I haven't read all the posts because time.
I've posted in the other thread about helper features and why they generally hurt a game in the long run (the thread about fast travel).
Anyway, I am one hundred percent opposed to the game providing objective markers. That the developers put in. Of course city locations that are naturally going to be found on any realistic map are completely fine; because they're imersive.
I do however think that the ability to write notes on your map or to place markers yourself manually would be great and add to the enjoyability of the experience while not making the game boring.
I've posted in the other thread about helper features and why they generally hurt a game in the long run (the thread about fast travel).
Anyway, I am one hundred percent opposed to the game providing objective markers. That the developers put in. Of course city locations that are naturally going to be found on any realistic map are completely fine; because they're imersive.
I do however think that the ability to write notes on your map or to place markers yourself manually would be great and add to the enjoyability of the experience while not making the game boring.
thoughts on quest makers
I am going to describe some of my thoughts on this here because I don’t think this has been talked about enough its still important even after it was forgotten about when the forum was updated more than a year ago. I don’t want to make it seem like the games success hinges on it, it doesn't, but I think it is still important. I’m concerned. And I can’t help it because I really like the games.
I agree, quest markers are the scourge of RPG and if CDPR do get rid of them, they will be saints ,and the witcher 3 will be the best game ever(bit of an exaggeration)... no seriously they turn an open world RPG into a tour simulator at worst; at least they rob potential from the open world, and from exploration, because when something’s pointing you in the direction you need to go the hole time, there stops being much of a need to explore the world than there could be. Don’t bring out pitchforks yet just read if you’re interested in hearing an opinion, because that's all it is.
First I want to make a point of saying that quest markers are not necessary. Many games have them these days have them, but they didn't always. In Morrorwind, the most beloved of the elders scrolls series, there are no quest markers. You had to find your way to every quest using the information in your extensive journal and map to find your way around the open world. Regardless it is still considered to be the best RPG Bethesda has ever made. Why you say? Wouldn't that make it hard to find your objective? The answer is yes, but that’s a good thing, and I will get to that later, but finding your way around an open world without quest markers is only as difficult as it is to find your way around the real world without a GPS. It’s not hard if you know what you are looking for and have a map and know how to read it. finding things like people is a little harder without quest markers, but it doesn't warrant the use of them so much as gives them an excuse, because other means can be made available that don’t take from the experience and can even add to it.
So In Morrorwind you had to use your head to figure out the best way of getting somewhere because you didn't have quest markers. This gave the game an element of freedom to do what you liked to achieve your goals or get to your destination. It also has an interesting side effect, because in forcing the player to keep track of information, we learn more about locations, we become familiar with there names but not only that, we become familiar with the goals of the quest and the lore of the world. This is important because when something as simple as a quest marker is removed, we are suddenly dependent on our own means, and we have to use what we know about the world to achieve our goal, rather than have all the work done for us by following a massive arrow or exclamation mark. Quest markers seem to me like excessive hand holding. It’s as if developers fear we will not be able to figure out what to do, and that’s probably what it is (partly is). Any way Without this hand holding the world becomes more believable because rather than in a game, like Skyrim, where your objectives are three world sentences, (like “kill the bandit” or “go to Whiterun”) you are dependent on knowing the details of events, and the world gains depth from all the lore that the developers have meticulously put into the game world. Lore that you now, at least on some level, have to know if you want to play the game, and that could be a conflict between two religions of factions (a conflict which gives depth to the setting, and something the witcher games do the best). You learn something about the game world regardless when there are quest markers but it’s from observing the world (books, item descriptions, visual appearance, anything that slips your way) and not from participating in it. When you do learn something, it is usually from conversations, and that is not in all games an engaging experience it depends. Some games have other means like dark souls. like many RPG, Dark souls has an extensive law in order to engage their audience in the setting, but besides the tiny sections of dialogue and even a vague set of objectives with no consistent direction to follow (another example of a game with no quest markers), you get no indication of the law, unless you are looking for it (that gives the world an element of mystery). In dark souls however, just by playing the game you lean about the world, and this is especially conveyed through mood. Everything In Dark Souls is aimed at creating a mood, everything right down to the sound of your foot steps and even your uncertain objectives that place you in the same situation as the character you play as (as a cursed undead in a crumbling world), and that is how we engage (we actually feel like the character, vulnerable and alone). The point is that game play and the world are not separate and neither is the player. The witcher 3 should be concerned with how the player experiences the world because we are supposed to not just see it, but feel a part of it. The quality of the experience can be made better by this. A quest marker with GPS pin point accuracy takes away other potential experiences.
