I hate subquests, and other reasons why games are too long

johnny_ultimate · 18-07-2011 12:23am #1

WARNING: RANT AHOY! TL; DR - GAMES TOO LONG SOMETHING SOMETHING!

I, like many others I'm sure, am playing through inFamous at the moment, a game I received free of charge after getting all my personal details stolen. It's fun enough - static thrusters are a lark - but I also despise the mission design. It's such a lazy cavalcade of repetition - oh, look, another sewer level! - and monotonous subquests (why, sure, I'll painstakingly remove the 12 surveillance devices hanging to the edge of your building and never question why they needed twelve in the first place Mrs. NPC). At least the sub quests are sub and ignorable, shame the main missions sometimes bring equal levels of unimaginative game design to the table. This is one bloated game, rarely giving you the opportunity to do anything interesting with your fantastic powers. Oh, and the city is bland as hell too.

Same with LA Noire - full of half-arsed 'street crimes' there to merely provide the illusion of a busy open world and 'content' to placate the individuals who demand game times approaching hours in the thirties or fourties. Red Dead Redemption rewarded the player for seeking out strangers with often bizarre and interesting characters & missions (if occasionally repetitive in their demands for herb picking). In LA Noire, it's hard to care about the 'officer down'. The rewards are minimal for completion of these chores - a redundant XP system and meaningless achievements. Is it worth the time wasted?

How did we get to this point, where games are unreasonably bloated with extraneous, uninteresting material? Open world games are easily the worst offenders, although hardly alone. At least (the best) RPGs tend to be built around the grind and repetition, having systems that rely on a heavy time commitment. And yes, of course many of the bloat is 'optional' in the examples I've provided, but when it's affecting the main game - say, the lazy rehasing of the Oblivion gates - it's time to wonder aloud are game designers just getting worse?

On the other hand, we have something like Shadows of the Damned - a game I have many issues with, I should add. Yet there's no pointless extras, it's merely eight hours badda bing badda boom. It runs out of ideas, and the game promptly ends (one could argue it runs out of ideas a bit before that, though). Sure there's a masochistic achievement in there for anyone who wishes to shoot respawning enemies for hours on end to unlock pointless weapon upgrades. But for the average player, SotD is pleasantly free of blubber.

So, what do you fellow gamers think? Are games too focused on providing some imagined concept of 'value for money' and now way too long? Don't get me wrong, at 40-50 euro a pop for a new game I can see the frustration with short games. But how would you view a film that spent twenty hours repeating the same irrelevant scenes over and over? I get that film and game are entirely different mediums, but when a game fails to provide new twists on the game mechanics it seems to me as if that's the point the designers should call it a day rather then have it bloated with utterly pointless extras?

Personally, everytime I see a game offering meaningless virtual rewards for repeating absurdly monotonous tasks - step forward, Assassins' Creed flags! - I despair just that little bit more. I'd rather a tightly controlled four hour game like Portal to something chock full of repetition like Dragon Age any day.

Retr0gamer · 18-07-2011 12:58am

My two favourite RPGs ever are Panzer Dragoon Saga and Mother 3. Both games are epic tales that for me are better than anything else in the genre. However despite having more story in them than most RPGs PDS can be beaten in a mere 18 hours and Mother 3 in 25 hours, less than half the time of most other RPGs. Why is this? It's because there's not one moment wasted in either game that is nothing but padding. There's not fetch quests. There's no 'you can't get past this gate until you journey to the other side of the map explore a big dungeon and bring me back a flower from the centre of it'. These two games don't waste any time and as a result they are far better paced than any other example in the genre and as a result never get bogged down in monotomy.

On the other end of the spectrum I really enjoyed Shin Megami Tensei and Persona 3 and 4, two games that really do drag on with loads of optional side quests and stat grinding. However the difference between these games and badly designed ones is that they make it all compelling. Persona 3 and 4 have excellent battle systems that don't get boring and the social links for building stats could have been boring if it wasn't for some excellently written and compelling stories written around them. SMT like the etrian odyssey games is all about the grind and builds its game around this.

