Why do so many people on these forums hate quests?
I see a lot of folks seethe hatred for quests, I just picture the old D&D cartoon Dungeon Master aproaching them and saying something like. "Oh mighty hero, I have a quest for thee!" and then the player spitting in his face and kicking him in the groin for having the odacity to give them a quest.
I guess I just don't get the hatred.
Because as MMORPGs grew in popularity, they somehow began to attract players who would not normally have gravitated to MMORPGs in the 1st place, and since developers have been scrambling to find ways to keep them, the genre itself has evolved from what it once was.
The following is only my observation. Certainly, its not absolute, but I see it as most (not all) MMO players can be divided into 2 (not limited to just 2, but I'm only listing 2) categories.
1. Those who are entertained through a constant sense of action and excitement.
2. Those who are entertained through a sense or reward, a return on the investment they put into their activities
It's that 1st crowd that is larger in size that Devs are trying to keep entertained. This is difficult when the limitations of an ongoing game requires repetition of activities. The 2nd group isn't bothered as much by repetition. You can also say there is a 3rd group here. The overlap between the 2 where most people probably are but it's how close you are to one vs the other that would probably dictate how much you dislike traditional questing much less good old fashioned mob grinding.
I never said to not call them what you want, I was talking mechanics and answering a question. As to your question, if I am looking for a traditional mmo experience, the label is not going to make the game any more or less fun. If I gave you chicken fried rice and told you it was a pizza, it may be good, or suck, but it would be kind of silly.
But definition of MMO is a lot more loose than pizza or chicken.
If you ask me for a sandwich, would you care if it is smoke salmon or turkey as long as both taste great to you?
May be the problem with MMOs is the name. If they are all called corpg, then you will like them?
I think I said no.
So you care about the label of a game instead of how fun it is? If i somehow relabel games, you will change what you like, and what you do?
A odd way to approach gaming ... but i suppose that is your prerogative of how to decide on your preference. Mine is more consistent. I care about the quality of a game, not what it is called.
I never said to not call them what you want, I was talking mechanics and answering a question. As to your question, if I am looking for a traditional mmo experience, the label is not going to make the game any more or less fun. If I gave you chicken fried rice and told you it was a pizza, it may be good, or suck, but it would be kind of silly.
But definition of MMO is a lot more loose than pizza or chicken.
If you ask me for a sandwich, would you care if it is smoke salmon or turkey as long as both taste great to you?
May be the problem with MMOs is the name. If they are all called corpg, then you will like them?
I think I said no.
So you care about the label of a game instead of how fun it is? If i somehow relabel games, you will change what you like, and what you do?
A odd way to approach gaming ... but i suppose that is your prerogative of how to decide on your preference. Mine is more consistent. I care about the quality of a game, not what it is called.
Uhm no, I said what I do not like, call it anything you want. I personally am not a big fan of games you play alone (formerly known as single player), so the more it is like that, the less I probably like it in general. I am not a mash up fan, I tend to like stuff that stays more in its traditional space, that way when I want to play a certain way, what I grab does that. If it is trying to be multiple things, it doesn't do what I want it to do up to my standards, and that's what I play something for, to please me. So call something anything you want, if it sucks for me, it sucks for me no matter the name.
Why do so many people on these forums hate quests?
I see a lot of folks seethe hatred for quests, I just picture the old D&D cartoon Dungeon Master aproaching them and saying something like. "Oh mighty hero, I have a quest for thee!" and then the player spitting in his face and kicking him in the groin for having the odacity to give them a quest.
I guess I just don't get the hatred.
a few items
1. 'questing' has been around since the 70s. 40 or so years of one game mechanic makes one wonder how innovative the industry really is.
2. In the days of table top D&D you had the option to decline the quest and the DM would still make the adventure interesting. It was never required to say yes to an offered quest.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Since a good quest is merely a vehicle for a good story that you are involved with we could say this is about reading, and That has been around for thousands of years!
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom Since a good quest is merely a vehicle for a good story that you are involved with we could say this is about reading, and That has been around for thousands of years!
story telling is a great example of how slow innovation is in the gaming industry.
