love sidequests because they are usually where the player is allowed to roleplay a bit. Often mainquests are linear pieces where at most you can tell someone to "fuck up but I'll do this for you anyway". Whereas sidequests are usually filled with competing interests for a thing where you can choose sides and multiple solutions with different outcomes where you can roleplay depending on which character you like more or which character you want to like more.
Basically it's in the sidequest that the games usually let you actually roleplay.
Of course, truthfully I would rather see more roleplaying in the main quest too. But it seems that often that is just too much to ask for. But some games let you do it at least.
Basically it's in the sidequest that the games usually let you actually roleplay.
Of course, truthfully I would rather see more roleplaying in the main quest too. But it seems that often that is just too much to ask for. But some games let you do it at least.
Cozzer
0
author=LockeZ
The fact that you enjoyed games that did something is never a good enough reason to do it in your own games.
This will never be quoted enough. Anyway, my two cents:
About what to put into sidequests, I think they're the ideal environment for:
- Minigames (you know those players that get addicted to them, and those who hate them disrupting the narrative? In this case you can please everyone)
- Lighthearted character development: what happens when the dark brooding warrior in your party goes shopping? Sidequests give you a way to explore sides of your characters that would rarely come up in the main quest, making them more 3-dimensional.
- Harder puzzles: you've just completed a dungeon with easy-to-slightly-hard block puzzles; then, in a room near the exit there's a chest protected by a very hard block puzzle.
- All kind of gimmicks: you know, those things that only work once and would seem out of place in the main quest. I already mentioned minigames, but there can be trick battles, quizzes, investigations, everything.
What I really don't like seeing in sidequests is more of the same. They should be a diversion from the main gameplay as they are from the main storyline.
I mean, I've just completed the fourth iteration of the town-dungeon-town formula, and now to relieve the monotony I'll do... a dungeon?
About rewards and balancing problems mentioned by LockeZ, I think a good idea would be to give "temporarily better" items as a rewards.
I can only explain it with an example: let's say the hero has MagicSword+1 at some point; by doing a sidequest, he can get a MagicSword+2. If he doesn't get it, though, he'll find it (or will be able to buy it) at a later point into the main storyline.
By that point, the player who did the sidequest will have had an easier time and will save money (he won't have to buy the MagicSword+2 or he will be able to sell the duplicate), so he won't feel "cheated".
This way, a player who does every sidequest will constantly be a step ahead of one who doesn't, but he will never be twenty steps ahead.
The Witcher 2 has lots of sidequests that tie into the main quest beautifully. The way that they ensure that your character doesn't become overpowered is that they give about 1000xp for completing quests, but only about 5xp for killing monsters. So sure you can theoretically grind, but it would take you about 10 hours to grind 4 levels. The way they ensure that it is always worthwhile to kill monsters that barely grant XP is with the crafting and alchemy system. In order to build your next sword, bomb, trap, get gold, or potion you have to collect components that monsters drop and so it's always worth it kill monsters. Just don't expect to level up off of it. The Witcher 2 is remarkably balanced with sidequest/main story ratio.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Hmm, well, making the primary thing gained from a sidequest be equipment actually sounds like a pretty good way of giving the player only temporary power. The results of the sidequest are immediately useful, but after completing one or two main dungeons they will be no stronger than they would have been without doing the sidequests. I approve, it's an acceptable way of limiting the power creep.
XP is really the thing that makes sidequests feel broken to me in most RPGs. The other rewards are much more easily managed. XP tends to be hard to control. Players don't even do the sidequest for the XP most of the time - they just happen to get the XP in the process of doing it. You need the right kind of XP system in your game to handle it or they will accumulate way more than they meant to. If you think of levelling up as a sort of player-controlled difficulty setting, sidequests are the things that make the player accidentally turn down the difficulty in the process of trying to do something else, with no way to turn it back up.
Need to start an XP topic sometime; this isn't really the right topic for an in-depth discussion of how well/poorly different styles of XP growth work, but it's something that really interests me.
XP is really the thing that makes sidequests feel broken to me in most RPGs. The other rewards are much more easily managed. XP tends to be hard to control. Players don't even do the sidequest for the XP most of the time - they just happen to get the XP in the process of doing it. You need the right kind of XP system in your game to handle it or they will accumulate way more than they meant to. If you think of levelling up as a sort of player-controlled difficulty setting, sidequests are the things that make the player accidentally turn down the difficulty in the process of trying to do something else, with no way to turn it back up.