Any way there is one thing CDPR have to avoid if they get rid of quest markers or at least allow you the option to play without them. The thing they have to avoid is essentially the same problem that Skyrim had when you got rid of the quest markers. It was impossible to know where to go because the journal didn't say, well anything about where to go. We need a good journal so we know what was said by Npc's and so we know the name of the place we need to go, and so where to go when we play without quest markers. this is the largest fear I have with the witcher 3 from looking at the 35 min demo because, although we saw nothing of the journal, the path to some objectives is made linear by quest markers, and if you get rid of the quest markers the game could be kind of broken, or not. Who knows how it will turn out but it is worrying because CDPR have not made an open world RPG before. What CDPR have made is possibly going to be inspired by what is already around to use as example for how to construct an open world game (every title in the last 4 or so years), and what they have already created in previous games (witcher 1 and 2 had quest markers). Although there was nothing wrong with both their previous two games, they are in fact the best games I have ever played. They have un-matched dialogue and storytelling, choice and consequence, and challenging and interesting game play. But while they do that all extraordinarily well CDPR they have to meet a new change because of the open world, and although it is possible to just paste their game play formula over an even bigger world space, it won’t necessarily be successful. That said I have no idea what game play is like yet in the witcher 3 except what I have seen in the 35 min demo. What I do know from the demo though is that while we are chasing that story mission, we have follow quest markers. That gives me an example for how things might work in quests (not monster hunting quests). Now I loved the way the past to games played but with the open world, without designing for it, all that changes in the experience of completing a story quest is the distance to your objective (not exactly). This is a problem because now the open world between you and your static and certain objective, is only as for fulfilling as the content that interests you between you and your objective. this wouldn't be a problem normally because the world is normally smaller. This isn't always a problem, but with story driven games it can be. It can because the story, being the center piece for the experience of games like the witcher, is primary, and if the work to get to your quest marker is not enjoyable and is secondary to the story (like in assassins creed; traversing the world to your objective marker) we get irritated rather than immersed in the detail the developers have meticulously put into the game for us. That said games can do it well like in red dead redemption, I’m going to use Skyrim as an example again though. Because even though It is uncertain that CDPR have thought of this, and I’m inclined to think that the witcher 3 devs know exactly what they are doing, I am still going to explain my concerns because I care about the game enough to worry about these things regardless of whether I have a reasons.
In Skyrim between you and your quest objectives there are some side activities, like in may open world games. Side activates break up the monotony, otherwise that big open world only does what I said it does, make the time between you and the story longer (assassin creed). They extend game time and etc, and when you go looking in Skyrim for something to do we expect to get something out of it. So side activates have to be enjoyable and not only. so It can be rewarding to explore the world, In Skyrim exploring can get you side quests (or random encounter, that sometimes annoyingly repeat) it can lead to discovering a dungeon, or an animals lair and then the world just looks so good too, alone the world is just worth looking at. But once I had been there, done that, I lost interest, after that all I felt interested in was the main quests, and I fast traveled everywhere and doing things as fast as I could to escape the monotony and get some enjoyment out of playing. Did anyone else feel that way? (I have complained for a reason and this isn’t the only reason I do but it is one) This is especially bad in a game like Skyrim where, in RPG, we are suppose to believe in the world and its characters, and there is such an emphasis on exploring that unfortunately, in Skyrim, losses its pleasure as you play the game. And at first I did enjoy Skyrim, I got caught up in what it does well, but the constructed nature of the game becomes more and more obvious and I don’t know how to explain everything that made that happen. I’m not saying this is just the fault of quest markers, but they do take away from the game because they separate the elements of the experience.
Now I think I’m going to explain the root motivation for why a game should not have quest markers, and this is related to other stuff. In order to talk about this I’m going to relate this to side activities and Lore, stuff I kind of already said is important but not really why. I said before that side activities, in open world games, are there to break up the monotony, and that’s not true. So now I’m going to quote someone that people here on this forum have to listen to even if they don’t listen to my ramblings, half borrowed and regurgitated. Because the person I am going to quote, just by enjoying the genera of fantasy, you owe some respect to. And I will enjoy using it.
J.R.R. Tolkien.
Yes… Tolkien did something interesting. You might know fictional stories have been around for a long time, but what we call Fantasy is actually fairly recent thing. Tolkien’s books, The Lord of the Rings, did something unique. Tolkien didn't just have fictional things like magic in his books (he didn’t just introduce the way we would go on to portray wizards in fiction through Gandalf the Grey) but Lord of the Rings is set in a completely fictional world. This doesn't seem so revolutionary, but a completely fictional world was unique. He called it the Secondary World, and this is what he says.
“Inside it, what [the auther} Relates is ‘true’: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken: the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside.”
-Tolkien on Secondary Belief
I am using this quote because it has authority, but I really have very little knowledge about all of this and am just kind of connecting the dots when I see them.
