188 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

These suggestions that the different areas be different based on the order in which they're played is basically a request for four different games. Each area would have to be designed completely for each different possible state of things.

If they'd done this with DAO, it wouldn't be released yet.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That is BG's one glaring flaw.  A perfectly reasonable desire for the PC is to run away from all these assassins, rather than hunting down their source - but the game doesn't let you do that and doesn't give any reason why.

How would you have implemented running away? Give the player an option to quit the game by leaving for Neverwinter,  Amn, or Iraebor when the party's at  the edge of the map?

I've changed the order every time I've played through DAO, but I play through BG in mostly the same order every time.  The same for KotOR (both games I still play).

The same order? Are you always playing the same character?

The first time I played BG, I somehow missed Xzar and Montaron, and I didn't go to the Friendly Arm Inn (it seemed foolish to keep following Gorion's plan given that he'd already led us into one ambush), so no one ever told me to go to Nashkel.  However, I went there because it was the opposite direction from the Friendly Arm, and once there I picked up two party members, both of whom wanted to go to the Gnoll Stronghold.  So I thought THAT was where the main plot was.

The funny thing is that you were exactly right. Go to the Friendly Arm and you do blunder into an ambush.

  But even then I didn't find the main plot because I didn't read Mulahey's notes carefully, so I didn't ever go looking for Tranzig.

Didn't the journal tip you off? It worked out better for you that it didn't, of course.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

How would you have implemented running away?

I wouldn't.  The game should instead come up with some reason why flight isn't a good idea (as DAO does - running away ends the world).  BG is correct not to offer the option, but it would be better if there was some reason not to want it in the first place.

The same order? Are you always playing the same character?

In BG, yes.  Dual-classed Human Thief-Necromancer.  You can see the custom portait I use just to the left.

In KotOR, each class combination I tried had a different sequence, but the class I preferred gets replayed a lot and always follows the same path (because that's the path that makes sense for that character).

The funny thing is that you were exactly right. Go to the Friendly Arm and you do blunder into an ambush.

And now I know that.  It makes me feel pretty good about my choice (though staying off the road did cause an unfortunate encounter with Droth the Ogre Mage at low level).

Didn't the journal tip you off? It worked out better for you that it didn't, of course.

Checking the Journal all the time is more a more modern game feature.  There was a time (and BG falls in that era) where you didn't really need to check the journal unless you'd been away from the game for a bit, because all the information you needed was given to you within the game world proper.  Read the notes and talk to the NPCs and you'd learn what you needed to do.  The journal always seemed like such a crutch.

Modern games don't do this, and instead force you to read your journal, which is routinely filled with meta-game content about where to go and what to do, even when you haven't figured it out yet.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I wouldn't.  The game should instead come up with some reason why flight isn't a good idea (as DAO does - running away ends the world).  BG is correct not to offer the option, but it would be better if there was some reason not to want it in the first place.

What would work, though? Can't do anything like the DA thing because the PC isn't that significant yet. Can't do anything that assigns a motive to the PC that he might not have. That leaves just practical considerations. I can't think of anything workable offhand.

though staying off the road did cause an unfortunate encounter with Droth the Ogre Mage at low level).

Ouch.

Modern games don't do this, and instead force you to read your journal, which is routinely filled with meta-game content about where to go and what to do, even when you haven't figured it out yet.

I'm not so much bothered by the journal having the metagame info in it, since I don't have to use it. What bugs me more is being forced to use the journal to learn something that wasn't actually in the NPC conversation or documents I got the quest from.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

What would work, though? Can't do anything like the DA thing because the PC isn't that significant yet. Can't do anything that assigns a motive to the PC that he might not have. That leaves just practical considerations. I can't think of anything workable offhand.

Depending on the setting there are all sorts of ways to do this.  A Ravenloft setting has the mist that turns you around and sends you back.  You could have some sort of magical malfunction erecting a barrier.  In BG in particular, you could assert (and the player wouldn't know this until much later in the game) that the Bhaalspawn can't get too far from each other or leave a given area until there's only one left.  Some attempt to explain what's going on and why you can't leave the area should be sufficient.

Even just unwinnable encounters with Sarevok's assassins if you try to travel beyond the map.  Remember, Sarevok wants to kill you.  That means he can't let you get away.

