Why Side Quests? (Part 1)

Side quests are a staple of the RPG genre. Optional quests to get extra experience, items or gold or to learn a little bit more about characters or the game world, they are almost considered an essential part of the RPG experience. But why? They typically don't exist in other genres. You rarely have a sidequest in an FPS that gives you a new weapon or extra ammo. You don't get asked to fetch an optional item in a platformer. RTS games might have optional objectives that are somewhat akin to a sidequest, but this is definitely the exception rather than the norm. So why do RPGs need sidequests?

For the purpose of the discussion today, I'm going to look at all the weaknesses relating to sidequests.  I'll cover the benefits in a subsequent post, but focus entirely on the ways sidequests can impact negatively on a game.

Diluting Narrative
An RPG often lives or dies on its core narrative - the main plot or conflict of the game which the player is trying to resolve. This isn't always the case, but this is generally the major drawcard of the game. The main questline will have a continuous story that affects the main character in signficant ways, its NPCs will be the most complex (and use the big name voice actors) and generally will be the core means of setting the "tone" or "theme" of the game.

Is the theme "Everybody is dead, Dave" ?

If the game's core theme is dealing with an eternal struggle between two opposing forces, how does doing a menial task for a character completely devoid of any relation to that struggle further the development of that theme?  What about if we have a glib character making one-liners while we're dealing with impending doom?  Now, I'm not mandating a need for everything to tie into the game's core plot. That would feel incredibly artificial, and would make it feel as though the entire world was revolving around our character. That is hardly believable in the vast majority of circumstances.

The important point is to not have so many sidequests that your player gets distracted from the main thrust of the game. They should not forget the goal they are ultimately trying to achieve because they get bogged down with completely unrelated quests. For example, in Mass Effect 1, there were quite a lot of different side quests, but many of them tied back into the current threat of the Geth or other elements related to the main story (e.g. Thorian Creepers and Rachni). While these their own separate stories, they were still able to tie in and support the main plot rather than detract from it. This avoided what otherwise could have felt like a chore of doing a lot of quests the seemingly had nothing to do with the main story. Compare to Mass Effect 2 where most of the side quests related to one of three mercenary companies and bore no relevance to the game's core plot. Those sidequests did not add to the core narrative, and in doing so made the game's plot feel less cohesive than that of its predecessor.

The only good Geth is a dead Geth.

Inspire Boredom
We all know the apathy that we feel when we as a player are asked to bring back "a pair of leather gloves", to deliver "5 healing plants" to someone, or "kill 10 rats". This is not the stuff of excitement or adventure. It's the essence of humdrum.

The Oblivion Gates in Oblivion were able to support the main narrative of the game to an extent by constantly reminded the player that Tamriel was under siege because of them, but they failed miserably on this point. After closing a handful of Oblivion gates, you quickly knew the various layouts that were possible, and became sick of going through exactly the same routine to clear each gate. They were not an inherently boring quest like "fetch me a healing potion from the store", but they became boring because they became tediously repetitious. No one likes to do the same thing over and over again, and this is exactly what the Oblivion gates demanded of you.

Oh, another Oblivion gate. Yay.

Add Design Work
From a design perspective, everything takes time and resources. Every side quest requires time for writing, scripting, testing, voice recording, and so on. This translates to a longer (and more expensive) development period and more potential bugs. Every development has things cut, and each side quest means that resources are stretched further. Adding too many sidequests can result in an unpolished game, or one that feels shallow and lacking direction. Even if your aim is to make a sandbox for the player to explore, you don't want to have quantity at the expense of quality.

Removing Importance
Since I'm a big fan of choice in RPGs, I advocate decisions having some meaning. Yet when you deal with sidequests, so often those choices you make feel like they are insignificant and ignored. The consequences from rescuing or saving someone in an individual sidequest is never referenced again, making the player wonder what the effect their choices are actually making.

I rescued Big Town... Big Whoop.

This is particularly the case when characters involved allude to some greater consequence or impact due to the player's actions. If there is some threat directed against the player about future reprisals that never eventuate, what was the point of making that decision that caused it? Admittedly this comes down to the issue of time and resources mentioned above, a multitude of sidequests that have no effect or relevance apart from when they are experience potentially exposes the artificial nature of the game world rather than making it feel alive.

Of course, sidequests can add a lot to a game, and there are many positive aspects that they can contribute. Some of these issues even have counterpoints that actually make a game better. But without being mindful of the pitfalls and potential shortcomings relating to sidequests, designers are in danger of producing content that hampers their game rather than improving it.