What I think developers really should not pad out there games unless they make the padding worthwhile with good rewards and making it fun. I couldn't be bothered doing any sub missions in the GTA4 games because I found them boring and just not worth wasting my time on. Developers seem to be trying their hardest to fill out achievements/trophies with worthless optional quests and trinkets to find and also as a way to extend the life of their game before it hits the second hand market and I find this is at best uninteresting and skippable and at worst comes at the detriment of the main game.

One of the worst I've encountered in recent times was getting all the way to the end of Crisis Core and being ridiculously underlevelled for the final boss. I had to write a review of the game so was avoiding the optional quests to get to the end as quick as possible. Anyway I had to go and do the optional quests only to be confronted with some of the most boring and terrible throwaway short missions that I had to grind through to get my level up.

So developers unless your game is designed to be an old school grindy games like Etrian Odyssey then when you add sub quests and side missions make sure that they are interesting and worth playing. Look at Fallout 3 where most of the side quests were more interesting than the main storyline. If you can't make them good then either don't include them or else if you must, include them but don't force them on the player.

johnny_ultimate · 18-07-2011 1:33am

Games like Pokemon / Persona / Diablo definitely reward investing time in them. In Persona 3/4, the subquests like the Social Links are brilliantly tied into the overall battle system and vice versa - the whole thing is a cohesive whole despite almost being two genres in one, and even the smallest of tasks has a tangible effect on the overall game. In Diablo / Torchlight, pressing the left mouse button yields constant new loot and rewards. You're rarely doing anything particularly new, but there's a stupidly compelling reason to grind ever onwards.

These kind of games I have no issue spending twenty, fifty or even hundreds of hours with as long as the designers are aware of the limitations. Why does every open world game - from GTA to Assassin's Creed to Just Cause - feel the need to fill their glorious sandboxes with very poorly constructed "content"? That said, Castlevania Lords of Shadows proves that even a genre that traditionally benefits from lean running times can compel over fifteen plus hours.

K.O.Kiki · 18-07-2011 5:27am

Good games are lean, muscley athletes.

Bad games are fat, bloated corporate executives.

Discuss.

jill_valentine · 18-07-2011 5:36am

I think it's unfair to lump Assassin's Creed in with the other examples cited. The whole game is about how handy you are at finding routes from point A to point B and exploring the environment around you, collectible challenges seem like a natural extension of that. Perhaps one of the only titles where this is the case, in fact - I think they add a lot to the game.

Yitzhak Rabin · 18-07-2011 7:19am

I agree with your main point OP, but I wouldn't go as far as to say I hate sub-quests.

Some games like fallout 3 & Fallout NV get them spot on.

Jumpy · 18-07-2011 7:27am

Lol. Dont go near the Ultima Series then OP.

Skerries · 18-07-2011 7:49am

go and fetch some more examples of grindy sub-quests and bring them back here and we can further continue on our mission to expose these games

ShadowHearth · 18-07-2011 8:16am

Well, the big **** storm with these sub quests is because they started adding mmorpg style quests in to single player games.

I played wow for a long time and I am so sick of seeing: bring 10 x and while you at it rape 10 y, and when you done kick z in the balls and take his lolipop.

Loved witcher 2 quests. In chapter 1 you can take a 5 similar quests, but even to do them you need to prepare for them by getting your own bombs or getting books to know how to harvest needed parts etc. In all witcher 2 there were only 5 such quests.

All ather sub quests were plain awesome. They were all tied up with main story. No stupid collect 10 x stuff.

I hate stupid time wasting crap that adds time to game, but I can't complain that games are too long these days. I finished witcher 2 and it felt like so fast

. In the end I realised that I got atleast 20h from my first time, I am still looking forward to my second time as it will be very different.

If you feel that game wastes your time it means it's ****, if you feel that game went way to fast and you did not even noticed 20h gone then it's a good game.

Kiith · 18-07-2011 9:39am

Collection quests are just stupid. As above, the flags in Assassins Creed, the Pigeons in GTA4, the Shards in Infamous etc...are all just pointless (imo). It's just a stupid way to increase the length of a game, and most people who collect them just use a guide and do it for the achievement.