I'm not so much bothered by the journal having the metagame info in it, since I don't have to use it. What bugs me more is being forced to use the journal to learn something that wasn't actually in the NPC conversation or documents I got the quest from.

Isn't that metagame information.  It's information you need, but it's information the PC never learned anywhere.  If the PC is supposed to make a decision based on some piece of information, then the PC needs to find that information in the gameworld.

The journal is designed to deliver information to the player, not the PC, and that's where it goes wrong.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
I'd argue that Baldur's Gate did it by having a main plot that was nonexistent for the majority of the game.

Yes, that was great.

Perhaps for you.  It left me with a character who was forced to act out of character because he couldn't do what he in character would do.  It seriously bugs me that you aren't able to make any attempt to try and find out who's trying to kill you.

Between first leaving Candlekeep and finding Sarevok's papers, everything you do is esentially sidequests, the largest of which coincidentally involves people important to the main plot.

Again, I think this is an ideal construction.

Perhaps if you're given sufficient reason to pursue said sidequest.  Except when playing the most do-gooder of characters, though, I have a hard time coming up with sufficient reason for my character to want to get involved in any of the iron shortage stuff...it seems to pale in comparison to trying to find out who's trying to kill me.

I still maintain that my character in BG had absolutely no reason to want to get involved with the iron shortage subplot, nor any reason to want to go to the city of Baldur's Gate (where, with the amount of people around, he'd be more exposed to unexpected attack.)

That is BG's one glaring flaw.  A perfectly reasonable desire for the PC is to run away from all these assassins, rather than hunting down their source - but the game doesn't let you do that and doesn't give any reason why.

Running away from the assassins is certainly a reasonable first choice, and it's a bit annoying you're not given any motivation to find the source instead of running away.  But I'm still more bothered that you're not given any chance to try and find out who killed Gorion (and incidentally tried to kill you), but instead just kind of luck into finding out who is responsible.  I suppose I just wish I'd been able to take a more proactive approach (I hate using that phrase) to finding out who's trying to kill me, instead of just messing around with all this side stuff (not that I want the side stuff to be gone, mind you.)

I maintain that there needs to be some sort of direction given in a game.  It doesn't need to be as explicit as "go here and do this" like is so common in modern games, but you need something to get you started.  Otherwise, I think it's too overwhelming to have this whole world to explore and no idea where to even start (which is, when I think about it, odd, because computer games tend to be the only time when I have this issue.)

That overwhemling feeling has benefits.  Since the player can't just go do what he's supposed to do (as there isn't anything he's supposed to do), he's forced to limit the scope of his concerns to his character.  It promotes roleplaying, something gamers seem to be doing less and less these days.

It certainly promotes roleplaying in those of us who roleplay.  I think you'd find (I'm not stating this as a certainty, mind you, just a reasoned supposition) that those who don't roleplay are more likely to just become frustrated and toss the game aside.

Anyway, on the subject of linearity, I've got to admit to a bit of ambivalence.  I find that even in games that have non-linearity, I usually play through them in the same order...only occasionally in DA have I switched up the order in which I did things (which was actually nice, because it made at least the first area much harder.)

I've changed the order every time I've played through DAO, but I play through BG in mostly the same order every time.  The same for KotOR (both games I still play).

Well, I'll admit the addition of the no companion auto-level has freed me up to play in a different order from that I played before getting it (I don't like playing without a healer) I still tend to go in a fairly similar order.

[Harcken]

I'd like certain hubs and villages exclusively for side quests, whereas certain areas will be reserved for the progression of the main storyline.

[filetemon]

AlanC9 wrote...
Interesting ideas, but depending on how they're done they could take a hell of a lot of dev time.

yes. but  if we never saw a bioware rpg before, and be told there would be choices, we'd probably say it is impossible to make those fit into a game

AlanC9 wrote...
This is pointless. There'd be no reason to go to the tower at all if you can't win the aid of one of the groups there. You could have all the mages killed if the player goes there, in which case it's pretty much like siding with tte Templars. The only thing you'd really have to change is introducing Wynne outside the tower.

yes but it's just an example of a scenario changing based on choices

AlanC9 wrote...

