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:

I think the more quests the better as long as it has an end goal.

For example a side quest in FFX is pretty much kill all monsters 10 times. If you capture a lot of the same species a mega monster is created then you get x99 of a certain item for synthesis and ability purposes, in addition to a fun fight. (If you aren't max)

Surer killing all the monsters 10 times can be boring, but the reward is very fun.

 

If they did this for a single monster and not for all, then many people would be disappointed.



Around the Network

I prefer games like Uncharted and TLoU.Best designed games and just right.



pokoko said:

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?

I think it depends on the game. Unfortunately many games are going to have to do quests like fetch quests. The thing I wish is that it were a bit more open like some games are and have the ability to get multiple tasks completed in a single area at one time without the need to travel back and forth, even if there is fast travel. It seems unnecessary. I have no problem going back to an area if there is something new to see, or later in the game, maybe something changes whatever. That's all good, but the constant back and forth makes me tire of games very quickly. Zelda often does it right, you learn a new skill and use it to open a new area within a certain area. FO does well with its hubs to quest collection. Some games are able to do it quite well, while others seem to have a much harder time purely because they are trying to make the game seem longer or it's just bad planning.



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Well, more side quests are always nice, since you have the option to do more rather than a short game, so I'll pick more side quests



NintenDomination [May 2015 - July 2017]
 

  - Official  VGChartz Tutorial Thread - 

NintenDomination [2015/05/19 - 2017/07/02]
 

          

 

 

Here lies the hidden threads. 

 | |

Nintendo Metascore | Official NintenDomination | VGC Tutorial Thread

| Best and Worst of Miiverse | Manga Discussion Thead |
[3DS] Winter Playtimes [Wii U]

Shorter games. I hate filler in games. I don't have enough time to play all my games anyway so I often prefer games to be short (unless they're really great)



Spending warm summer days indoors   

Writing frightening verse

To a buck-toothed girl in Luxembourg

NES, SNES, N64, GC, Wii, WiiU, GB, GBC, GBA, DS, 3DS, Mega Drive, Game Gear, PS1, PS2, PSP, XBOX 360, Atari Lynx

Around the Network

Shorter games.

Games these days are packed with useless side quests and icons on maps to collect this and that.



Personally, the only thing that makes side quests interesting are good stories. I don't care what they make me do, or if they make me do it a 100 times, if there's a good (story wise) reward at the end, I'm fine. Obviously, it's impossible for a game to have good stories for all side-quest (especially on big open worlds), but the more interesting stories you can have, the better.

This is probably why I don't like MMORPGs (the ones I have tried at least) but I love Fallout series. And I'm currently playing The Witcher 3, which so far has the best side-quests I have seen in a video game.

In general though, I prefer shorter games, since I think my "philosophy" of side-quest stories are more of an exception rather than the rule.



Nintendo and PC gamer

Repetitiveness is subjective to the player, but its a sign of bad game design if the to many people perceive it as repetitive. Its lack of variety and compulsion.
If you really think about it, every game has the player doing basically the same thing over and over again, using variety and game design to keep players interested.
Look at COD,
KH,
DOTA,
repetition with variation.

Length is a factor, but it simply a lack of capability.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Repetitiveness is subjective to the player, but its a sign of bad game design if the to many people perceive it as repetitive. Its lack of variety and compulsion.
If you really think about it, every game has the player doing basically the same thing over and over again, using variety and game design to keep players interested.
Look at COD,
KH,
DOTA,
repetition with variation.

Length is a factor, but it simply a lack of capability.

This is actually a very well put statement. But doesn't the nature of rpg's restrict the side quests to lower value?

What I mean is, in dota or cod or melee, every tiny detail is assessed to see if a competitive advantage can be attained. This is the nature of those who play to compete.

In rpg's however, not only are side quests typically a solo endeavor, but a majority of the time they are optional. Why is this important? Because most dev's won't spend a lot of time making optional side quests that are packed with fun content. That energy would be better spent on the mandatory main storyline.  



Shorter games. Over the last few years I've actually noticed that I'm becoming more drawn to shorter games in general.

Maybe it's because I've been busier with school and work, but I almost view it as a value proposition. Instead of "is this game worth $60?" it's "is this game worth 60 hours?" and often times I find that they aren't.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.