19 réponses à ce sujet

[Equalitas]

This video explains things much better then i can do myself. I really hope the lets us turn off too much handholding stuff (that The Witcher 3 has) and the quest are designed as the video explains.

[ZipZap2000]

The problem here is that you have to stare endlessly at the minimap for this to be a problem.

I don't use roads in TW3 I point myself at the marker and ride in a straight line for as long as I can.

Its challenging and it gets you killed.

But it introduces you to the world and locations in an effective way. I remember the quest he's talking about. I thought the same thing, sadly not everyone is intelligent enough to remember simple instructions. Sometimes they get distracted and forget.

So I don't see why the option shouldn't be there but I don't see why its a major problem that destroys immersion either.

[UpUpAway]

I thought ME1 actually handled it pretty well.  Some markers were on your planet mini-map from the point you landed, others were not there, but If you got close to something, you could see a marker on the Mako radar screen.  Also, I can't think of the planet name in ME1, but there was one where you could find a camp and turn on a device that added the minerals on that planet to your mini-map.  I thought that was a cool idea.  The main quest planets were more linear, but without the actual dotted line and accessing the map at all was a deliberate action - i.e. you needed to actually pause the game and call up the map to see it.  Within the mission buildings, none of the loot locations were shown so a player really didn't know if they found everything they could unless they really searched for it.

 

Part of it, I think, is that the ME universe sort of naturally breaks down into individual planet segments with the overall galaxy map really just a natural navigation tool for that era (i.e. it's not immersion breaking... unlike a dotted line on a map in a Medieval setting).  Let's face it, nobody is going to fly a starship anywhere without first plotting a course.

[Furisco]

I don't use roads in TW3 I point myself at the marker and ride in a straight line for as long as I can.

Just like a Krogan.

[RoboticWater]

But it introduces you to the world and locations in an effective way. I remember the quest he's talking about. I thought the same thing, sadly not everyone is intelligent enough to remember simple instructions. Sometimes they get distracted and forget.

I don't see why the quest journal couldn't just reiterate (briefly) what the quest-giver said rather than show the player exactly where they should go. The presence of quest markers essentially defeats the engaging–albeit somewhat complex–process of following directions. Rather than parse verbal cues, examine the environment for landmarks, and potentially get lost into a more interesting situation, players just aim the marker and shoot. I won't deny the benefit of convenience that markers provide (especially if we're going somewhere far away), but they may be too convenient sometimes.

 

This wouldn't be so bad–it's an option you can turn off of course, though Game Maker's Toolkit has something to say about that as well–but I think the convenience has a retroactive effect on quest design. If the developers know they can rely on markers to guide players, they may forget to write directions in NPC dialog, or design quests to end in obscure, impossible to find areas, or even start to design content with the markers in mind. Part of me thinks that the reason why Assassin's Creed became the endless chachkie-collecting, tedious activity-completing game it is now is because the developers got too caught up the little icons that riddle their mini-maps. I think you can sort of see it too in the Witcher, with all those question marks on the map rather than more natural ways of drawing the player's attention in a more natural way (honestly, where's the reward in finding a smuggler's cache if it's just sitting there on your map?).

 

Maybe I had my expectations set too high for the Witcher, but I was disappointed that a game which heavily involved involved investigation did all the investigating for you. Ideally, games should try to accurately reflect the sensations of its protagonist back onto the player in an accessible form, i.e. the act of feeling pain via the health bar. However, the Witcher senses and general quest design don't really evoke the feeling of solving a mystery. Sure, the writing and ambiance are mysterious, but the actual gameplay consists of me interacting with a bunch of pre-highlighted objects and following glowing red paths. At that point, I'm following a line and pressing buttons, not solving a puzzle.

 

If we want to relate this back to Mass Effect, I think BioWare should remember the "uncharted" aspect of their uncharted worlds. I know it's the future and we have probably have super snazzy scanning abilities, but I think for the sake of gameplay, those abilities should be mitigated. I don't want these worlds itemized into specific activities or resource caches from the get go (at all if possible). I want them to be mysterious.

 

Imagine landing on a planet and activating a nearby mysterious altar-looking thing. You receive no journal entry (or if you do, it's "I activated a thingy, let's see if there's more going on" rather than "activate altar (1/3)"), but from your vantage point you can see two others fairly easily. Driving to them and activating them causes a rumbling and a bright light to emerge from a distant mountain (the game could put a POI marker at the mountain so it's obvious, but I feel like the light+effects should be enough). Inside a now open cave door is treasure or some other thing. Point is, good game design is finding a natural way to nudge the player in the right direction so that they feel like they discovered something, not their map.