Or: If you go to Ferelden first, you have the chance to sneak on Loghains castle and kill him, provoking a civil war, having to end the war before Alistair can claim the throne. If you did orzammar before ferelden, you can ask for the dwarf king's army help to pacify ferelden.

This would need a huge amount of scripting to be any good.

again, we are not developers and do not know how it can it be done but if bioware has been giving us different endings, different origins, choices, romances and stuff that nobody made fit before into a game to this extent, maybe they can pull it off.

Or maybe all this "limited resources" speech, provided mostly by Mr Gaider (who btw is an awsome insider ) proves to have room for improvement if/when the players get tired of the old formula and start demanding more.As long we are satisfied with what bioware provides, they won't make the huge effort to make the world change to our choices, those would be tangible choices, since, and don't flame me, the choices on bioware games range from low to medium impact on the story, it's all about "select the nice or the moronic answer" kill this one or kill that one" "side with this or that faction and don't worry because whatever you do in the next chapter the story is the same and only the people appearing on the cutscene changes" "get a box of text on the ending telling you what happened" and "import a savegame to have an email sent in-game to you telling you about the choices you did"

[wanderon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

I agree with much of what is written in your post Sylvius I just really didnt like how it worked in Dragon Age, the blight was a poor plot mechanic tbh.

I agree that the implementation of the Blight really didn't leave much room for exploration of your character or his motivations at your own pace.  The story has URGENCY written all over it right from the start, and that constrains gameplay quite a lot.

I do hope that BioWare moves away from the urgency model in future games.  And I've been telling them that for quite some time.

(Possible BG2 Spoilers ahead)

This was an issue for me in BG2 as well. After having a certain companion essentially forced on you and almost immediately tied directly to the main plot the gamer is then directed to a seemingly unending list of side quests by every Tom Dick and Harry he meets in the area where this has occured while his next obvious RP choice (dealing with the issue presented by the forced companion) is only superficially delayed by the need to gather some cash.

Every single sidequest is then presented as if it were a life and death matter that must be solved immediately yet the reality is you can ignore almost any of them for as long as you wish and they will sit there waiting for you until they become almost completely meaningless from an RP/plot standpoint and only have any value from an experience grinding or special equipment drop point of view.

I also agree that the plot integration was handled much better in BG1 remaining hidden from the player for some time and thus allowing the player a large amount of freedom early on to explore the world and develop his character outside the quite linear plot line without feeling like he was at odds with the plot line by doing so. I think this is probably one of the best examples of how lack of strict linearity need not detract from excellent story telling.

My opinion on the whole linearity vs freedom of choice in CRPGs leans more toward freedom of choice but not to the extremes of games like Morrowind where the main plot becomes nothing more than an optional sidequest.

To me thedfference between story telling in literature and the CRPG is that the CRPG should offer the player the chance to interact within the story with his decisions not only changing the final outcome but perhaps changing the manner in which things happen along the way - thus the game needs to be capable of telling several different stories as opposed to a single linear tale.
 
I understand that due to the constraints on time & resources that often times the changes that the player can effect may seem superficial and that many people dismiss them out of hand when two somewhat different pathways provided end up leading to the same next step in the plot line. However I still think the effort is worthwhile and I much prefer a game where the devs make the effort to do so rather than putting the game on rails and providing little more than an interactive movie for the player to watch unfold in front of him telling only a single story the writers have decided to tell. 

I want to have the chance to make my own story with each character I play and I want them to play out differently enough to make numerous playthroughs fresh and enjoyable so that I can enjoy the game for years rather than weeks.

[Wozearly]

Morrowind and the ES series are a different beast, though. Their aim and intended player experience isn't meant to be anything like as plot-driven as Bioware's more structured approach to RPGs. The freeform nature is a blessing and a curse, depending what you like. I've probably spent equal time playing Bethesda and Bioware games, and I think both have a lot of merits in their respective niches.



Going back to the point people were making about doing areas in a different order significantly affecting what happens later, this is a fantastic way of rewarding the player for making choices. However, it can get a bit messy. The larger the changes, and the more scripting required, the longer the game needs to spend in development.



KotoR2 has a good balance with this, as most of the game's choices are essentially swung between 'light' and 'dark' and although you're generally trying to achieve pretty much the same thing on both sides (with one obvious difference!), the end outcome of the game is very different and your supporting factions will be with you for very different reasons.