Proper side quests however, are brilliant. Oblivion had better side quests then the main quest, especially the Dark Brotherhood quest line. Fallout 3/NV have fantastic side quests as well, as does Witcher 2. Mass Effect 2 had some good ones as well.

Give me a good side quests, and proper incentive to them (be it loot or story progression) and i'm happy to do it. Give me an achievement, and you can go to hell.

johnny_ultimate · 18-07-2011 11:06am

jill_valentine wrote: »

I think it's unfair to lump Assassin's Creed in with the other examples cited. The whole game is about how handy you are at finding routes from point A to point B and exploring the environment around you, collectible challenges seem like a natural extension of that. Perhaps one of the only titles where this is the case, in fact - I think they add a lot to the game.

While Assassin's Creed is certainly getting better at providing variety and interesting sidequests, the first at least is probably the worst offender for bloated running times. A tiny amount of subquests repeated ad nauseum meant the game was more often than not a struggle to get to the good parts. I very much admire the improvements the series has achieved in the two sequels so far, and they even have unique and interesting subquests (like the strange 'puzzle' codec ones). Yet I still don't think collecting hundreds of flags or feathers makes for compelling gameplay. They provide an illusion of depth - luckily they're entirely optional, unlike the forced lack of diversity in AC1.

TBH, the people most to blame for bloat are gamers themselves. Look at the childish backlash online to the length of Portal 2 (a game which IMO provides a generous amount of content). When gamers go into a hissy fit when a game isn't filled with rubbish, is it surprising publishers and developers encourage pointless fetch quests?

Mr E · 18-07-2011 11:25am

Portal 2 has a lot of content. The challenge to break all monitors near the end is a seriously decent challenge for anyone (its tied to an achievement/trophy), and there are lots of easter eggs to find too if you explore. Sure, you can lash through the game in a few hours, but you are missing so much if you do.

Looking forward to seeing what they do with the free DLC in the next month or so.... no doubt people will still find a reason to bitch about it.

Magill · 18-07-2011 11:40am

Personally i think that some "gamers" are too wrapped up whinging about games "These days"... always having something to complain about.. "Oh they don't make them like they used to" or "Games are so unorginal these days" . I enjoyed infamous for what it was... a fun action sandbox game, i wasn't expecting it to rival mass effect for story but most of the missions were enjoyable and i didn't get bored once from start to finish... if you don't agree with that... Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Yeah some games might be stretched a little more than they needed to be but sure its the same with everything.. some films are too long, tv series, music.

Maybe you should just accept that these sandbox type games aren't for you... because its pretty damn obvious that a lot of other people love them.

Retr0gamer · 18-07-2011 11:46am

I don't think the OP is saying he hates Infamous but just saying that elements of it need to be improved including the samey monotonous side quests. I thought I wasn't a big fan of sandbox games until I played Saints Row 2 and realised I did like sandbox games when the developers let the player go wild in their sandbox and do as much crazy stuff as they want and add in fun side missions. It brought me right back to GTA 3 and Vice City.

Magill · 18-07-2011 11:58am

Oh i know things can be improved but like everything... games have development deadlines (Some longer than others) and sometimes, especially with sandbox games and RPG's (At least 3D ones), you'll have samey quests and locations.. its just something you have to accept for now. No doubt as the next gen consoles come out games will be elevated to yet another level.

I just don't see why everyone has to whinge so much, if you don't like it.. take the game back and get a refund.

Vegeta · 18-07-2011 12:06pm

Magill wrote: »

I just don't see why everyone has to whinge so much, if you don't like it.. take the game back and get a refund.

Because without criticism how do developers judge their performance?

Using sales figures. Unfortunately the lowest common denominator and fan boys lap up tired cliched donkeys which are flogged to death. That's why we see the same flawed mechanics in games over and over.

That type of person reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZguHLo-Yq0

johnny_ultimate · 18-07-2011 12:10pm

Magill wrote: »

take the game back and get a refund.

inFamous was free, would be scabby asking for a refund. Only option is to complain online about it.