[Drakoriz]

you mean you want quest like back on Morrowind.

 

Really i love that, but the bad is the market this day (and actually my spare time i have to play game) dont like that anymore =P.

 

I miss the old good day i will spend playing over 10hs.

[ZipZap2000]

Cant quote you atm robotic water. But id say it comes down to this.

"You mean I have to actually make an effort myself to find things in this game? Thats not fair! This game sucks! I want a refund!"

[Addictress]

I liked how it was handled in the Mass Effect 1 side planets. I believe they were even more mysterious than the maps in The Witcher 3 because the mini-map icons never transformed even after discovering what was at that location. It was always just an unexplained anomaly on the mini-map which you have to see for yourself.

 

You need to at least have SOMETHING there considering they do have scanning tech. But maybe keep it a mysterious symbol on the map even so.

[Nab20]

The Witcher 3 already takes at least 100-120 hours to complete. I'm not gonna start searching for my quest objectives, I have a life, I can't just play The Witcher 3...

[slimgrin]

You can't have 'follow the landmarks' approach in a game as large as Witcher. It's just not feasible. This guy is conflating design goals from different types of games. 

[Jimbo_Gee79]

I agree that it would be nice to be able to spend all day wandering around games all day. But the people who played Deus Ex when it first came out now have jobs and lives and children and simply don't have time to sit around all day playing games.

[MissOuJ]

I don't see why the quest journal couldn't just reiterate (briefly) what the quest-giver said rather than show the player exactly where they should go. The presence of quest markers essentially defeats the engaging–albeit somewhat complex–process of following directions. Rather than parse verbal cues, examine the environment for landmarks, and potentially get lost into a more interesting situation, players just aim the marker and shoot. I won't deny the benefit of convenience that markers provide (especially if we're going somewhere far away), but they may be too convenient sometimes.

 

In DA:O, the Missionary quests in the Wilds worked like that: you get the letter with the instructions where you should go, and the journal you get lists those for you, but in the end, it's up to you to recognize them and follow them to the cache. You can't just follow the usual Activate quest --> Follow marker --> Kill something --> Get loot.

 

Also, from a quest design prospective, just slapping the marker on a map can actually be bad and cause the player to miss on key information. For example, when I unlocked Solas' personal quest during my first DA:I playthrough, I fast-traveled to the Dalish camp and pointed and shot from there, because it was the fastest way to go. Only later, during another playthrough, I realized that there actually was quite a lot of banter which built up the backstory and tension during that quest if I'd taken a different route. It actually made me a bit sad that there was a bunch of dialogue etc. that somebody had written and acted that I had missed just because I started to approach the quest from a different point on the map.

 

But, to come back to the video in the OP, I have to agree... to a point. I'd love to have at least some quests where the game gives me (2) and (+) and (2) and expects me to come up with the answer without giving the answer away even before I've finished reading the new codex entry I just unlocked. But then again, particularly in the case of MEA, being plopped onto a planet and told "sure, we have pretty sweet radar and scanning tech, but it's not like you're going to need it! Have fun searching for the main quest from this X+ km2 area!" would be infuriating. So I'd vote for a compromise of some sort.

[The One True Nobody]

Really, it just comes down to this: let the player turn off handholding mechanics so that they can choose not to use them. Even if you "don't stare at the Minimap the whole time" the dotted line is always there, always visible, and always something you know you can look at if you have a momentary brain-fart. Games that include incredibly helpful radar functions have in the past used the option to turn it off as an extra difficulty customization--playing Metal Gear Solid with no soliton radar, for instance--and that's good because it lets the player control how much help the game gives them and lets them decide whether or not they want to use their wits, memory, and good old-fashioned eyesight to navigate challenges and locations instead.

There's something about following a GPS in a game like The Witcher 3 that just feels... weird. I turn off my quest markers in a lot of cases, too. Sometimes I just feel more like I want to make myself remember things, make them mean more to me as the player and the character. Sometimes I just want to blitz it. Bottom line, options are nice, lack of options, not so much.

 

Giving the player the ability to turn off those mechanics, of course, means there's an added burden on designers to make sure players can navigate the game without quest markers and such. But, you know? That's not such a bad thing. If dialogue gives you everything your character would need to complete something, then markers/compass or not, you also just have a more immersive experience by virtue of realistic writing. None of that "I'll mark this on your map while not making any movements that indicate I'm doing so, lol" nonsense, no magically just knowing where the thing or person you need to get to is. Exploration with an automated navigation accessory as an option.

[Atomkick]

This, silent protagonist and other things that make some people feel they are breaking the immersion, such revolve around personal preference. No need to restrict something just for the sake of immersion, instead they can make it optional. 