Need to start an XP topic sometime; this isn't really the right topic for an in-depth discussion of how well/poorly different styles of XP growth work, but it's something that really interests me.
Well, if you cut down the rewards for side-quests, many people possibly won't play them anymore, which isn't exactly what I was aiming for.
Also, in my game, the "Guilds" which is only slightly branching away from the storyline, because you must have a guild and complete a certain amount of errands
to "move on", and the guild still stays close to the storyline for a good chunk of the game, though not necessarily with the errands. The sidequests branch away from the storyline most of the time, and they give better rewards than the errands.
(For errands can be completed in 5 minutes, or less, and sidequests could be completed in 20 minutes or more.
The experience would roughly be around the level of the characters are when it is first available, so the player could possibly come back and blow the monsters away,
since they have waited and have gotten stronger, and that would be some easy experience.
Also, without the sidequests, everything would feel so linear, and that is not what I was aiming for, but that comes down to the choices, (as far as I know) to make a possible way for the player to overpower, or make the game linear.
----------- (Main Storyline)
---- Guilds
|
|----- (Sidequests)
(Diagram shows that the Guilds are closer the the story-line, and Side-quests are further away.
The length of the lines means nothing.)
Also, in my game, the "Guilds" which is only slightly branching away from the storyline, because you must have a guild and complete a certain amount of errands
to "move on", and the guild still stays close to the storyline for a good chunk of the game, though not necessarily with the errands. The sidequests branch away from the storyline most of the time, and they give better rewards than the errands.
(For errands can be completed in 5 minutes, or less, and sidequests could be completed in 20 minutes or more.
The experience would roughly be around the level of the characters are when it is first available, so the player could possibly come back and blow the monsters away,
since they have waited and have gotten stronger, and that would be some easy experience.
Also, without the sidequests, everything would feel so linear, and that is not what I was aiming for, but that comes down to the choices, (as far as I know) to make a possible way for the player to overpower, or make the game linear.
----------- (Main Storyline)
---- Guilds
|
|----- (Sidequests)
(Diagram shows that the Guilds are closer the the story-line, and Side-quests are further away.
The length of the lines means nothing.)
ArmorcladVampireBear_
As an amateur/student/hobbyist game developer, when it comes to game design I think sidequests are the area where the game's world keeps honest with itself. If I were to design a game tomorrow, I would make it branch out in such a way that the main quest would be 10hours long, but the sidequests would be 35 hours long. The true resolution/ending of a good RPG should always be found within the sidequest.
whaaaaat
what
what
w h a t
I can't even put to words how disturbed this post makes me.
Well, if you cut down the rewards for side-quests, many people possibly won't play them anymore, which isn't exactly what I was aiming for.You can get minimal rewards for a sidequest really and still have the player do the quest. Either for completionists sake, or if the quest itself is just fun, or if there are interesting/funny characters around and you get some silly dialogue from it. Legend of Mana was not everyones favorite game and some of the ways to unlock new sidequests were terrible, but a lot of the rewards you get from doing a sidequest or main quest was really just a new area to go to, nothing else. And since the game was beautiful, you actually wanted to see how it looked like or how the music was like. Or sometimes just had walruses saying silly stuff.
I would suggest that those who fight super hard optional bosses in sidequests could bump up the difficulty of the final dungeon/final boss possibly. The thing to be aware of is that some people do these sidequests so they DON'T have to have such a challenge. Basing the last bosses power on having beaten an optional difficult challenge means that they would in fact want that challenge. You'd need to keep the various different types of players in mind.
I'd probably have more to say but I need to run.
AABattery
732
I LOVE sidequests, but like LockeZ states, doing sidequests that involve killing enemies and getting stronger will make the rest of the game too easy. I would prefer quests that are within the city/town walls rather than having to run to who knows where and fight some ridiculous boss that you've tried fighting over and over just to get small rewards. I think the rewards shouldn't be too grand, though. Just some gold or just some armor/weapons you could probably buy at a store (I'm the type of person who looks at an armor store and walks away in disgust. I don't buy armor.)