Its essentially two very long branching paths that don't actually branch very far in terms of content until nearer the endgame, but that both feel very different because of how the player acts, how others react to them, how the story is told via cutscenes and the way the player experiences their character.



I'm not suggesting KotoR2 was perfect by any stretch, but two well-developed parallel storylines worked well. Its naturally going to be harder to well develop alternative storylines in a game like DA:O with its multiple origins and single-minded plot line (you can't exactly go over to the darkspawn), although it does pretty well at the tweaking around the edges so that on a second playthough you do feel that a slightly different story is being told...although by your third playthrough, you do start finding yourself doing the Mage Tower on autopilot (or at least, I do...).

[soteria]

yes. but if we never saw a bioware rpg before, and be told there would be choices, we'd probably say it is impossible to make those fit into a game

I disagree completely. When playing other RPGs, before having ever played a Bioware game, I would wonder, "Why don't I ever get to make a choice? Setting up if -> then conditionals can't be that hard."

[filetemon]

Ok, then why does every body say it's impossible to make the environment and story change based upon our choices? players are not developers, so they don't know. And developers will always say something is impossible to do, unless they are forced to try because the fanbase asks for it.

[soteria]

Everybody? Who says it's impossible?

[SmokeyPSD]

I really disagree with quite a number of the ideas here. Especially the people saying bioware could learn from Square. Please, if anything, Square should be looking at Bioware.

There is Linearity in Dragon Age, and I found the pacing of how everything progressed very well done, nothing felt a stretch with how things played out to me, I went to seek out an ally, and that was that. I got no clue what your going on about some of you people. I ESPECIALLY dont want Bioware pulling a FFXIII and having tunnels of 1 way enemies, ever.

/Edit With the laid out linear story, there is also the sheer amount that it "bends" however, so I've found the more I play, the different it becomes. With the characters you pick, how you treat the small events that come your way, how you talk to people you meet day to day, to the big sweeping events and the consequences they have.

In short, I wouldn't want Bioware to change their approach with Dragon Age one bit, just merely refine it.

Modifié par SmokeyPSD, 10 avril 2010 - 11:58 .

[filetemon]

soteria wrote...

Everybody? Who says it's impossible?

everybody arguing about how certain features, as different story paths, more banter, more armors, more quests and more content "require too much scripting" and "it would cost too much money" to people who asks for them.

It's the automatical response all people use when disagreeing with enabling more choices and content in game.

[0mar]

Dragon Age Origins is already super linear.



When I think non-linear, I think the Fallout series. You can literally go anywhere at any time or complete the game in 30 minutes.



Dragon Age Origins gives you the option of going to several obligatory areas in any sequence. Honestly, Bioware should follow the old-school Square (FF6/FF7/FF8) style, in which have a linear progression for 2/3rds of the game. After that, a significant amount of extra content is available if you want to do it. Else you can simply end the game by doing the final quest.

[Hollingdale]

0mar wrote...

Dragon Age Origins is already super linear.

When I think non-linear, I think the Fallout series. You can literally go anywhere at any time or complete the game in 30 minutes.

Dragon Age Origins gives you the option of going to several obligatory areas in any sequence. Honestly, Bioware should follow the old-school Square (FF6/FF7/FF8) style, in which have a linear progression for 2/3rds of the game. After that, a significant amount of extra content is available if you want to do it. Else you can simply end the game by doing the final quest.

Well that may be true, still the 4 area system does some freedom (with dire consequences however, that clearly, imo, are not worth it) and it's that VS more linear approaches that I mean for the thread to be about. Although as of now the thread has seemingly flourished with advocators of different approaches on how to best balance linearity and freedom. I'm thinking of making another big post advocating the kind of linearity found in the games you mentioned (and also in FFX imo) as I believe they've got the best way of doing it.

However that will be difficult and I may be should I make such a post advocating something that the majority still wouldn't want. A lot of western rpg'ers seem to have a different mindset when playing games than I do. A lot of what they do I believe could be called meta roleplaying, that is to say they take on the role of their protagonist and think out their own motives and thoughts that often, although they go along with those explicitly in the actual game (such as Sylvius playing an elf and visiting those woods, whatever they were called, first instead of any of the other areas) do add to and go beyound them.

