Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Failing the Initiative Roll, "Content" Versus Choice
Ceridith
Member UncommonPosts: 2,980
We're all more than familiar with the argument of "themepark" versus "sandbox" MMOs. Themeparks tend to offer more content than sandbox MMOs, however they have less freedom. Sandbox MMOs on the other hand have much more freedom, but are often labeled as having less content. This of course then boils down to those who are pro sandbox bashing themeparks as being too linear, and those who are pro themepark claiming sandbox MMOs have too little to do.
Let’s examine these claims for a moment.
Do themepark MMOs have more content? At a glance, yes. Quests, dungeons, and raids, the staples of what is considered content in today’s MMOs. There are sandbox MMOs that do contain dungeons and raids, perhaps in a slightly different context, but they do exist. The main difference however, the main content that themepark MMOs have over sandbox MMOs in terms of content, is quests. But when we really peel back the surface, how substance do quests really contain? Rather, let me re-iterate, how much value does this so called content truly add?
Most quests can be summed up in these three categories. “Kill X”, “Collect Y”, and “Go to Z”. Most other quests are a variation on these three archetypes. Now my question is, what do these really add in terms of value to a game? Most of these tasks are more than possible to do without quests, even in a sandbox MMO. The difference however, is that the context and intent of such actions are different. Within a themepark MMO, a player may be given the quest to go to the mountains outside of a town to kill ten mountain lions for their pelts to bring back to an NPC to make a jacket. In a sandbox MMO, a player can similarly go to the mountains outside of a town, kill ten mountain lions, and then skin them of their pelts to either use said pelts to craft themselves a jacket, or to trade them to another player who can similarly use them.
So why then is so much emphasis put into quests as being content? Oddly, it’s been a major complain of players at times that there is a lack of quests. Yet, do we even need most of them? Do I really need a quest to tell me to kill ten rats to do it? Why can I not simply go kill ten rats because I can? Perhaps it is because in themepark MMOs there is too much incentive to do quests. We are rewarded with extra experience, equipment, and other such incentive to prod us into following a pre-defined set of quests along a chain as we progress through the game. This is in fact, a major complain on the other side of the fence, which is that said quests are too linear, holding players hands and near forcing them down the exact same path if they want to advance at a reasonable pace were they to play through more than once.
Which brings me to my next question: why is it that some players prefer quests, and others do not?
Oddly, most tasks involved by quests are to do things which are otherwise perfectly possible to accomplish without a quest. Some quests may require certain gimmick mechanics only particular to that quest, i.e. being given an item that is required to use to achieve a particular quest objective, but those mechanics are perfectly possible of being made available outside of a quest were a developer so inclined. But why is following directions so appealing over the alternative of making your own choices? Do some players simply need to be told what to do to enjoy themselves? Is it more fun for them if they do not have to think or make many choices? I honestly can’t speak for everyone, but it certainly is beginning to seem that way not only considering the growing prevalence of quests within games, but that many games are even making questing even easier by adding “quest helpers” that point players in the exact direction so they barely need to read, comprehend, or even think about what they are doing.
Now I am not saying that questing is an inherently bad mechanic. It does have its uses if applied properly. I do feel however that it is far more often than not that quests are far too overused in MMOs today. This is especially so if quests reward so much that they begin to feel mandatory. This is especially so when quests are required to achieve character advancement that is otherwise unobtainable without doing said quests. The MMO Fallen Earth springs to mind, where 30% of the regular maximum skill points can be earned as “bonuses” from completing quests. While they may technically be optional, they are in many players’ eyes a requirement for fully advancing your character, which can result in said quests being perceived more as chores more than anything else.
Perhaps I am too much of an old school gamer who played a little too much Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxy – Pre CU. Personally I never felt like I needed to be told where to go or what to do in an MMO. Even without quests, I would always find several things to keep myself busy with in the MMOs I played. It seems however that many players who are new to the MMO scene are quite the opposite, which is why more an more developers seem to be creating more themepark MMOs. It is that, which I believe is the true disconnect between the older generation of MMO gamers, and those who are newer.
Comments
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, that the "kill ten bears" quest is redundant and doesn't actually need to be a quest. As a matter of fact it should not be a quest if the game was designed correctly.