The game I'm currently making is pretty much just all sidequests, but in the game, you don't level up, you fight with cards (which gets consumed when you use it, so you have to keep buying more), and in the quests you only get currency, clothes, or maybe 5 or 10 cards. I think that'll keep a certain level of difficulty throughout the game.
The game I'm currently making is pretty much just all sidequests, but in the game, you don't level up, you fight with cards (which gets consumed when you use it, so you have to keep buying more), and in the quests you only get currency, clothes, or maybe 5 or 10 cards. I think that'll keep a certain level of difficulty throughout the game.
Shinan
4314
author=ArmorcladVampireBear_
The true resolution/ending of a good RPG should always be found within the sidequest.
I think a game that did this to... well... effect was probably STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl.
I have to admit it did sort of bum me out. But it also made a strange kind of sense (WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD), in the game you had a main quest of sorts and certain people sort of pushed you ahead to a certain location. But the "true" ending was somewhere else. There was certain knowledge you had to have to properly beat the ending. However if you just rushed forward into the end (like I did) you got a worse ending. I must say I was a bit bummed when it happened but I could also appreciate it as a true sense of... well... roleplaying. That only the "right" kind of person would get the "right" kind of ending.(WARNING SPOILERS END HERE)
I hear, (minor spoilers, maybe. I haven't played the game in question) that Metro 2033 has a similar thing going for it (which makes sense since it's made by some of the same developers)
On the whole I think it's an interesting approach. But also one that might alienate people playing the game.
AABattery
I LOVE sidequests, but like LockeZ states, doing sidequests that involve killing enemies and getting stronger will make the rest of the game too easy. I would prefer quests that are within the city/town walls rather than having to run to who knows where and fight some ridiculous boss that you've tried fighting over and over just to get small rewards. I think the rewards shouldn't be too grand, though. Just some gold or just some armor/weapons you could probably buy at a store (I'm the type of person who looks at an armor store and walks away in disgust. I don't buy armor.)
Or you could balance your game appropriately? Like, LockeZ brings this up whenever possible and every time my response is "just balance your game well."
Are you aware that you just said "you shouldn't reward players well for playing your game?"
*Wall of text, but also plz remember I have only beaten 2 Chapters in Witcher 2, plz don't spoil the rest of the game if you've played it*
I've been playing RPGs since Dragon Warrior. The Witcher 2 is the second latest RPG I've played (the latest being the game in my profile pic). And I can fairly say that Witcher 2 is one of my favorite games of all time. It is the only 'modern' RPG that I have placed into that list, right beside Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy 6.
Witcher 2 enticed me to play sidequests simply by having incredibly compelling material throughout their entire game. They didn't place less attention to any of the sidequests as they did with the main quest. Everything is epic. And so me, being the player, wants to see it all. I haven't even finished the game yet, so don't spoil it for me. But I'm 35 hours in. And I'm going to guess I have 8 hours or so to go. Based on my power level as well as the tension in the story which feels like I'm approaching a climatic confrontation.
The Witcher 2 has characters that I actually care about. In Chapter 2, Geralt (you) is in a dwarvan town sharing some beers with 3 dwarven comrades, they tell jokes about sex, sorceresses, war, and of course delving into mine shafts. Then it becomes apparent that they need to fight some creatures in one of their delvings, and so instead of sending Geralt to do it alone and promising him a reward once he does, the band of friends all (surprisingly) decide to go together! One of the dwarves doesn't drink any ale, and the other guys tease him and he says, that he has a little lady waiting to hook up with him later on, and ale hurts his stamina. But when they suggest that he get in some dangerous life threatening monster killing before his fun sexy time, he doesn't resist, but instead goes and risks his life in order to help his friends even though he does sort of look at his watch ahead of time =) still a bit concerned that he might get killed or miss his appointment. You go into one of the most epic mine shafts you will ever see in a video game. And then once it's over, you all congratudlate each other, and they ask that one dwarf, whether he has time to meet up with his lady friend, and he says, yes, just in time and then runs off after saying goodbye. These are the coolest dwarves I've ever seen anywhere.
So when a couple of crimes takes place in that very same village. And it becomes the witcher's job to figure out whodunit, I had a very personal investment in figuring it out. Because I cared so much about the people in the village. On the one hand I wanted to solve the mysteries so we could help the village, on the other curiousity simply got to me, I was curious who amongst these awesome characters would commit these heinous acts.