It's a wider industry wide issue worth pulling up. Looking at the metacritic reviews for inFamous, you'd swear rays of sunshine pored out of every kilobyte of data on the disc. It's only the - as usual - reliable likes of Destructoid, GameCentral and Edge who seem to call out the mission design as something worth harshly criticising. When even professional reviewers seem willing to bend over like suckers (oh, the irony of the developer of inFamous being called Sucker Punch!) and buy into repetitive design, I certainly think it's worth discussing.

penev10 · 18-07-2011 12:12pm

I was having very similar thoughts whilst playing Mass Effect 2 last night. In fairness I was playing the terrible vehicle-based Overlord mission.

Sidequests that are novel and interesting in their own right are great (like most of the Fallout 3 / NV ones) but the ones that are thinly veiled fetch quests both ruin the suspension of disbelief / immersion and add an unneccessary chore element.

I suppose the fact that they are optional leaves us little room to complain. You can normally weed out the attritional and boring ones from the more interesting variety by the set-up that is presented to you by the game.

Magill · 18-07-2011 12:43pm

Vegeta wrote: »

Because without criticism how do developers judge their performance?

Using sales figures. Unfortunately the lowest common denominator and fan boys lap up tired cliched donkeys which are flogged to death. That's why we see the same flawed mechanics in games over and over.

That type of person reminds me of this:

My point was that their are always going to be games and mechanics that some people don't like. Some people love grindy quests and trophy hunting, anyone thats ever played wow will surely know a lot of these people. You don't have to complete most of the sidequests but some people do because they enjoy it... atm sandbox games are slightly limited by the hardware as we're reaching the end of the this generation of consoles. The problems that the OP has with these games, IMO, is more to do with these limitations and having to meet deadlines than the developers being "Lazy", because im sure they're not sitting around twiddling their thumbs all day. Expecting every developer to be as creative and skilled as valve isn't realistic... like film makers theres always a select few that set the bar... valve are one of those few in video games.

ShadowHearth · 18-07-2011 12:45pm

Magill wrote: »

Oh i know things can be improved but like everything... games have development deadlines (Some longer than others) and sometimes, especially with sandbox games and RPG's (At least 3D ones), you'll have samey quests and locations.. its just something you have to accept for now. No doubt as the next gen consoles come out games will be elevated to yet another level.

I just don't see why everyone has to whinge so much, if you don't like it.. take the game back and get a refund.

I think you missunderstood the whole point.

What we are saying: give 1 quest which is actuolly fun, interesting, high quality, then 10 quests which are bring 10 x or kill 10 y and used as a filler to make game longer.

stevenmu · 18-07-2011 1:01pm

Saints Row 2 had the best side-quest system I've ever seen. You play side missions to build up 'rep', and when you have enough rep you can play a story mission. This sounds like it could be a dull grind to build up rep, but nearly all the side missions were huge amounts of fun, and it was easy to build up huge amounts of rep. So it incentivised you to explore the city and possibilities without making you grind repetitive dull bits.

johnny_ultimate · 18-07-2011 1:08pm

I must get back to Saint Rows 2 actually, got it free with my PS3 but have never given it more than an hour! And a considerable percentage of that hour was spent spewing **** on houses from a firetruck.

Magill · 18-07-2011 1:16pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I think you missunderstood the whole point.

What we are saying: give 1 quest which is actuolly fun, interesting, high quality, then 10 quests which are bring 10 x or kill 10 y and used as a filler to make game longer.

Its not as simple as that tho, unless we're talking strictly about RPG's. Sandbox games need to have these kind of missions (Taxi missions/races/save someone/be the police etc) or else there is almost no point in making such big open worlds as its likely you'd never experience it and the world in general would feel incredibly empty, may as well just make another railed action game.. they're also essential for making the game interesting to play once you've completed the main story. I'd love for the sidequests in every game to be as detailed and interesting as they are in fallout but again it comes back to the time management.

I dont think the OP is talking so much about "bring 10 x or kill 10 y" type quests, because frankly i don't recall those kind of missions in infamous (Could be wrong as i've not played it in like 2 years), but level design such as the sewer sections, where you have to power up the generators, being repeatitive... IIRC you get a new power in these shortish sections tho which kind of balanced it out a bit in terms of excitement.