For example:
If a villager needs you to kill "10" bears, the bears should be encroaching on the village, and actually attacking the village. Turbine has dabbled in this sort of mechanic since AC1. I loved the Vrindi vs Shadow battles on the obsidian plains. Mobs aggroing eachother / mobs and npcs aggroing eachother. They do this a bit in LotRO as well, but the guards of the town are WAY higher level than the mobs in the surrounding area, so, really what do they need me for, those guards would destroy the local mobs...
Now, if the "bears" or "orcs" or "goblins" that you needed to kill ten of to "protect the village" were actually attacking the villagers you would not need to take a quest, you could just kill a bunch that were attacking and then the villagers would "reward you".
Other things... if a certain npc, lost an item to a certian type of mob then if you are fighting that type of mob it should drop for you, regardless if you are on the quest. If you kill a named mob, you should always get some form of "scalp" so that if someone you run into had a Kill quest for them you can show them that you actually already had it.
If you do these little things, then questing can be a whole lot less linear. That doesn't mean there still can't be quest chains but the whole kill x mob in y area quests need to go... the deed system in LotRO and the Achievement system in WoW have shown that this is easy and possible.
Skaroth
See the violence inherent in the system!
I think the OP could have shortened the last part. The simplest explaination for why some players prefer quest and some doesn't is simply because they are different person than each other.
Preference is more or less an indiviuality issue, so there was no need to go into all the analysis about logical reasons as to why someone like or dislike something in a game.
On another note, truthfully themepark and sandbox are not all that different. As long as developers are stuck on these concepts about whether the game they are developing is going to be a sandbox or themepark as a focus, we will not see any sort of revolutionary game design anytime soon.
No games are fun simply because they are sandbox, neither are any games fun just because they are themepark. Whether a game is themepark or sandbox ultimately only affect gameplay entertainment in a small way. There is no reason to brood over which type is better since if it is not fun, sandbox or themepark does not even matter.
P.S By revolutionary I don't mean new or unique, I simply mean more creative ways of designing the contents.
I fully understand that it is a matter of preference. What I was probing into was questioning why the shift in the average preferences of gamers is occurring. I really do not mean this in a manner to bash themepark MMOs, or their players, simply that from what I've observed it seems like said games, and many of their players, are geared more towards less decision making. Again, I am not trying to say that this is a bad thing, moreso that it seems like gameplay is becoming more passive in the grand scheme. Again, not necessarily a bad thing, simply a matter of preference as you put it.
And yes I do agree that themepark and sandbox MMOs are not that different, that is much of the point which I was attempting to get across in regards to one of the old arguments that sandbox MMOs lack content, where as themeparks have content. A closer examination appears to show that content is for the most part equal, and that quests themselves are rarely value added content. Rather, quests are more so a mechanic to guide players in what to do within the game, and in some cases restrictive in gameplay by prodding players along pre-defined paths in order to advance at a reasonable pace, or at all depending on how it is designed.
The true intention of my post was to dispel the myth that volume of content is the difference between themepark and sandbox MMOs. Rather the truth is, that the only real difference between themepark and sandbox MMOs is that themepark MMOs are more passive and in some manners discourage free-form gameplay, where as sandbox MMOs are more engaging and tend to reward exploration and deviation from the norm.
I think to some extent you are trying to dispel a myth that you made up yourself. I don't know where you got the idea that the difference between themeparks and sandboxes is perceived as the volume of content but it is surely much more to do with the quality of content. I can't speak for Pre-NGE SWG but UO and EVE are both very rudimentary in their PvE content. It is simply not the appeal of those games and I say that as someone who played and enjoyed UO for nearly four years.
As for the appeal of quests I think part of it is that they are friendly to more casual and solo styles of play. The alternative in games such as EQ and DAoC was grinding a mob spawn in an xp group. This required a commitment of time and was not that enjoyable to alot of players due to its repetitive nature. Another thing I personally like about quests is that they break a level down into bite-size pieces.
But quite honestly I don't think that the difference between sandboxes and themeparks distills down to quests in any way, shape or form. Quests are a branch of how themeparks have developed but they don't define how the two styles of game are different.