The Generic Antagonist

My previous posts on antagonists have primarily dealt with games that have a strong focus on individuals, looking at enemies that you get to know somewhat personally to give you a motivation to defeat them. Most of these have been RPGs. But what about games where you're placed in a situation where you're not dealing explicitly with one enemy? What about when you're fighting against a massive faceless horde? For example, Gears of War pits you against The Locust, Half-life has you fighting the combine, Just Cause 2 has you shooting at... pretty much anything and anyone who gets in your way. These games are all popular and manage to successfully install a desire to win and "defeat" your enemies on par with many of the successful antagonists I've previously discussed.

I'm not about to advocate that these games are masterpieces of story-telling, but despite their varying cinematic impact and strength of writing they all are quite successful in making you feel like you're in an environment that is increasingly hostile towards you and your actions. As a player, you're very concerned about surviving your next encounter and getting to do the next thing of your list of objectives. They give you a great sense of wanting to "just play a little bit longer" or "I really hope I can take this enemy down".

On three, or three and then go?

Admittedly all three games have characters that serve as some sort of figureheads for the hordes of the generic enemies you fight, but they're typically far removed from the action until the very end of the game. They're typically not given the same sort of weight that an antagonist is given in an RPG. They might have some influence on the troubles that the player is facing, but in general I'd say they aren't fully realised characters with depth - at least not depth which is exposed to the player in any significant way. So why are these games so successful in making the player want to keep going, and why can't RPGs deliver in the same way?

Perhaps some of the reason is that RPGs rely heavily on narrative to provide player interest. Or rather, rely on narrative delivered in the specific form of dialogue in text or speech form. Of course, if we're dealing with narrative in computer games, there are so many more options available to a designer than text and speech. Take Half-life or Gears of War and see how their narrative is delivered in many different forms: scripted events or cinematics, combat scenarios, art style, the player's environment, sound, music, and so much more. Sometimes they are able to do so much more with one line of dialogue than an RPG ever could...

We don't go to Ravenholm...

One simple line sets the scene for Ravenholm, and all the visuals sound serve to reinforce the eerie and foreboding delivery of Alyx's warning. Gears of War pits you against increasing tough enemies as the stakes of the battle rise, and Just Cause 2 sees the army becoming increasingly tense and quick to send everything they have after you. By not having a single specific antagonist to focus the player's main ire upon, each enemy and sequence poses its own challenge and interest in a way that other games don't capture.  Compare the threat of fighting a group of locust in a set piece in Gears of War to yet another darkspawn battle in the Deep Roads of Dragon Age.  Which is the more exciting and engaging piece of the two? I love RPGs, but if I had to pick which of the two was more likely to get my heart going, I'd have to choose Gears of War.

I don't believe having an "epic story" makes fights around the henchmen or grunts of the "great enemy" that you're faced against inherently boring. There simply appears to be something in RPGs that frequently causes these "trash mob" fights to become repetitive or otherwise uninteresting. Have RPGs become too reliant on explicitly telling the player everything through dialogue rather than letting them figure things out for themselves? Has this dependence then made every fight that is not accompanied by relevant dialogue to give it a direct context and meaning becomes dull or potentially pointless to the player? Or perhaps it is that RPGs simply need to experiment with attempting to provide narrative in the same way that it is done in a more action oriented game.

Forced Loss

I was recently contacted by a reader and asked for my opinions on a few issues of game design. Yes, I do read messages that people send me, and I definitely appreciate anyone taking the time to suggest items I can discuss in future blog posts. If you're interested in discussing a particular subject, or want me to address it, let me know and I'll try to get around to it at some point. With any luck, you, I and other readers might get some more food for thought.  But getting on to the subject at hand, the thing that I want to address is the concept of the player making a "wrong" choice.

In a game, our fate is predetermined.  There is a set goal laid out for the player, and there are certain things that we must achieve in order to reach that goal.  We can't make a choice that means that we "break" our game. We can't, say, choose not to spray LeChuck with root beer in The Secret of Monkey Island. It's not possible to let 343 Guilty Spark live in Halo 3. We can't decide to not save the Princess from the vizier in Prince of Persia. What about in Dragon Age, where the player joins or is conscripted into the Grey Wardens? They do not have any choice in the matter whatsoever, and in order for the game to work, they cannot. In many cases, the player faces death if they are not conscripted. Could or should the game allow players to make the choice to refuse and then immediately suffer death? Should designers allow players to deliberately make a "bad" choice and immediately suffer the consequence of permanent failure?

