next »

[matwek]

I've been working on a few game desings that could incorporate some side quests and I was curious to know what people thought of them and if they had any examples of games that do it really well.

Personally I have a few issues with side quests, mainly from the RPG perspective.
For example. I love games like the Witcher. There is plenty do and each of the additonal quests feels relevant to both the gameplay and the lore of the world, but by performing all the side quests before moving on (as I like to do to make sure I don't miss anything) often puts me on a significantly higher level than I should be for Main Quests.
Personally I like a bit of challange to my games, but I usually end up in a situation where I can basically 'walk' the last half of the game due to being so over powered.

Some could argue that I could just leave the side quests till after the main game, progressing the story at the recomended level. But then returning to side quests at the end of the game seems pointless and a bit of a chore.

So I've been trying to think of ways to incorperate side quests without creating that situation.
One idea I considered is having side quests that don't offer exp or significantly better gear, but instead rewared the player with unique gear that isn't more powerful but offers different ways to play to your advantage.
... I think of it as the Megaman approach. Each new weapon you gain isn't more powerful, but it's more useful in specific situations.

[_glitch]

It depends on what your game is about.
I love side quests, for example these in Bethesda games like Skyrim or Fallout 4 (and of course the other games of The Elder Scrolls and Fallout series), because they don't affect the main story in a huge way. Of course you will get many experience points and high quality loot.

Just design your game in a way that side quests give a very small amount of experience points, common loot and no information about the main story.
If you do this, everything should be fine (if I understood you correctly).

AND: you should make some side quests available after a certain stage is reached in the main story, not all from beginning on. This prevents the player from completing all sidequests before finishing the main story and becoming to strong and/or skilled.

[polisummer]

It really depends on the game. I think in a sufficiently long game, your approach to side quests is the correct one. Side quests are best when they add depth to the lore and story of a game, and not only serve as semi-optional stat boosters for the player. You gave a great example of Megaman. You could complete the entire game without doing a single side quest, but the ones you complete expand your options of play. I think another game that does side quests well, from a lore perspective, is the Witcher 3. Each one reveals so much about the world Geralt is in it totally sucks you into the game without feeling like a chore at all. Take inspiration from those.

[TitoOliveira]

Personally I like a bit of challange to my games, but I usually end up in a situation where I can basically 'walk' the last half of the game due to being so over powered.

The Witcher 3 goes halfway to solving this issue. In TW3 there's no way to grind for levels since 95% of the experience you get comes from doing the quests, and sidequests provide much less experience than the main ones. At the end of the game, there's a range of 7 or 8 levels that you will always be, the difference is how many sidequests you've done before you got to that point. So the designers know the level range the player will be in all parts of the game.
This could be tuned down by making the vast majority of the experience you get come from the main quests, so doing all the available sidequests will not deviate the players from the designed level range you intend for them.

[s0]

instead of changing the rewards for side quests, you could change the way character progression works in your game and make it impossible or at least very hard for the player to ever be "overpowered".

zelda is an example of a game that does this. sure you get different items and sometimes straight up upgrades (heart containers, different swords), but while those upgrades do help you, they never make the game trivial.

another idea is giving players the ability to reject upgrades and "levelups" if they so choose and thereby giving them increased control over the progression. zelda again does this (you could play through the entire game with just 3 hearts) and so does dark souls.

[oahda]

MMO-style "fetch 100 x" = bad
MM-style "ties into story and makes the game deeper" = good

IMO

[p1zzaman81]

What type of game are you making? RPG? Psuedo-RPG? Action adventure? Side quests technically can appear in all genres in my opinion.

I think side quests exist because of 2 aspects:
1. Content
2. Balancing

Content:

A good side quest needs to have a good backstory.  Witcher 3 is a good example.  Make it relate-able to the player. Use good narratives to move the side quest along; I think writing is crucial here. And of course integrate the theme of your genre.

Balancing:

As for being overpowered.  Are you implying that the sidequests makes the players overpowered?  I think that's a gameplay balance issue.  You want to reward the player for doing sidequests but you don't want to provide them with so much reward that the main game becomes a breeze.  I've had situations where a side quest ends up being more difficult than the main quest ending.  This one could be tricky since you want the players to participate in your side quests but don't want to overpower them with rewards.  So revert back to part 1: Content.  Provide excellent enjoyable content in the side quest that is not frustrating or repetitive, and the player can look past the little reward you give out.

Hope that helps 

[beetleking22]

I hate traditional Sidequest. I only like well made  Cryptic sidequest with good ass rewards.

[darkhog]

i think you really need to put a lot of work either into the goal of sidequest or the story behind it. Too many sidequests are just variation of Kill X of Y or Bring me X of Y with little to no explanation behind them or even reason (like, "I know you are the mightiest hero our land has ever known and you have to stop big bad, but please bring me 5 carrots" - WHY WOULD I DO THAT???).

[SchriefFighter]

Sidequests can be what you want them to be. They can be views into the different parts of your world, or they can be simply tasks that can give players a chance to level up or get special items. It's your game.

If you make sidequests, make them how you feel they should be made.

[danresn]

I have mixed feelings about this too. I loved doing every side quest I could in The Witcher 3 but I was definitely feeling overlevelled by the end.

[DantronLesotho]

I like the idea of getting a sidequest that provides a new form of gameplay. For me, zelda only does OKAY at sidequests, because a lot of the time it just leads to money or yet another shrine, so to me that gets boring. Some of them provide new weapons or armor which is kind of fun. Nothing really adds to the lore necessarily though, because the sidequests keep being "boy I sure need some help." ... "wow thanks for your help!"

For me, I do sidequests specifically because they help conquering the main game, especially at the end levels. I love when I complete one and I get a really unique piece of gameplay modification. But ones that just reward me with exp or money I don't find interesting, even though it gives me the choice to change my own path. That's usually because I find a playstyle and stick with it unless I'm forced into another mode.

I also like going on sidequests (if you can call them that) to open up extra world navigation options as well. Getting new shortcuts because I took the effort of exploring and beating something feels great.