Take a look at books, movies and TV. If those technologies where games almost every show would be fantasy based storyline with combat as a given assumption.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It's the delivery and structure of most quests in most games that most people hate. An epic quest to save the queen before she's overrun by an army of undead is slightly different than collecting 10 boar asses.
If WoW was released today even in its' entirety it would be f2p in 3 months. Why is it still such a big deal?
Originally posted by kDeviL It's the delivery and structure of most quests in most games that most people hate. An epic quest to save the queen before she's overrun by an army of undead is slightly different than collecting 10 boar asses.
That is because MMORPGs have not learned enough from SP games yet.
SP games do quests well. No one hates the missions in Deus Ex or the "quests" in Dishonored.
Agreed, it's not quests that is the issue, it's bad quests. So saying questing has not evolved and you hate quests is the same as saying all new books are bad because they are books. Re comparison to tv, it has evolved no different, you have your sci fi, your fantasy, your horror etc and lots of variants- no different to quests- IF you are prepared to actually engage in the story.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom Agreed, it's not quests that is the issue, it's bad quests. So saying questing has not evolved and you hate quests is the same as saying all new books are bad because they are books. Re comparison to tv, it has evolved no different, you have your sci fi, your fantasy, your horror etc and lots of variants- no different to quests- IF you are prepared to actually engage in the story.
completely disagree
It has been falsely assumed that certian elements are required to make a good game such as quests and combat. This is un-innovative thinking. Why is it assumed that combat for example is required for it to be a good game? or quests for that matter. There are plenty of good games that have neither yet for MMO its assumed that the server will not work if those two items do not exist.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Agreed, it's not quests that is the issue, it's bad quests. So saying questing has not evolved and you hate quests is the same as saying all new books are bad because they are books. Re comparison to tv, it has evolved no different, you have your sci fi, your fantasy, your horror etc and lots of variants- no different to quests- IF you are prepared to actually engage in the story.
completely disagree
It has been falsely assumed that certian elements are required to make a good game such as quests and combat. This is un-innovative thinking. Why is it assumed that combat for example is required for it to be a good game? or quests for that matter. There are plenty of good games that have neither yet for MMO its assumed that the server will not work if those two items do not exist.
I agree with you there, the only thing a MMO really needs is lot of players.
Then again, well written quests are way more fun than badly written ones of course but MMOs can let players progress in other ways as well (beside grinding mobs).
Personally, I think that what is worst however is the silly idea that the more quests the more fun, few large and well written quests are more fun at least to me then a zillion short and easy quests.
Why do so many people on these forums hate quests?
I see a lot of folks seethe hatred for quests
Because they're one of the things that have destroyed the MMO genre.
First, they're almost universally poorly written(so much telling rather than showing, the number one no no of writing). They don't impact the world so it feels like busy work.
The worst part, they're REQUIRED. In the past, quests felt organic, dynamic, well written, challenging, and exciting! Know why? They were optional things people FOUND. Like real quests. Now they're just checklists of chores.
As soon as quests became coupled with leveling, it was over.
Add on top of that, they force people down a linear path, they encourage soloing, they steer MMos more towards singleplayer games and promote content consumption anti social behavior that is detrimental to the longevity of an MMO.
They're just bad, through and through, as they're currently implemented. There's no thought to them. You follow the dotted line to the glowing dookie and repeat 2000 times until the next patch.
First, they're almost universally poorly written(so much telling rather than showing, the number one no no of writing). They don't impact the world so it feels like busy work.
True. That is why they should learn from SP games. Have good scripted instances that can change accordingly to where you are in the quests. It is not that hard to do.
First, they're almost universally poorly written(so much telling rather than showing, the number one no no of writing). They don't impact the world so it feels like busy work.
True. That is why they should learn from SP games. Have good scripted instances that can change accordingly to where you are in the quests. It is not that hard to do.
Or, you know, people can just play a singleplayer game.
An MMO can try day and night to make an MMO as good as a singleplayer game and it will always fail. At BEST what they'll do is have a game that feels like an okay singleplayer game, but it will be an AWFUL MMO.