What if I don't want to join you?

I actually attempted this in Fate of a City. At one point the player could refuse to work with one of the core plot characters. After the player indicated they did not wish to work with her, she threatened the player with certain death. If you player refused a second time, she attacked the player and would always kill them. Some players actually complained bitterly about this choice, because it drew attention to the fact that they had no choice in the matter and had to go along with helping her.

In this case, which is the lesser of two evils? Is it to give the player the option not to follow the pre-determined path and immediately kill them if they do so, or is it to eliminate the possibility of them making this choice entirely? Game design principles would tell us that the latter is the better option, because players do not like being "wrong". Worse still, players might believe that it is possibly for them to "win" a situation that is designed to be impossible, resulting in significant frustration and aggravation as they continually fail to beat an invincible enemy.

Modern game design is such that players do not expect to be put in situations in which they cannot win, at least not without very clear and obvious meta-game information telling them so. In World of Warcraft this is achieved by having creatures with a skull instead of a number for their level. Any game putting the player into un-winnable situations would need to do something clear and obvious like this to let the player know that they've made a "bad" choice.

Skull = death. Simple, no?

There are certain instances where a player can die instantly from failing to act in an appropriate way. If you make a wrong jump in a platformer, you can easily fall to your death. If you don't get out of the way of a boss's super attack, you'll quite likely die. An active choice by the player trying to circumvent or get around the mechanics of a level or fight frequently results in instant death - you can't shortcut the level by driving across the lava field. Why is that if the player told multiple times that a particular choice in terms the story would be bad or result in their death, this is somehow unacceptable game design? Provided that the punishment for that decision occurs immediately (just as it does with bad "choices" regarding a game's mechanics), is this any worse?

I can see arguments both ways. On one hand, this presents the player with the grim reality of their situation: that some choices will result in their death. This tells them "no, if you try to refuse the destiny that the game offers, you will die." However, this also reinforces to the player that they are playing the game. It highlights the artificial nature of their experience and that they do not limitless freedom, no matter how much we as designers try to convince them otherwise. Worse still, would such options potentially make the player resent the game because it does not allow them to fully explore some of the choices it is presenting to them.

In this case, it seems better not to present the choice at all. Simply make your player so engaged and drawn into the story and the cause you want them to pursue that they won't even think of doing something else. That is good game design.

Motion (mis)control

In recent times I've seen calls by fans for games to cater for two technologies: 3D and motion control.  Some gamers apparently believe that having these two things will help make games "better". Now I'm not mindless against 3D, and I think done right, it can actually add a fair amount to movies.  I think there's also the potential for it to add to games, though I'll have to confess that after seeing Gran Turismo 5 in 3D, I was wholly underwhelmed. However, when it comes to motion control, I'm of the belief that currently it destroys immersion more than it adds to it.

Firstly, let's deal with the fitness issue. Now before everyone gets out their stereotype cards and starts calling me an overweight nerd, let's get a few things straight. I eat healthily, have a lean figure, and exercise a couple of times to keep fit. I'm not an elite athlete by any means, but I'm no slob constantly sucking down soft drink and chocolate bars who can't get off his couch. But if I go around to a friend's house and play Wii boxing or tennis for an extended stint, I'm going to get pretty exhausted. Funnily enough, I can probably be less exhausted from 30 minutes having a hit on an actual tennis court with a friend than 30 minutes of Wii tennis. Pretending to play the game is more exhausting than playing it for real? How does that work?

At least I don't have to suffer this

For one, with tennis it's possible to have a casual hit with a friend. Even if you do play a match, you're likely to intersperse it with some casual hits back and forth to warm up or cool down or possibly even to relax between games or sets. On the Wii, you don't get that. You can't just hit back and forth because every single point is scored. The game does it for you automatically. Computer games are designed to create tension and excitement, they're designed to draw players in and make them engaged with the game. This means that players will "get into" the action and become more active and animated, because the game rewards winning. That happens even on a "casual gaming platform" like the Wii.

