31 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I understand why the design of each quest in the game needs to be aware of the possible circumstances under which any event within it might take place.  And I understand why the range of those possible circumstances would often need to be controlled or constrained somewhat, in order to make those in-quest events work.

But I do not think that, as a matter of course, the range of possible circumstances should be kept as narrow as possible.  The quest design (which includes writing, but also level design) should try to avoid limiting the range of possible circumstances unless that limitation provides some measurable benefit.  If an encounter doesn't make sense when the protagonist enters the room from the west, fine, don't put a door at the west end of the room (or something).  If the quest's climax doesn't make sense unless the protagonist is pursuing this quest selflessly, then make that clear to the player long before the climax (or change the climax).

As a general rule, controlling the player's experience simply as part of the design process strikes me as a terrible idea.

[upsettingshorts]

Could you provide a couple examples of quests in existing games?

To compare and contrast a quest that doesn't control the player's experience as you say versus one that does?

[JWvonGoethe]

@OP - I suggest you rephrase your post if you want people to understand the point you are making. For a start, I think 'variables' might be a better choice of words than 'possible circumstances.' Your opening few sentences are particularly confusing, I'm afraid.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:16 .

[nightscrawl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Could you provide a couple examples of quests in existing games?

To compare and contrast a quest that doesn't control the player's experience as you say versus one that does?

Yes please.

The only thing I was able to think of were quests where a random encounter was required to initiate a quest (Blackpowder Promise, Bitter Pill), quests where you are locked to a specific area until you complete said quest (Offered and Lost), those requiring a specific companion to initiate, and things like that.

I'm not sure if that's what you were referring to though...

[Fisto The Sexbot]

I read that fine... I don't know what people are complaining about. Quests being done in a manner so that they don't give you options that may seem possible, or that you'd want to explore -- are bad. Quests designed around making it seem that the only possible options are those which are handed to you, are good.

Like if a quest involves attacking a bandit, and he attacks you, your only options may be to run, kill the bandit, or get owned by the bandit yourself. Options may be limited but the situation itself gives you limited options, etc.

Obviously, there are constraints, middle-grounds and such, but the differences between which way games try to take you (say, Dragon Age 2 vs. New Vegas) should be obvious.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Sylvius, are you suggesting more quests along the lines of Arizona Killer from Fallout: New Vegas?

[Wulfram]

Filament wrote...

So this is basically you still being upset about telling that slaver he was a bad guy, right? Bioware shouldn't make assumptions about your character's motivations for no good reason?

I don't think that's what this is about.

I think this is more about things like being able to encounter quests without necessarily having met the original quest starter - so you might, say, stumble on some guys kidnapped child in a bandit camp and be able to rescue them despite not having met that guy to start the quest in the more normal way.

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal.  Not in a non-sandbox game, anyway

[nightscrawl]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

I read that fine... I don't know what people are complaining about.

We weren't complaining, we simply wanted to understand. This is a discussion forum. There can be no discussion if one party cannot understand.

Frankly from your examples, it seemed he was saying the opposite of what you wrote. Why would "quests designed around making it seem that the only possible options are those which are handed to you" be good if he states that quest design "should try to avoid limiting the range of possible circumstances"?

It seems like he wants more freedom as the player to think up different ways to solve problems, rather than have the devs design quests around specific methods. Thinking that way, it seems like the Mark of the Assassin stealth or brute force methods would be a good example, if you could also have the options of bribing the guards, perhaps seducing a jailor or using blood magic mind influence, and so on.

Wulfram wrote...

I think this is more about things like being able to encounter quests without necessarily having met the original quest starter - so you might, say, stumble on some guys kidnapped child in a bandit camp and be able to rescue them despite not having met that guy to start the quest in the more normal way.

This is fun. I think it would offer some nice variety to quests and encourage people to explore more, rather than stay around quest hubs and talk to all of the NPCs there.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 03 décembre 2012 - 02:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Actually, I don't have an example in mind. I was inspired primarily by David's remarks in his recent Tumblr post about quest design. Here:

David Gaider wrote...

What you eventually have to build to is a quest flow. How does each step go from A to B to C to D? This is the most common weakness that writers run into when designing quests… they think of the story, the why things are happening, but not the how. “She starts at the entrance, and then eventually meets the mage who runs the place”… NO, STOP. Not “eventually”. How does she meet the mage? Is she traveling through an area? What happens there? You need to account for each step in the player’s experience, as if you’re picturing it happening in the game. There is no room for ambiguity.

As a design rule, this strikes me as dangerous. I can imagine quests where controlling every step of the player's experience isn't necessary, and wherever it isn't necessaery I'd say it's not desirable.

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

I don't know if this is what you mean, but in DA2, all quests except for one being Mine Massacre, you have to meet A before moving on to B. Where as in Mine Massacre you don't have to talk to anyone or even do the previous quest line for this, you can just go to the mine and kill the dragon and the quest starts and completes all at one time. Is this kind of quest ablility more of what you are looking for?