 

Don't know what others do but whenever I play a massive open world game, I usually check every inch trying to find something instead of going for the quest objective directly. Even going sideways sometimes to explore a particular area and this is where dotted lines or map directions come in handy, helping me getting back on track. I already do that "exploration" while questing, paying attention to everything in my surroundings. In a game like TW3, side quests are already a headache so without some sort of guidance the game would feel annoying rather than trying to be immersive.

 

In any game I treat the map just like the HUD feature, providing me all the information I need so I can play with ease and engage in other stuff. Speaking of that, imagine a game that has no HUD for more immersion reasons. Would you like to shoot without crosshair? Count health, number of bullets, cooldown time and etc.? 

[RoboticWater]

Cant quote you atm robotic water. But id say it comes down to this.

"You mean I have to actually make an effort myself to find things in this game? Thats not fair! This game sucks! I want a refund!"

I understand, though with good enough design, the developers will still be leading players down a quick and effective path to their goal without over-reliance on markers. Admittedly, that kind of design is easier to achieve in smaller environments.

 

And as I said, I don't think the problem are the markers themselves, but how heavily the influence the content. If objectives were truly optional–added in entirely after the fact–then I wouldn't feel so coddled. As it is though, I'm forced to follow all the same glowing red lines like everyone else.

 

The Witcher 3 already takes at least 100-120 hours to complete. I'm not gonna start searching for my quest objectives, I have a life, I can't just play The Witcher 3...

But I have to wonder: should completing a quest be more important than playing through it? Not to get too hipstery about it (though I think I crossed that line a long while ago), but I'd think that games would be better if they encouraged players to play the game, not complete it. While I sympathize with the desire to progress the story (it's the most palpable form of progression), I don't think the objective of game design should be to minimize the time and effort between story moments, but rather to find a balance between journey and destination that makes both more equally enjoyable. If that makes quests too long, then maybe distances should be shortened or less quests should be made.

[UpUpAway]

I understand, though with good enough design, the developers will still be leading players down a quick and effective path to their goal without over-reliance on markers. Admittedly, that kind of design is easier to achieve in smaller environments.

 

And as I said, I don't think the problem are the markers themselves, but how heavily the influence the content. If objectives were truly optional–added in entirely after the fact–then I wouldn't feel so coddled. As it is though, I'm forced to follow all the same glowing red lines like everyone else.

 

But I have to wonder: should completing a quest be more important than playing through it? Not to get too hipstery about it (though I think I crossed that line a long while ago), but I'd think that games would be better if they encouraged players to play the game, not complete it. While I sympathize with the desire to progress the story (it's the most palpable form of progression), I don't think the objective of game design should be to minimize the time and effort between story moments, but rather to find a balance between journey and destination that makes both more equally enjoyable. If that makes quests too long, then maybe distances should be shortened or less quests should be made.

 

Your last part really hits the nail on the head for me.  It's all about balance and that's a difficult task because side quests should not be imperative to completion of the main game but should be in context and engaging enough to feel relevant.  If there is to be some form of collection involved then it should also be possible to complete the side quest while only finding a percentage of what has been placed in the world.  Sure, some people will still scour everything to find every hidden object, but that shouldn't become a main focus such that the only reason for there being a large open world and the only reason to explore it is to find a slug of hidden objects.

 

From that perspective, I thought, ROTTR did well with the Optional Challenge Tombs... If you drew close to the location of an entrance to such a tomb, a notification came up merely that there was an OPTIONAL challenge tomb nearby.  Once you entered the tomb, the boundaries of the challenge were limited to the size of the tomb, but you had to work your way through the tomb and the puzzle the side quest presented without following a dotted line.  As an aid, Lara would at times utter things to herself that would give you a hint about whether or not you were on the right track.  Also, from the main menus, you could call up a map that would show the percentage of completion for each sort of task in each individual part of the world and go back, even after finishing the game, to bring each area of the various areas of the world up to 100% completion if that's what you wanted to do.

 

The Mass Effect franchise has a lot of built in advantages for creating a vast open universe yet using the individual planets as a means of temporarily limiting the size of that universe without artificial boundaries and guides.  For example, plotting a course to a specific planet on a galaxy map is a completely natural activity in that time-frame - as is locating things on a radar, using probes, distress beacons, and other high-tech signals as different "in context" tools to help the player navigate the game as quickly or as slowly as they wish.

[Equalitas]

The Citadel in mass effect 1 was great(could be improved). I bet most people learned how to get around on the Citadel the first playthru. Or is it just me who didnt learn about the Rapid transit the first time.