The game also ditches "dead time" from the real life experience. You don't have to fetch the next ball from the back of the court in Wii tennis. The ball just magically appears in the server's hand after a point is finished. Breaks ruin immersion, so they have to go. Everything is designed to keep the action going and to keep players active. Let's be honest with ourselves here, we don't play video games for a physical workout. Sometimes we come home from a hard day at work/school/whatever and just want to relax and unwind with a game. The last thing we want is to work up a heavy sweat from playing the beat-em-up through a vigorous motion-control workout.

Which brings me to the point that video games are games. They are fantasy. They allow us to do things that we cannot possibly do in real life. Can you wall-run like Prince of Persia? Can you do Chun-li's lightning kick? Can you backflip-spin-double-twirl-triple-sword-slash like Ryu Hayabusa? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you can't. In this case, how do you get your character to perform these unbelievable and amazing moves? How can players act as someone extraordinary in a believable fashion when there is a huge disconnect between their actions and that of their on-screen avatar?

How do you propose to motion control this?

I have nothing against Kinect or Moooove or the Wii controllers, but if people are just using them for the sake of using them, then they're nothing more than an (expensive) gimmick. Just like 3D. Making people motion like they're swinging a sword that they aren't actually holding is going to break immersion, not add to it. Let's go back to the Wii example to prove that motion control breaks immersion rather than adds to it.

When I play Wii tennis as a new player, I'm mimicking the actual moves required to perform the action in real life. Swinging the controller like I would a tennis racket. However, as I continue to play, I come to the realisation that I can achieve better results with less realistic actions. Eventually my action to play Wii tennis becomes so centred around the controller that the way I play the game doesn't resemble playing real tennis at all. As a player, I have reduced the motion control down to the simplest and most basic action centred around the control device itself, because then I can more accurately and consistently reproduce the "ideal" action for hitting the ball back across the net.

A sedate Wii tennis player is a skilled player

This is the core reason that motion games at the moment aren't actually making games better. In essence, we're still dealing with a controller, and because of the limitations of the current motion hardware, "mastery" of the mechanics of the game actually lead to our actions diverging from the reality of the actions of the on-screen character. By getting "better" at the game, we're returning to the original gaming paradigm of merely "using a controller" to manipulate our avatar, rather than having them mimic us as a player. Motion control merely highlights the difference between our own actions and that of our in-game persona, which is far from engaging.

What's your purpose?

Today's post is going to deal with writing for games, and making sure that people pay attention to an essential element: purpose. This works on multiple levels, for you are concerned with your purpose for this dialogue as a writer, and the speaker's purpose in terms of their long term and immediate goals. We will examine these in turn, focusing primarily on dialogue, as that is the means by which a significant amount of a game's story is delivered.

A Writer's Purpose
Whenever you're starting to write a particular piece of dialogue, ask yourself "why?"  Why does this particular piece of dialogue need to be written? Is it to progress the story, provide the player with essential background, develop a character, or something else? What you are really asking is "what does this piece of writing add to the game?" If you can't answer that question, then you've either got a problem, or you don't need to do the writing.

Keep in mind that there are many more reasons you could have dialogue that the few I've listed above. What about "adding some humour into a dark scene", "reinforcing the danger of an adversary", "telling the player their next objective", "warning the player about the faction they're about meet"? All of these are valid reasons for dialogue, and there are many more besides.

Morrigan vs Alistair... The witch wins again.

The other reason for working out the purpose of the dialogue is to help you as a writer define what should and shouldn't be included.  If you're trying to impress upon the player how dangerous their current situation is, you shouldn't include a witty one-liner, because that's not the tone or atmosphere that you're trying to instill. Likewise, telling the player about their next objective generally should include some very clear and direct speech or facts that say exactly what must be done, because you're trying to provide the player with some direction about what to do next. Make sure you provide that direction rather than getting mired in vague directions and allusions.

A Character's Purpose
While you as a writer must have a purpose for a piece of dialogue, you must remember that dialogue is delivered by characters, and characters have their own agendas within the reality of the game world. If they don't, then you'll likely need to give them one.  This means you need both a broad "general" aim of the character, and their specific aim within this dialogue.

In a general sense, a character has some over-arching desire that drives them.  They might seek fame, power, revenge, "a hero's death", or "a peaceful home with a loving family". There should be some ultimate goal or general sense of purpose guiding the character and their actions, as for any character of significance, this is what will drive their actions. Loghain from Dragon Age was driven by patriotism, the Transcendent One from Planescape: Torment was driven by a desire for peace. These driving forces caused a great many other actions, but these were key elements of these characters.

We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded...

