By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Repetitive side quests or shorter games?

Tagged games:

So, I'm playing Dead Island.  At one point, I have to liberate the pumping station so the church can have fresh water again.  No problem.  It takes me to a part of the city I haven't visited previously and adventuring is what games are all about.  I'm a badass, so I get the job done and return to the church to turn in the quest.

Then--THEN--one of the survivors, Bruno, is all like, "hey, Sam B, you know what, I need some tools to make the church stronger."

I say, "sure, just tell me where I need to go."

"They're in the pumping station."

"Wait, I just got back from--"

"You finished that job yet?"

"Look, Bruno, why didn't you tell me to get those tools before I went to the pumping station the first--"

"You finished that job yet?"

I sigh and walk away.  I want to kill him but I can't.  But you know what?  I do the quest anyway.  I complain and give Bruno the finger but I still bring back the tools.  I'm a hero, how can I refuse?  Also, that exp.

The game is full of these type of quests.  Lots of games are.  They're a way to extend game-play and keep the player immersed in the game-world longer.  They also serve to increase the perceived value of the game.  Still, many people, including myself, often complain about repetitive side quests and meaningless fetch quests.

I'm not a child, though.  I understand the economics of the situation.  They're in there because they're easy and quick to program.  The alternative for most of them would probably be the simple exclusion of anything at all.  If the majority of these types of quests were removed, there would likely be nothing put in their place.

So, what does everyone think?  Do you complain about filler quests?  Do you perform these quests or do you skip them?  Would you rather they stay in the game, even if they kind of suck?  Or would you take a shorter game with better quest structure?



Around the Network

Why not both?



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

I don't mind filler quests as long as they don't get in the way (forced to play them or otherwise you lag behind the enemy level). Quests overall could use some refinement, though. Considering the amount of terrible filler quests Fable 3 had, there was that D&D one that was utterly brilliant, and I wondered why more quests couldn't be like that.



vivster said:
Why not both?


Repetetive side quests in a short game? I dunno, that doesn't sound so good...

 

OT: I feel like if quests are to improve your immersion, they have to be realistic. Being sent back to the exact same you just came from to get something isn't realistic, it's just stupid. That could've been a quest a bit later on in the game, and they could incorporate something else you might stumble over when going back to the Pumping Station to fetch that thing. That would be a lot more immersive than telling you to get back to the place you just frikking came for. It doesn't really answer the question, but it's kinda relevant.



I love side quests. Especially when I want to explore a world/dungeons.

I like having the option to go do them.



[Switch Friend code: 3909-3991-4970]

[Xbox Live: JissuWolfe]

[PSN: Jissu]

Around the Network

It really depends on the kind of experience you're going for.

If we take something like Skyrim, where a lot of the point is in micromanaging your character, building their stats, getting items, and so on so forth, then it's ok for there to be somewhat generic sidequests, because the sidequests are a vehicle that allows you to engage with the game's core mechanics.

On the other hand, in a game like Bayonetta where the focus is on big action moments, then too many sidequests would screw up the experience.

So, there is definitely a place for repetitive sidequests, but they only work if the core mechanics of the game demand it, and if the mechanics are fun enough that they can make rote sidequests enjoyable.



Teeqoz said:
vivster said:
Why not both?


Repetetive side quests in a short game? I dunno, that doesn't sound so good...

Yes but then you won't have to do as many repetitive side quests because it's so short. That way you can be done quicker and get back to Rocket League.

It's a win win, really.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
Teeqoz said:


Repetetive side quests in a short game? I dunno, that doesn't sound so good...

Yes but then you won't have to do as many repetitive side quests because it's so short. That way you can be done quicker and get back to Rocket League.

It's a win win, really.


I never thought of it in that way.  Brilliant.



Wright said:

I don't mind filler quests as long as they don't get in the way (forced to play them or otherwise you lag behind the enemy level). Quests overall could use some refinement, though. Considering the amount of terrible filler quests Fable 3 had, there was that D&D one that was utterly brilliant, and I wondered why more quests couldn't be like that.

Personally, I have a very hard time making myself skip quests.  I know that doesn't apply to everyone, though, and it's hardly the developer's fault.  So, yeah, if you aren't really penalized by skipping them then there shouldn't be a problem--but most games give a lot of exp for quests, so by skipping them, you kind of are being hurt, at least in games where exp opens up new skills.  In Dead Island, for example, you want to get Sam's final Stomp skill as soon as possible because it's so damn good, which means you want exp.

Personally, I'd like less blatant filler quests, even if it does mean a slightly shorter game.  Instead, I'd prefer if the filler quests the game does have are better in quality.  Using Dead Island as an example once again, I've done two separate quests where I have to go get insulin for someone and another where I have to go get an inhaler.  That's kind of annoying.  I'd rather they cut one of those out and make one insulin quest that's really good.  

Also, multiple filler quests that you get at the same time, which are in roughly the same area, aren't nearly as bad as quests that make you back-track.



JWeinCom said:
It really depends on the kind of experience you're going for.

If we take something like Skyrim, where a lot of the point is in micromanaging your character, building their stats, getting items, and so on so forth, then it's ok for there to be somewhat generic sidequests, because the sidequests are a vehicle that allows you to engage with the game's core mechanics.

On the other hand, in a game like Bayonetta where the focus is on big action moments, then too many sidequests would screw up the experience.

So, there is definitely a place for repetitive sidequests, but they only work if the core mechanics of the game demand it, and if the mechanics are fun enough that they can make rote sidequests enjoyable.

I guess it does depend a lot on the type of game.  Skyrim was so big that a lot of the quests were designed to lead you to places you might never visit otherwise.  That's in contrast to Dead Island's filler quests, which might make you clear the same street a dozen times.

I'd still take less filler quests in trade for fewer filler quests with higher quality, though.