[UpUpAway]

The Citadel in mass effect 1 was great(could be improved). I bet most people learned how to get around on the Citadel the first playthru. Or is it just me who didnt learn about the Rapid transit the first time.

 

Not sure how you managed to miss the rapid transit the first time... a notice about it flashes up the moment you walk towards the terminal for it right outside the Embassies.  Overall, I didn't like the Citadel set piece design in ME1... just didn't seem to make architectural sense with a lot of awkward elevator transitions.  The rapid transit made it more convenient, but the flow still just didn't seem natural at all.

[MrFob]

I don't see why the quest journal couldn't just reiterate (briefly) what the quest-giver said rather than show the player exactly where they should go. The presence of quest markers essentially defeats the engaging–albeit somewhat complex–process of following directions. Rather than parse verbal cues, examine the environment for landmarks, and potentially get lost into a more interesting situation, players just aim the marker and shoot. I won't deny the benefit of convenience that markers provide (especially if we're going somewhere far away), but they may be too convenient sometimes.

 

This wouldn't be so bad–it's an option you can turn off of course, though Game Maker's Toolkit has something to say about that as well–but I think the convenience has a retroactive effect on quest design. If the developers know they can rely on markers to guide players, they may forget to write directions in NPC dialog, or design quests to end in obscure, impossible to find areas, or even start to design content with the markers in mind. Part of me thinks that the reason why Assassin's Creed became the endless chachkie-collecting, tedious activity-completing game it is now is because the developers got too caught up the little icons that riddle their mini-maps. I think you can sort of see it too in the Witcher, with all those question marks on the map rather than more natural ways of drawing the player's attention in a more natural way (honestly, where's the reward in finding a smuggler's cache if it's just sitting there on your map?).

 

Maybe I had my expectations set to high for the Witcher, but I was disappointed that a game which heavily involved involved investigation did all the investigating for you. Ideally, games should try to accurately reflect the sensations of its protagonist back onto the player in an accessible form, i.e. the act of feeling pain via the health bar. However, the Witcher senses and general quest design don't really evoke the feeling of solving a mystery. Sure, the writing and ambiance are mysterious, but the actual gameplay consists of me interacting with a bunch of pre-highlighted objects and following glowing red paths. At that point, I'm following a line and pressing buttons, not solving a puzzle.

 

If we want to relate this back to Mass Effect, I think BioWare should remember the "uncharted" aspect of their uncharted worlds. I know it's the future and we have probably have super snazzy scanning abilities, but I think for the sake of gameplay, those abilities should be mitigated. I don't want these worlds itemized into specific activities or resource caches from the get go (at all if possible). I want them to be mysterious.

 

Imagine landing on a planet and activating a nearby mysterious altar-looking thing. You receive no journal entry (or if you do, it's "I activated a thingy, let's see if there's more going on" rather than "activate altar (1/3)"), but from your vantage point you can see two others fairly easily. Driving to them and activating them causes a rumbling and a bright light to emerge from a distant mountain (the game could put a POI marker at the mountain so it's obvious, but I feel like the light+effects should be enough). Inside a now open cave door is treasure or some other thing. Point is, good game design is finding a natural way to nudge the player in the right direction so that they feel like they discovered something, not their map.

 

I would give you two likes for that post if I could. Perfectly put and reflecting my own opinion 100%.

 

I think this is one of the reasons I am still in love with the old Gothic games (1 and 2) so much for their exploration and quest design aspects. Your maps were in-game maps that you had to buy or find. No markers or anything like that. The worlds weren't super huge but they were chock full of recognizable land marks and NPCs would describe target locations to you just like you describe in your post. When an NPC in Gothic said yo you "go right through the valley until you see the old stone tower on the hill, then cross the wooden bridge" you knew exactly where to go without a marker that would ultimately just remind you that you are playing a game with mechanics.

 

This goes to show that - as you say - loosing the markers goes beyond just a toggle in the options menu. It requires the devs to put thought into quest-, interface- and world-design. All have to to be adjusted to accommodate a smooth and entertaining gaming experience without the need to provide markers on the map.

 

Given the future technology of the ME universe, of course, markers are not quite as immersion breaking (and thank god for scanners, that at least give you indications of what's going on in your immediate surroundings) but I am also all for more clue-based exploration over game mechanics based exploration. Not only for ME:A but for open world games in general.

[Helios969]

Well, I definitely think gamers should be able to turn on/off such things.  I can't even imagine it would be too terribly difficult for devs to program.  As for the video, I really don't want others telling me what the "proper" way is to play.  The only proper way is whatever the individual feels comfortable with.