However, in every interaction, you should also consider what the character is attempting to do right now. They may have their overall driving force, but in each specific dialogue, what are they trying to achieve? Are they trying to romance the PC or get to know them better? Are they imparting information to the player? Are they desperately begging for help? Are they trying to manipulate or deceive the PC? Note that this will reflect the aim of the dialogue as a whole, but the character's intentions will put an individual spin on the information being delivered.

Let's look at a specific example, where the player is just about to head into a big battle. There are two NPCs that the player can choose to talk to before taking to the battlefield. In both cases, the aim of the dialogue from the writer's point of view is to impress upon the player the danger of the forthcoming battle. This is to raise the stakes of the game and make the player feel invested in achieving victory and maybe even a little anxious or apprehensive about the forthcoming battle.

A few extra soldiers would be very useful right now...

However, the aims of the two NPCs are very different: One of them is trying to assist the player and tell them of the (difficult) strategy required to win the battle, but the other might be a traitor and attempting to instill the player with fear. Think about the differences in the speech of the two characters as they communicate with the player - they could potentially end up delivering almost the same information about the upcoming battle, but the tone of their delivery will be markedly different.

Of course, these things can be applied to writing in general, not just writing for video games.  However, in video games, there is more than one way to give information to the player. When considering your purpose, also keep in mind that might be a batter way to deliver your message to the player than through dialogue.  A journal entry, on-screen tip, visual cues or even gameplay itself might help to better fulfill the purpose you've identified. For example, how do you convey an atmosphere of tension through dialogue? What about player controls, or hints as to the solution of a puzzle?

A video game writer can and should use more than just dialogue

By using purpose to define the means and style of writing by which you communicate with your player, a video game writer can produce more engaging material. When all the text helps support the current atmosphere of the game, each dialogue helps to reinforce the personality of the characters speaking, when all the writing is helping to draw the player into the game and the gameworld that has been created, then you have been successful in the task of being a video game writer.

It's time for your input...

A quick post to tell everyone that I'm calling up readers to give their opinion in my latest poll.

I want to know how much people use cosmetic mods like Pineappletree's Vibrant Colors (I hate spelling that without a "u") or Don't worry, be hairy. So far I've stuck with the default options for hair styles and eye/hair colouring, but I want to know if players have these mods installed by default and won't stand for the small selection available in default.

The reason I ask is because these mods have the potential to modify the appearance of existing faces from the default or as I have created them...

Those eyes suddenly look a little different...

This might be a minor thing, but I don't want a character to suddenly look out of place because of an external mod. So I want to do the right thing by players and if they are using one (or multiple) appearance changing mods, I'll install those mods during the creation process for The Shattered War and make sure that all the characters have the appearance that they are "supposed" to have.

If people could go one step further and identify the specific mods that they use, I would definitely appreciate it.

Shattered War: Character Interaction

In my last post I promised I'd give some information about characters in the Shattered War, so that's exactly what I'm going to do today.

In The Shattered War, you take upon the role of a soldier investigating darkspawn in the Frostback Mountains. Set after the events of Dragon Age: Origins, the adventure sees you acting as part of a larger force to deal with the problems in the region. As a result, you will be called upon to talk to those who live in the area, as well as allies and enemies seeking to help or hinder your cause.

It will come as no surprise to any regular reader that choice will be a key consideration in The Shattered War. There will be many situations where you will be called upon to make difficult decisions, and in some cases there will not be an option that allows you to save the day without consequence. Before the player reaches the end of the adventure, there will be deaths on their conscience, no matter the path that they choose.

You will be called upon to take sides

Party members will react differently depending on how you treat them, but there will not be undue penalties simply because you do not agree with a particular party member. Leadership can take on many forms, and you will see the effects of your relationship with party members, be it one of friendship or enmity. The worst thing you can do as a leader is to inspire indifference, for in The Shattered War your party members will perform better if they like you or hate you.

Of course, there are other characters you will have cause to talk to repeatedly during your campaign, and your behaviour with them will affect future interactions. If you mistreat a particular individual or otherwise anger them, you might find yourself at odds with them later in the game. There are a number of characters that can go from ally to adversary or vice versa, so carefully consider any decision to grant or withhold your assistance.

Be prepared for some frosty receptions

The Shattered War will present you with characters you will love, and some that you will love to hate. Your interactions with them will help define the outcome of your adventure, and even have wider implications for the region. Choose your words wisely.