EDIT - I've not played saints row, heard great things about it tho.. i'll have to check it out tbh.

Retr0gamer · 18-07-2011 2:29pm

Well if games like Fallout 3 and Saints Row 2 can have side quests are fun and worthwhile doing then why can't other developers do the same with their games. Considering Saints Row 2 was made on a fraction of the money that was poured into GTA 4 and yet I found Saints Row 2 to be far and away the better game I think developers should use their resources wisely and make fewer side quests but ones that are more fun instead of just needlessly padding their games out with repetitive missions.

Nody · 18-07-2011 3:47pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well if games like Fallout 3 and Saints Row 2 can have side quests are fun and worthwhile doing then why can't other developers do the same with their games. Considering Saints Row 2 was made on a fraction of the money that was poured into GTA 4 and yet I found Saints Row 2 to be far and away the better game I think developers should use their resources wisely and make fewer side quests but ones that are more fun instead of just needlessly padding their games out with repetitive missions.

Because most games are not done to be a top value game; they are done to churn out something quickly and a kill X, collect Y allows that to be done faster.

Liam O · 18-07-2011 5:08pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well if games like Fallout 3 and Saints Row 2 can have side quests are fun and worthwhile doing then why can't other developers do the same with their games. Considering Saints Row 2 was made on a fraction of the money that was poured into GTA 4 and yet I found Saints Row 2 to be far and away the better game I think developers should use their resources wisely and make fewer side quests but ones that are more fun instead of just needlessly padding their games out with repetitive missions.

I don't know about the Saints Row GTA thing that you have outlined there. Saints Row is a very different game to GTA and though I had great fun playing Co-op, it is not a very well made game compared to GTA and suffers from the frame rate dropping quite a bit and freezing. The missions were a bit lackluster too I thought. The game was made to be off the wall which isn't what GTA was made to be.

While the main story from GTA became a bit of a chore, that may have been because there was genuine longevity and plenty of missions. A shortening might have worked better alright in that one but they weren't exactly padding out the game. The 2 DLCs, especially TBOGT were probably the best DLCs that have been released on console too.

If you look at the fun factor Saints Row probably wins but if I had a choice between which to buy for genuine and lasting entertainment I'd probably take GTA.

ShadowHearth · 18-07-2011 5:14pm

Liam O wrote: »

I don't know about the Saints Row GTA thing that you have outlined there. Saints Row is a very different game to GTA and though I had great fun playing Co-op, it is not a very well made game compared to GTA and suffers from the frame rate dropping quite a bit and freezing. The missions were a bit lackluster too I thought. The game was made to be off the wall which isn't what GTA was made to be.

While the main story from GTA became a bit of a chore, that may have been because there was genuine longevity and plenty of missions. A shortening might have worked better alright in that one but they weren't exactly padding out the game. The 2 DLCs, especially TBOGT were probably the best DLCs that have been released on console too.

If you look at the fun factor Saints Row probably wins but if I had a choice between which to buy for genuine and lasting entertainment I'd probably take GTA.

Sorry but gta is horrible optimised for pc. It's not great looking game and has alot of buggy crap. The only thing that saves gta series is modding community.

And yeah, how can you suck fun out of the game?! Ask rockstar, they will explain it.

Sarky · 18-07-2011 5:43pm

Mass Effect 1 did a pretty good job with side-quests. Oh, the maps and wall textures were repetitive as hell, but there were some great story arcs that fleshed out the universe. They really managed to build up Cereberus as a really ruthless nasty terrorist organisation, for example, which was cool in itself, but I felt much more clued in to what was going on during ME 2 than if I'd ignored ME1's quests on the subject. Other quests helped fill in bits about the humans' wars with the turians and batarians, or the scandals surrounding the development of the first human biotics. the rest were straightforward adventures in spaaaaace. And that's fine, because they were greatly outnumbered.