Instancing further destroys MMOs. You should not be seeking to emulate singleplayer games in that fashion. MMOs are about shared living worlds. The best thing an MMO could do for story would be to embrace the massive and tell story on a huge scale and get the players all involved. GW2 does that somewhat. Asheron's Call did that best.
You can still have the small hidden quests but they CANNOT be tied to leveling.
Or, you know, people can just play a singleplayer game.
An MMO can try day and night to make an MMO as good as a singleplayer game and it will always fail. At BEST what they'll do is have a game that feels like an okay singleplayer game, but it will be an AWFUL MMO.
Instancing further destroys MMOs. You should not be seeking to emulate singleplayer games in that fashion. MMOs are about shared living worlds. The best thing an MMO could do for story would be to embrace the massive and tell story on a huge scale and get the players all involved. GW2 does that somewhat. Asheron's Call did that best.
You can still have the small hidden quests but they CANNOT be tied to leveling.
And people do .. the point is that *if* MMO wants to do quests right, shouldn't they learn from where it is done best ... in SP games?
MMOs are no longer about shared living worlds .. they are about becoming broad MP online games. Otherwise LoL, WoT, DDO, or even D3 wouldn't be listed in the MMORPG list here. In fact, there is no such thing as what it is about .. it is just like any other game type .. responding to the audience.
The best thing for an MMO, from a dev persspective, to do is to be successful .. and if they have to adapt and change, so what?
Originally posted by kDeviL It's the delivery and structure of most quests in most games that most people hate. An epic quest to save the queen before she's overrun by an army of undead is slightly different than collecting 10 boar asses.
That is because MMORPGs have not learned enough from SP games yet.
SP games do quests well. No one hates the missions in Deus Ex or the "quests" in Dishonored.
You found someone! Not a fan of single player games, for the most part.
The quests in ESO are just as good if not better then those in Skyrim. MMOs can do quests fine. Phasing works..
Actually I would argue the opposite - if I was making a new MMO I would make almost all leveling content instances. So what would happen is if you bring your buddy in and he does a part of the world (any part) and completes the questing - both instances change (the instance tied to you and tied to him).
Additionally my whole world would be something that can be scaled (from 1 - 10 players) and the level and difficulty of everything would be scaled and adjusted. So it would be something like Oblivion in this regard. Then your "sandbox' people could do anything in any order - and you could effect real change in the MMO because the world would really change. If you wanted to 'redo' something you would team up with someone who hasn't done the content yet - and would get their 'unchanged' version of the world. But you wouldn't have to do this ever..
GW2 teaches us that you can't scale content effectively beyond a certain number of people (and keep it challenging) it also teaches us that people want real change in their MMO while leveling.
BTW - with my hypothetical design you could still have raiding, adventure zones and PVP for end game players which would be more MMOish..
Originally posted by kDeviL It's the delivery and structure of most quests in most games that most people hate. An epic quest to save the queen before she's overrun by an army of undead is slightly different than collecting 10 boar asses.
That is because MMORPGs have not learned enough from SP games yet.
SP games do quests well. No one hates the missions in Deus Ex or the "quests" in Dishonored.
You found someone! Not a fan of single player games, for the most part.
wow .. really? I guess people really have different taste. I suppose even very popular games have haters. For example, personally i don't like Skyrim. There is too much walking in that game.
Originally posted by kDeviL It's the delivery and structure of most quests in most games that most people hate. An epic quest to save the queen before she's overrun by an army of undead is slightly different than collecting 10 boar asses.
That is because MMORPGs have not learned enough from SP games yet.
SP games do quests well. No one hates the missions in Deus Ex or the "quests" in Dishonored.
You found someone! Not a fan of single player games, for the most part.
wow .. really? I guess people really have different taste. I suppose even very popular games have haters. For example, personally i don't like Skyrim. There is too much walking in that game.
Yeah, I just don't care for playing a game that is only me playing it. I own Skyrim, but I have not even installed it yet, got it for a really good price (why I bought it), but I just haven't felt the urge to play it (probably largely due to it being single player).
