Yakoob on 17/2/2012 at 20:28
I've passive-aggressiveness complained about the irrationality of quests in many RPG, how random strangers entrust you with secret knowledge, missions that could jeopardize them if you fail them, and illogical respones/flow of conversation that leads to them. The thing is, it takes about 2 seconds to realize just how utterly illogical they are and it's starting to really annoy me. Here are a few examples:
Example A: I dont know you but here's my big Secret
Here's an example from Skyrim where anywhere you go you get completely ridiculous offers. In the town with the Mage school you can talk to a guy who tells you:
"Hey, the jarl thinks I go to the mage school but in fact I do not, can you bring me something from there so I can show him and he keeps thinking I go there?"
Issues:
A) He just revealed a potentially grave secret (lying to the FUCKING JARL) to a random stranger
b) He just asked you for help with a task that requires stealing and potentially killing within five seconds of meeting you
c) Why is he entrusting such as sensitive task to a random passer-byer? If you mess it up (and he has no idea how capable you are), the quest-giver will be far worse off than if he hadn't had the task complete.
This is particularily bad as it's almost a staple of RPG quest-giving.
Example B: Illogical choices and reactions
In Mass Effect at one point you need to get to Peak 56(?) which requires a pass to the garage. The passes are owned by employees of EvilBusinessman who has gone corrupt. You meet one of his employees at a bar who has evidence of EvilBusinessman's corruption in his office, but he has been locked out. So if you agree to get the evidence back, he will give you his pass to the garage + some money. Upon retriving a pass you are contacted by an Internal Affairs Woman who has been investigating EvilBusinessman and asks you to ask the employee to testify against EvilBusinessman instead of giving him evidence; she will give you the pass to garage but no money.
The stupid thing is, you can ONLY choose one:
a) give evidence to employee, get pass and money from him
b) convince to testify, get pass from internal affairs woman
I dont even understand why these two listed as separate. I can get the pass either way, but why in my conversation I must choose between "testify" or "give me money," the two aren't even related to one another. And if I choose "tesitify" instead of money, he gets angry with "dont tell me what you do." You then have an option to say "But it will make you a hero!" (which for some reason increases your "good" side) and he replies with "well I guess I wont change your mind, ok I will tesitfy."
Issues:
a) Why must I choose between "ask for money" and "ask to testify;" the two are in no way mutually excusive.
b) Why does the employee get angry when I ask him to testify AFTER I already did him a favor of getting his evidence back?
c) Why does he give in and risk his personal safety and image just becuase the player is stubborn?
d) Why is trying to use simple rhetoric increase your "good" side?
e) And why the hell would this guy reveal everything to a random stranger at a bar who could've been EvilBusinessman's spy? And the InternalAffairs woman works as a secretary for EvilBusinessman so she could be a double agent, why is Shepher instantly willing to trust her?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now I understand how those mechanics make it easy to create quests but just looking at them for 5 seconds reveals how absolutely ridiculous they are. It's not that hard to alter the dialog to make more sense (even adding something like "I hear you are a man who can be trusted with discrete tasks" would be a big step). Is this just lazy design? Do quest designers just not stop to think "does my quest actually make any sense? I don't know about you guys but it's been slowly killing my suspension of disbelief whenever so blatantly stupid stuff pops up *all* the time.
catbarf on 17/2/2012 at 21:46
This is, I think, a scenario where function and gameplay have to come before realism. I need to run so I can't give an in-depth reply, but I've run into this sort of thing in design before- basically, there's no good way to give quests so that they don't fall into the trap of the first example you gave. Movies have the advantage of time lapse and the ability to tell a story lasting a long period of time, which makes character development a little more natural, but for a game being told in real-time it's a little difficult. Some games do it a little more sensibly than others, but in the end the gameplay boils down to 'hey random stranger do this for me get cash'.
The second example is really just lazy design, but it's a result of designers putting gameplay first. It's expected that the player will want to resolve a situation to his own benefit, which is why that choice often doesn't include helping someone else out. There are a few games that actually did it well- the first example I can think of is Metro 2033, where you're given the option to either accept or refuse payment from a woman for saving her son. For the specific example you gave, I'd just chalk it up to poor design, possibly a quest added in at the last minute or by a couple of people without external review.
Call me an optimist, but I prefer to look at this sort of thing as a development from how it used to be. We're not really at the level of believable character interaction, but it's definitely a step up from being given a quest whether we like it or not and having only one possible outcome. A decade from now, maybe we'll have the sort of believability we want.
ZylonBane on 17/2/2012 at 23:05
Every RPG must include a side quest where you help hook up a shy guy with a hot girl. No exceptions.
heywood on 17/2/2012 at 23:13
It takes a fair bit of work in terms of writing, scripting, and level design to make believable interactive characters and side quests. But in open world RPGs, the first priority is to make the world large and full so it's partly a quantity vs. quality thing. Also, it's probably easier to weave side quests into the story in a way that feels natural to the player if the game is linear.
I've tried several times to get into Bethesda RPGs but just can't do it (even bailed on FO3), and your complaint is one of the main reasons why.
Jason Moyer on 18/2/2012 at 03:36
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Why is he entrusting such as sensitive task to a random passer-bye?
He's entrusting it to the man who saved
the universe. Actually, that makes even less sense I guess.
Yakoob on 18/2/2012 at 04:38
Huh? I saved the universe? I guess I missed the memo. I'm talking about ME1.
demagogue on 18/2/2012 at 04:44
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Huh? I
saved the universe? I guess I missed the memo. I'm talking about ME1.
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Here's an example from Skyrim ... Why is he entrusting such as sensitive task to a random passer-byer?
I haven't gotten to the part in the memo though, so may not be saying anything. Just pointing that out.
van HellSing on 18/2/2012 at 06:18
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Every RPG must include a side quest where you help hook up a shy guy with a hot girl. No exceptions.
The Witcher 2:
Quote:
Geralt: I solve problems.
Elf Girl: Oh! I've been having a problem with my boyfriend.
Geralt: Did you find your boyfriend's entrails strewn across your porch? And his head 10 paces away? Because those are the kinds of problems I solve.
The game does have its share of quest stupidity, but I loved that little subversion ;)
Muzman on 18/2/2012 at 07:53
Yeah, these are old old tropes that mostly seem to be there because of convenience and tradition. People sort of expect them to be there and they're easier for kicking off side-quests than reams of natural dialogue and information.
I could be wrong but I think they come from the way Dungeons and Dragons games were structured back in the day. There the world was usually divided into normal people and Adventurers. When when word of adventurers hitting town gets about people with problems turn up to ask these heroes for help (I think this used to actually happen with knights and crusaders and so forth, who were basically rich assholes who killed people).
So I can sort of buy it in fantasy settings. It's really glaring when it turns up in the present or sci-fi scenarios that's for sure (athough they're usually at pains to suggest that the world there in the future or this gnarly third-world locale is basically feudal, so fuck you.)
As for artificial dilemmas; yeah, horrible. They're very traditional to RPGs and adventure games too. We really shouldn't put up with it. But it saves a lot of writing. I doubt they'd change without people bitching about it a lot.