Side-quests are best when they're in proportions like Mass Effect's: Mostly fleshing out bits and pieces important to the main story. It's when developers go overboard and cram any old crap in to extend game time that side-quests are annoying. The first Witcher game had some truly great moments with side-quests, but it was a bit spoiled by the sheer number of "go here, kill x monsters, bring their giblets back to character y" side-quests.

I couldn't be arsed playing the GTA games and the like because most of the side-missions are so asinine and pointless, and do nothing to actually advance the game. The first Assassin's Creed broke new ground in the field of piss-taking with the half a dozen side-quests repeated over and over, and don't get me started on however many hundred bloody flags were left lying around. Developers need to spend more time putting relevant side-quests in. AC2 was a huge improvement like that, Brotherhood even moreso.Mass Effect seems to be doing ok so far.

Something else that really bugs me is when the story arc for a side-quest is actually much, much better than the main plot. Oblivion, I'm looking at you. Why the hell was the main plot so mind-breakingly, soul-achingly dull when you had all this Dark Brotherhood stuff lying around where some players might not even see it?

johnny_ultimate · 18-07-2011 6:50pm

Liam O wrote: »

I don't know about the Saints Row GTA thing that you have outlined there. Saints Row is a very different game to GTA and though I had great fun playing Co-op, it is not a very well made game compared to GTA and suffers from the frame rate dropping quite a bit and freezing. The missions were a bit lackluster too I thought. The game was made to be off the wall which isn't what GTA was made to be.

While the main story from GTA became a bit of a chore, that may have been because there was genuine longevity and plenty of missions. A shortening might have worked better alright in that one but they weren't exactly padding out the game. The 2 DLCs, especially TBOGT were probably the best DLCs that have been released on console too.

If you look at the fun factor Saints Row probably wins but if I had a choice between which to buy for genuine and lasting entertainment I'd probably take GTA.

I'm very fond of GTA IV too (the atmosphere, the buzz of the city, the visuals), but having had another quick whirl of Saint's Row 2 there the variety in the sidequests is definitely to be applauded. Sure, they're sometimes a bit awkwardly implemented - SR2 level design combined with GTA IV engine and mechanics would be something remarkable. But therein lies a few key arguments - one imaginative mission is of more value than fifteen unimaginative ones. Why have tonnes of subquests to unlock something when your efforts are better spent making one that's ultimately more fun to play? I'd almost rather games be ambitious and admirably fail than lazy and moderately succeed. Taking LA Noire - barring the dull sidequests - its failings are a result of surplus ambition more than anything, and I'm glad it does what it does even if I wouldn't agree with more hyperbolic claims to the success of its innovations.

The key to a sandbox game is to encourage the player to explore the world and mechanics - a mix of careful designer control and player experimentation. inFamous lacks that - a poorly designed world in which your powers rarely have the (pun!) outlet they deserve. After all, when did it ever seem like a good idea to have an electrically charged character spending hours of his time surrounded by water? The third, fourth, fifth, tenth time you have to scale a building to remove surveillance devices - shoddily 'guarded' so you can't just zap them from afar - is less and less rewarding than the first, so is its presence necessary? Personally, I say nein.

nyarlothothep · 18-07-2011 10:43pm

The collection quests in ME were uniformly dull. However it is possible to do an entertaining collection quest, for example in Dragonage you have to collect the ribald letters of nobles, I enjoyed the blackadderian humour in them so I guess thats where a collection quest can work, other than if they're designed to unlock really cool weaponry or armour. The side quests in ME2, hmm some ok some crap, for example the missions activated when you land on a random planet were mostly dull in that you just shot a few enemies and activated a switch or something because it was related to some plot about a smuggling or mining operation. I would count the house of redoran quest in in Morrowind as a side quest and a good example of one which is rewarding in that you get a castle at the end of it. They really need to be rewarding in terms of items, storylines and so on.

Dave_The_Sheep · 19-07-2011 10:09am

With the collection of ores, gases, etc in ME - I didn't really treat them as sidequests. If I happened across an ore or whatnot, I'd collect it but I never really bothered going out of my way for them at all. What did they even give you?

The same with the collection of those letters in Dragon Age, never bothered. Subquests of that kind of standard don't merit completion.

I hate subquests, and other reasons why games are too long

Comments