While I myself do this to a certain extent I want the game to have me make theese kind of choices in dialogues or not let me them at all by only having one logical path (linearity).

Indeed I think it a weakness in the story that one is allowed to wander around in whatever order one personally fashions while impending doom in the form of the darkspawn horde looms over the character. Although again this more a matter of the darkspawn being a poor plot mechanic (naturally the believability of sidequests are of course equally damaged by this sense of quickly impending doom). Still even in games like KotoR I would have preffered a linear sensemaking path over visiting 4 planets in random order despite the relative lack of rush simply because it allows for a more complex story with more twists and turns in the story and much greater suspense aswell as grave consequences for the choices made!

[Frolk]

Imaze Rhiano wrote...

Compared to Bethesda Software's games like Oblivion and Fallout 3 - Dragon Age origins is very linear. You basically only choose order of play, what components you are playing/not playing and maybe bit change end results - but basically very linear experience if you compare it to Bethesda's sandbox games.

I have played DA once completly through - and now trying to play with evil character second time - but very likely I am going to skip most of content second time - I already know how those linear dungeons will end. It is completly different in games like Fallout 3 where you suddenly notice that "game ended" and your character has maxed out level - and you haven't even visit half of locations in your map yet. Then you need to play again with different character, and again... and again...

If Bioware would take rest of choices away - it would feel like some boring movie where you are just interactive actor. Can't be much more linear than this.

I agree, Dragon Age is Linear enough as it is.  I appreciate that you can affect how the main quests play out and how you can choose the order in which you do them, but I didn't find that it changed the feel of the game between playthroughs.

What I would have liked to see is more mutually exclussive quest lines.  Do a quest one way and you get a bunch of related sidequests, equipment, new areas to explore, and possibly companions.  Do it another way and you get a different but equally appealing package (it's important that it be equally appealing in some substantial way so people don't feel like they're getting penalized for roleplaying their character).  Add in some random drops and random sidequests, and I'd never get bored of the game.

[SmokeyPSD]

I really do not see Dragon Age as being cut from the same caste as what some of u are trying to say as being from the same typical western rpg style. Traditional Western yes. but Typical western? as it stands now? no way.



I love my final fantasy, upto number 9, anything that they attempted after 9 has NO PLACE in dragon age however. I feel very strongly about this.



I think all that really is needed is refinement, more cases of say when u enter redcliffe, u can either decide to leave, and redcliffe is left at the mercy of the darkspawn, or stay and defend the village. A more of a feeling of realtime events going on. that is ALL that is needed though in my opinion. That is only a case of refining the basis for what they have already setup in the initial instalment we have now though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

It seriously bugs me that you aren't able to make any attempt to try and find out who's trying to kill you.
...
I have a hard time coming up with sufficient reason for my character to want to get involved in any of the iron shortage stuff...it seems to pale in comparison to trying to find out who's trying to kill me.
...
I'm still more bothered that you're not given any chance to try and find out who killed Gorion (and incidentally tried to kill you)
...
I just wish I'd been able to take a more proactive approach (I hate using that phrase) to finding out who's trying to kill me

This didn't bother me because the game doesn't give you any leads at all.  You really have no idea who tried to abduct you (he did ask Gorion to hand you over, rather than just attacking straight away), so it's not like there's something in particular you think you should be doing but aren't.

I ran away to hide in the wilderness (I got off the road and didn't go anywhere near the Friendly Arm Inn for quite a while).
 
Without any information about who this guy was, what was it you wanted to do?

It certainly promotes roleplaying in those of us who roleplay.  I think you'd find (I'm not stating this as a certainty, mind you, just a reasoned supposition) that those who don't roleplay are more likely to just become frustrated and toss the game aside.

It's a roleplaying game.  I have no idea why those other people are even trying to play the game.

[Challseus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It certainly promotes roleplaying in those of us who roleplay.  I think you'd find (I'm not stating this as a certainty, mind you, just a reasoned supposition) that those who don't roleplay are more likely to just become frustrated and toss the game aside.

It's a roleplaying game.  I have no idea why those other people are even trying to play the game.

*Raises Hand*

Um, it's called, enjoying games for different reasons then others. I didn't even know what roleplaying was until I joined the NWN community 6 years ago, and certainly never roleplayed a character in any game before that (been playing games since 1985). That said, the Baldur's Gate series is still in my top 5 RPG's of all time.