Besides simply enthralling the player with top notch quality and lovingly crafted characters and enviornments and story. The game gives 5 different difficulty settings I think. The lowest being incredibly easy. The highest being ridiculously hard (if you get killed one time, the entire RPG resets itself. You cannot load)
The power gained from the sidequests give a marginal increase in power that will make a larger difference the lower the difficulty, and a more subtle increase (though necessary, because everthing is so much harder you will probably want to get your hands on the most powerful gear just to make it through the game).
I think the Witcher 2 handles this dichotomy of main/sidequest most brilliantly of any game I have ever played. You always feel rewarded for the sidequest, or once you increase ur difficulty you may feel the sidequest's reward is even necessary in order to win. It's a very customizable experience.
AABattery
732
author=Craze
Are you aware that you just said "you shouldn't reward players well for playing your game?"
I did not say anything of the like. It was more of "you should reward players well for playing the main part of your game." Sidequests are sidequests and you shouldn't give a heap of treasure if the players do them. Sidequest are there to get more play time.
AABatteryCrazeI did not say anything of the like. It was more of "you should reward players well for playing the main part of your game." Sidequests are sidequests and you shouldn't give a heap of treasure if the players do them. Sidequest are there to get more play time.
Are you aware that you just said "you shouldn't reward players well for playing your game?"
Are you aware that you just said "you shouldn't reward players well for playing your game, because these parts of the game are meaningless fluff?"
You say "sidequests are sidequests," which tells us absolutely nothing about your actual views, except for the disturbing idea that they're there just to "get more play time."
From the first to most recent post, this topic has frightened me.
It all depends on how you implement it. This is literally the answer to absolutely everything, ever, in any game design topic.
Absolutely any idea can be good if implemented well. They call also be bad if implemented poorly.
Someone cited Chrono Trigger up there and it's a fantastic example of well-implemented side quests. At the end of the game the whole world opens up and there are plenty of things for you to do. But they are not just meaningless fluff, absolutely every single thing you can do ends up having great personal significance for one of your PCs. It offers a chance for character development, cool end game weapons and armor, resolution to hanging plot threads, etc. And if you talk to the Old Man at the End of Time, he gives you hints on where to find every single one of them. You don't have to scour all the time periods looking for them, you already know where they all are! The side quests in Chrono Trigger were crafted so that they were personally rewarding and gratifying to complete. I didn't feel like a single one of them was there just to pad the game out. They were organic extensions of what was already present in the main game.
Absolutely any idea can be good if implemented well. They call also be bad if implemented poorly.
Someone cited Chrono Trigger up there and it's a fantastic example of well-implemented side quests. At the end of the game the whole world opens up and there are plenty of things for you to do. But they are not just meaningless fluff, absolutely every single thing you can do ends up having great personal significance for one of your PCs. It offers a chance for character development, cool end game weapons and armor, resolution to hanging plot threads, etc. And if you talk to the Old Man at the End of Time, he gives you hints on where to find every single one of them. You don't have to scour all the time periods looking for them, you already know where they all are! The side quests in Chrono Trigger were crafted so that they were personally rewarding and gratifying to complete. I didn't feel like a single one of them was there just to pad the game out. They were organic extensions of what was already present in the main game.
Cozzer
0
author=Craze
Or you could balance your game appropriately? Like, LockeZ brings this up whenever possible and every time my response is "just balance your game well."
We're kinda discussing how to do that, you know...
author=Solitayre
It all depends on how you implement it. This is literally the answer to absolutely everything, ever, in any game design topic.
Well, that's true, but there are ideas you have to be a genius to implement well, and there are ideas you have to be a negagenius to implement wrong. So, we're just throwing a lot of ideas and trying to determine in which category they belong.
About Chrono Trigger: I'd argue that the ones at the end of the game are a special category of sidequests: the game actually expects you to complete some to have a good chance at defeating the final boss, so they could be considered parts of the main storyline...
author=LockeZ
XP is really the thing that makes sidequests feel broken to me in most RPGs. The other rewards are much more easily managed.
Well... since in most RPGs XP come directly from battle, making sidequests that don't involve dungeons would avoid the problem altogether. (Even if a sidequest involves a miniboss or two, the XP provided wouldn't probably be enough to unbalance everything).