Yeah, I just don't care for playing a game that is only me playing it. I own Skyrim, but I have not even installed it yet, got it for a really good price (why I bought it), but I just haven't felt the urge to play it (probably largely due to it being single player).
haha .. interesting. I am the opposite. I don't care for playing a game that have others. I sometimes play with my kids, and I used to be in a raid guild in WoW .. not nearly as much fun as a good solo game .. to me, of course.
The quests in ESO are just as good if not better then those in Skyrim. MMOs can do quests fine. Phasing works..
I think the point that is being missed is that some of us are not interested in quests. That is why Skyrim is such a good example of how two different play styles can co-exist just fine. I have around 300 hours of game play in Skyrim and although I do quests I do not pay attention to them...why? because they are bad? no because i very simply do not want to.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The quests in ESO are just as good if not better then those in Skyrim. MMOs can do quests fine. Phasing works..
I think the point that is being missed is that some of us are not interested in quests. That is why Skyrim is such a good example of how two different play styles can co-exist just fine. I have around 300 hours of game play in Skyrim and although I do quests I do not pay attention to them...why? because they are bad? no because i very simply do not want to.
So if you no problem with others who may like quests, and want to see them improved in MMORPGs?
Comments
Because as MMORPGs grew in popularity, they somehow began to attract players who would not normally have gravitated to MMORPGs in the 1st place, and since developers have been scrambling to find ways to keep them, the genre itself has evolved from what it once was.
The following is only my observation. Certainly, its not absolute, but I see it as most (not all) MMO players can be divided into 2 (not limited to just 2, but I'm only listing 2) categories.
1. Those who are entertained through a constant sense of action and excitement.
2. Those who are entertained through a sense or reward, a return on the investment they put into their activities
It's that 1st crowd that is larger in size that Devs are trying to keep entertained. This is difficult when the limitations of an ongoing game requires repetition of activities. The 2nd group isn't bothered as much by repetition. You can also say there is a 3rd group here. The overlap between the 2 where most people probably are but it's how close you are to one vs the other that would probably dictate how much you dislike traditional questing much less good old fashioned mob grinding.
So you care about the label of a game instead of how fun it is? If i somehow relabel games, you will change what you like, and what you do?
A odd way to approach gaming ... but i suppose that is your prerogative of how to decide on your preference. Mine is more consistent. I care about the quality of a game, not what it is called.
Uhm no, I said what I do not like, call it anything you want. I personally am not a big fan of games you play alone (formerly known as single player), so the more it is like that, the less I probably like it in general. I am not a mash up fan, I tend to like stuff that stays more in its traditional space, that way when I want to play a certain way, what I grab does that. If it is trying to be multiple things, it doesn't do what I want it to do up to my standards, and that's what I play something for, to please me. So call something anything you want, if it sucks for me, it sucks for me no matter the name.
a few items
1. 'questing' has been around since the 70s. 40 or so years of one game mechanic makes one wonder how innovative the industry really is.
2. In the days of table top D&D you had the option to decline the quest and the DM would still make the adventure interesting. It was never required to say yes to an offered quest.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
That is just plain silly. Questing today (takes Tomb Raider for example) and compared that to Ultima 3 quests, it was like night and day.
You may as well say flat video screens used for home video games have been around since PONG, so how innovative the industry really is?
yeah I stand by what I said. Being innovative WITHIN the boundries of 'questing' is not being innovative I am sorry.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
story telling is a great example of how slow innovation is in the gaming industry.
Take a look at books, movies and TV. If those technologies where games almost every show would be fantasy based storyline with combat as a given assumption.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If WoW was released today even in its' entirety it would be f2p in 3 months.
Why is it still such a big deal?
That is because MMORPGs have not learned enough from SP games yet.
SP games do quests well. No one hates the missions in Deus Ex or the "quests" in Dishonored.
No one really hates quests, they hate the repetitive nature of the poorly thought out and designed quests coked out developers create today.
Lack of creativity is really what I hate, I personally love questing when they are well thought out and engaging.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
completely disagree
It has been falsely assumed that certian elements are required to make a good game such as quests and combat. This is un-innovative thinking. Why is it assumed that combat for example is required for it to be a good game? or quests for that matter. There are plenty of good games that have neither yet for MMO its assumed that the server will not work if those two items do not exist.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I agree with you there, the only thing a MMO really needs is lot of players.