I'm not going to get into the great debate over what a true RPG is, but for me, I don't have to roleplay to enjoy it. In the case of the Baldur's Gate series, the music, party members, story, and most of all, combat were enough to keep me hooked. Hell, I even began replaying the series last year in anticipation for Dragon Age, and still had a blast.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
In BG in particular, you could assert (and the player wouldn't know this until much later in the game) that the Bhaalspawn can't get too far from each other or leave a given area until there's only one left.  Some attempt to explain what's going on and why you can't leave the area should be sufficient.

This would require a bunch of big reveals much earlier than they happen in the existing game.

Even just unwinnable encounters with Sarevok's assassins if you try to travel beyond the map.  Remember, Sarevok wants to kill you.  That means he can't let you get away.

Just a different kind of wall. OK, that'd work. Of course, that means these assassins have to be tougher than a certain drow, but I could accept that for plot reasons.

Isn't that metagame information.  It's information you need, but it's information the PC never learned anywhere.  If the PC is supposed to make a decision based on some piece of information, then the PC needs to find that information in the gameworld.

The journal is designed to deliver information to the player, not the PC, and that's where it goes wrong.

Sure. My point is that I'm not particularly bothered by metagame information unless the game forces me to use it.

[Mlai00]

DAO is linear enough. Everything that you're requesting (the reasonable ones) can work within the current DAO framework without becoming an interactive movie like say Metal Gear Solid.

You want a sense of plot movement? Sense of urgency? Just have more thing that trigger every time you complete a major quest. Loghain sending Zevran against you is 1 of those types of things. The game simply needs more of them, involving Darkspawn. There are simply no major Darkspawn plot triggers from Ostagar to Final Battle.

You want a sense of what you just did affecting the rest of the playthrough? Again, incorporate them into the major plot triggers happening between quests. For example, early Darkspawn incursion after you finish a major quest. Now you can take some troops that you just gathered and go neutralize this early DS scouting force. Throw in some brief roleplaying dialogue with the leader of your newly allied force(s). For example, your new pal Zathrian meets your new pal Irving for the first time, and you 3 talk a bit in the pre-battle briefing. You win, you go on to your next quest that you choose. You lose, you lose optional towns 1 by 1: Lothering, then Redcliffe, then Dalish Camp (the Dalish will have escaped but their camp is destroyed), etc.

See? Cinematic urgency and consequence, without changing the DAO framework and asking for exorbitant amounts of additional development/dialogue.

[Hollingdale]

erh no, there is an exoritant amount of additional development and dialogue needed for that actually if it's to be anything but very very brief and genericaly done so as to not have to bee extensively programmed in order to work with each combo of alliances in whatever order. Not mentioning the amount of sidequesting that could be ****ed by losing towns (although I personally think that'd be cool).



But the thing is, all theese suggestions could incorporated linearly with less need of exorbitant amounts additional development/dialogue and still be superiorly done since they'd only need to do one of theese events they could make it really good instead.



Linearity is like quality over quantity really!

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

This would require a bunch of big reveals much earlier than they happen in the existing game.

Not at all.  The game wouldn't have to explain why you can't travel beyond the map until the end.  But that there was an explanation (and a hint that it would come) eventually, the problem is solved.

The game already gives you special abilities without explaining them.  Why not throw is a vague compulsion not to travel too far from the city?

Just a different kind of wall. OK, that'd work. Of course, that means these assassins have to be tougher than a certain drow, but I could accept that for plot reasons.

Right.  It doesn't need to be a good solution, but it would be nice for the game to acknowledge the possibility that you might try to leave.

Sure. My point is that I'm not particularly bothered by metagame information unless the game forces me to use it.

Agreed.  My complaint here is that modern games sometimes do force you to use it.

Even DAO does at least once.  I disabled Plot Helpers as soon as I installed the game, but there's a quest in the Deep Roads where your journal tells you you've discovered the location of some cache, but gives no indication of where it is (so then you haven't actually discovered anything).  But turn the plot helpers on, and there the cache appears on your map.  This was the only way complete the quest without an exhaustive search of the Deep Roads (after you'd already cleared them out).