Modifié par Rpgfantasyplayer, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:19 .

[Wulfram]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As a design rule, this strikes me as dangerous. I can imagine quests where controlling every step of the player's experience isn't necessary, and wherever it isn't necessaery I'd say it's not desirable.

You don't have to control every step of the players experience, but you do have to have some idea of how the player will get from plot point to plot point B.

Even if that way is open ended along the lines of "Do a bunch of side quests to acquire sufficient cash" or "Poke around in this area until they found what they were looking for"

edit:  I do think CRPGs do nowadays make a point of never leaving the player with a clear direction and objective - which isn't really something I agree, with largely because it doesn't allow much room in the story where you can logically go questing - but I don't think that's what Mr Gaider was getting at.

Modifié par Wulfram, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:42 .

[ggghhhxxxpuf]

I think you are reading too much on an example of quest designing, let me explain.

Sebastian's quest, when visiting lady Harriman's state.
You enter the house and eventually confront lady Harriman and the desire demon that runs the show, but how did you get there?
You encounter some of her children, servants, etc, on the way that kind of explain the weidness of the situation, you could even miss some things.

Are you saying that maybe you should have the possibility of jumping straight into the resolution of the quest? Maybe multiple paths, with different information each one, that affects the outcome? All of the possibilities toguether and you choose your way?
I'm thinking you mean the latter, but in any sense, all these ways have to be designed before, scripted, etc.

In summary, David's post is about how quest design cannot be "vague".

[Realmzmaster]

Quest design cannot be vague. The quest can be discovered in multiple ways but each way has to be scripted. Whether the PC comes across the quest accidentally or the PC is given the quest by the quest giver.
Some games only have the quest objective spawn or be in the right place if the quest is given by someone.

The safehouses in Fallout:New Vegas allow the Courier to find them but he/she cannot access them without a key no matter how high the lockpicking skill. The Courier has do do enough for that faction to be offered membership and a key.
In Fallout 3 the Wanderer can never come across Ian West unless he/she talks to either Evan King or read about it at the terminal in the Family's Place. Ian will not spawn and be at the right location. Getting the letter from Lucy West to deliver to her family will not cause Ian to spawn. That is the way it is scripted.

So the design itself can never be vague. The perception can be vague on how the PC finds the quest (as far as the gamer is concerned), but it has to be scripted for that to happen. I believe that is what Mr. Gaider is saying.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 03 décembre 2012 - 08:04 .

[ggghhhxxxpuf]

Depends on what you considet "vague".
All those actions you described to resolve a quest still had to be designed and, if there is dialogue to be exchanged, scripted.
The quest can be designed to be vague in its resolution, but the design still has to be clear.

[rapscallioness]

I haven't read the whole blog yet, but from the excerpt posted it seems to me that Gaider is talking more about having the necessary details in the scenes so the level designers--designers can accurately portray the scene.

Saying, "eventually" meet the mage can have one designer think of the PC....flying across the area on a trapeze, or something. Your intention as the writer may be a foreboding tone to the quest. Intimidating, w/e.

I think it goes back to the show don't tell. The writer's need to show the designers how the PC meets the mage. So, that the designers can accurately translate it into visual form. Just telling them what happens is really not enough.

The details, like the PC traveling thru meandering, dark caverns; bats swoop down periodically; there's some small lake of...body parts/blood/and sticky tar like goo the PC has to slog thru; maybe even battle that has to be fought quickly cuz the goo lake is draining their life force.

When they do find the mage there's a bunch of goons that have a tendency to stand uncomfortably close to the PC, but is it intimidating in a beat you up kinda way? Or, more lascivious?

yada, yada, yada. But basically I think what Gaider meant was more along the lines of details that accurately describe the Action taking place in the quest. Not just dialogue. The more detailed it is, the better the translation into visual form...

that's only my guess, however. he could be talking about sumthing else entirely...but yeah.

Edit: Or, actually no. I don't think that's what Gaider was saying at all. I was thinking more individual quests. Not How they end up getting the quests. So, mea culpa.

Modifié par rapscallioness, 03 décembre 2012 - 08:19 .

[rapscallioness]

I will say this abt the How quests are presented. How a quest is presented does need to be detailed in the making of the game. Even if the in game quest presentation feels spontaneous. It isn't. There's nothing spontaneous in the actual crafting of the game.

Again, "eventually meets the mage" is still not enough. Lacking details like...you were camping and woke up to find sum important stuff was stolen. You track it and end up in the meandering caverns, etc...where you meet the mage.

[Sylvius the Mad]

All of the examples I can think of in DA2 that seem to match this description are in fact limited not by the quest design, but by the dialogue system. So I can't find an example.

And perhaps BioWare doesn't limit their design as rigidly as I think David's blog suggests. When he says, "There's no room for ambiguity," it's possible he's talking about how the quest is presented to the team, not how the quest is presented to the player. But that's not how it reads to me.