Then again, well written quests are way more fun than badly written ones of course but MMOs can let players progress in other ways as well (beside grinding mobs).
Personally, I think that what is worst however is the silly idea that the more quests the more fun, few large and well written quests are more fun at least to me then a zillion short and easy quests.
Because they're one of the things that have destroyed the MMO genre.
First, they're almost universally poorly written(so much telling rather than showing, the number one no no of writing). They don't impact the world so it feels like busy work.
The worst part, they're REQUIRED. In the past, quests felt organic, dynamic, well written, challenging, and exciting! Know why? They were optional things people FOUND. Like real quests. Now they're just checklists of chores.
As soon as quests became coupled with leveling, it was over.
Add on top of that, they force people down a linear path, they encourage soloing, they steer MMos more towards singleplayer games and promote content consumption anti social behavior that is detrimental to the longevity of an MMO.
They're just bad, through and through, as they're currently implemented. There's no thought to them. You follow the dotted line to the glowing dookie and repeat 2000 times until the next patch.
True. That is why they should learn from SP games. Have good scripted instances that can change accordingly to where you are in the quests. It is not that hard to do.
Or, you know, people can just play a singleplayer game.
An MMO can try day and night to make an MMO as good as a singleplayer game and it will always fail. At BEST what they'll do is have a game that feels like an okay singleplayer game, but it will be an AWFUL MMO.
Instancing further destroys MMOs. You should not be seeking to emulate singleplayer games in that fashion. MMOs are about shared living worlds. The best thing an MMO could do for story would be to embrace the massive and tell story on a huge scale and get the players all involved. GW2 does that somewhat. Asheron's Call did that best.
You can still have the small hidden quests but they CANNOT be tied to leveling.
And people do .. the point is that *if* MMO wants to do quests right, shouldn't they learn from where it is done best ... in SP games?
MMOs are no longer about shared living worlds .. they are about becoming broad MP online games. Otherwise LoL, WoT, DDO, or even D3 wouldn't be listed in the MMORPG list here. In fact, there is no such thing as what it is about .. it is just like any other game type .. responding to the audience.
The best thing for an MMO, from a dev persspective, to do is to be successful .. and if they have to adapt and change, so what?
You found someone! Not a fan of single player games, for the most part.
The quests in ESO are just as good if not better then those in Skyrim. MMOs can do quests fine. Phasing works..
Actually I would argue the opposite - if I was making a new MMO I would make almost all leveling content instances. So what would happen is if you bring your buddy in and he does a part of the world (any part) and completes the questing - both instances change (the instance tied to you and tied to him).
Additionally my whole world would be something that can be scaled (from 1 - 10 players) and the level and difficulty of everything would be scaled and adjusted. So it would be something like Oblivion in this regard. Then your "sandbox' people could do anything in any order - and you could effect real change in the MMO because the world would really change. If you wanted to 'redo' something you would team up with someone who hasn't done the content yet - and would get their 'unchanged' version of the world. But you wouldn't have to do this ever..
GW2 teaches us that you can't scale content effectively beyond a certain number of people (and keep it challenging) it also teaches us that people want real change in their MMO while leveling.
BTW - with my hypothetical design you could still have raiding, adventure zones and PVP for end game players which would be more MMOish..
wow .. really? I guess people really have different taste. I suppose even very popular games have haters. For example, personally i don't like Skyrim. There is too much walking in that game.
Yeah, I just don't care for playing a game that is only me playing it. I own Skyrim, but I have not even installed it yet, got it for a really good price (why I bought it), but I just haven't felt the urge to play it (probably largely due to it being single player).
haha .. interesting. I am the opposite. I don't care for playing a game that have others. I sometimes play with my kids, and I used to be in a raid guild in WoW .. not nearly as much fun as a good solo game .. to me, of course.
I think the point that is being missed is that some of us are not interested in quests. That is why Skyrim is such a good example of how two different play styles can co-exist just fine. I have around 300 hours of game play in Skyrim and although I do quests I do not pay attention to them...why? because they are bad? no because i very simply do not want to.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So if you no problem with others who may like quests, and want to see them improved in MMORPGs?