Open worlds should try this.

[pokoko]

patronmacabre said:

I am going to go with a completely radical alternative solution.

Games shouldn't have side quests at all -- or if they exist, they should be done sparingly. Alternative branches that have a meaningful impact on the story, sure. But side quests almost always dilute the game and weaken the cohesiveness of the story. The best parts of the game are confined to the main story. Unless the side quests are of equal quality to the main story or they present a new view to the game's broader story, they shouldn't exist.

Personally, I vastly prefer optional challenges (akin to Shrines in Breath of the Wild or challenges in Gravity Rush, Grand Theft Auto, or Jak and Daxter) than side quests.

I somewhat agree, though many games use them to push players into exploring areas.  Some players go through an open world game and miss like 80% of the content.  I talk to people who "beat" a Fallout or Elder Scrolls game but have no clue about many of the most interesting locations.  This type of person seems to need a push.  Others have some kind of OCD thing going on where they want side quests so they can have boxes to tick off.  Even though I might not share those play-styles, they're still as valid as any other.

Personally, one of my favorite recent quests in a game was an unmarked quest in Fallout 4.  People who need a log entry would probably ignore it, but putting together all the pieces told a tragic story about a settlement that was slaughtered because a girl there stumbled over a secret.  I love that kind of things but, honestly, I bet most people never even picked it up.