Anyway you can see where I am going. For Tolkien it is important that even though your world is fictional, that things consistently make sense. Just because your world doesn't exist doesn't mean that anything can happen (it only means it has to accord with the rules of that world). Well, anything can happen (and sometimes inconsistent things can happen, like magic, and that’s good; it can even make the world more believable if done well, but I wont explain why); it’s up to the author how consistent your rules are, but not playing by your own rules places limits on the believability of that setting, and the success, if that is the goal of the ‘art’, to keep you ‘inside’ the experience (this depends on many things). Why did you think that, in elder scrolls games, the developers have created (for you) volumes of books to read in the game that you may never look at? Isn't that a waste of time? Why are visuals are so important to us in a game? Why is it that so much effort is put into making the world in Dark Souls, even just to link characters (especially enemies) with the games lore? Why did Tolkien invent multiple languages for the lord of the rings books? I could go on forever but I will finally ask. Why is it that the witcher games have such a good story, world, characters and game play? It’s not just because of this that the games are good at playing by their own rules, but this is important, its one of the reasons at least.
And this is why I have my gripe with many game mechanics that have become trendy, and have been copied for all the wrong reasons and to all the wrong ends.
Side activities are not there as filler between you and your objective just as quests are not separate from the world, it’s characters, or game play. Quest markers are not just inconsistent with the fact that characters we play as don’t have a GPS with accuracy that would make the CIA drool, but because quest markers separate the story form the world, or at least some events or happenings from being connected with others (like when story is transplanted from the world and game play). This is an issue in a medium where the story and the world are one and the same. Disconnecting the aspects of things we in the real world experience as inseparable, is what creates this displeasure when we notice something that rubs us the wrong way. It’s partly the reason we complain about whether or not dismemberment in the witcher 3 is just overdone. I mean it looks cool, right? But if dismemberment is so cool why do some people complain about it? Some people don’t have a problem, and that’s fine, but this affects some of us more than others. And sometimes it affects most of us (Mass Effect 3’s ending). But this is also why we think, at least partly, why the witcher games are so good. Story and setting are pulled off brilliantly.
Now there is one more thing I want to talk about… if you’re willing to listen. because I'm going yo look at the 35 min demo.
So in the 35 min demo of the witcher 3 wild hunt Geralt talks to Dijkustra and in exchange for the griffins head he tells Geralt that the ashen haired woman he is looking for, called Ciri, was last seen in Vellin in the company of some strange creature. We are told that this creature is called Johnny, and he lives in some burrow in the woods in vellin. Anyone who saw the game play knows what happens next. Geralt/you fast travel to vellin, taking only a couple min procrastinating before you leave. Fast travel itself takes maybe less than a minute, and when you arrive, you walk up to Johnny’s lair, a burrow in the woods. While all this is happening Johnny’s location is marked, by an exclamation mark, on your map and mini map.
Now I don’t know if in this play through of the demo, the devs made sure it was easy to get to Johnny’s lair as quickly as possible to show as much of the content they wanted to show. But the quest marker was in the game. How quest markers work, I don’t know. Maybe that quest marker only comes up if you have already visited Johnny’s lair and know where he lives. This is possible because from the dialogue with Gran, another character in this quest, we know that Geralt has already asked around about Ciri (“the woman I asked about earlier”). Maybe Geralt has already been there and that is why there is a quest marker. The point of saying this is I am very uncertain about the game and how it plays. Witcher Senses (a game play mechanic) makes me even more uncertain because we seem to be able to track Johnny, an ability we have been told we can use to hunt beasts with. So I am really uncertain that there is even a point to everything I have just said, because CDPR seem to have a mechanic which is not only interesting and potentially brilliant, but is an alternative to the quest marker we are given to find Johnny, and so suggests they are making a game without quest markers. But there are still quest markers in the game. It might just be possible that this was game play on lower difficulty. Which is likely, and we know that when it comes to difficulty settings CDPR doesn’t neglect those interested in the hard core experience (dark mode & permadeath difficulty). In any case I want to just briefly paint a picture for you to show you what might be the case when you play without quest markers.
When Geralt has finished listening to Dijkustra, he/you leave Novigrad on horse (or not, the world is so big fast travel is really convenient). Because there is no quest marker to follow, you now need to use the information given by Dijkustra to find Johnny. So you know he is in vellen in a forest. So you look at your map you find vellin and you do what someone might do if you go looking for someone, you go to the nearest town to the forest and ask the locals. If you wanted to you could just roam the forest till you find him, but the game is pretty big, so you ask the locals at Downwarren. Form the locals you get a sense that the town is an oasis amongst its dangerous surroundings. You know the local town’s people fear the forests and the bleak harsh conditions of what is now known as no mans land. You talk to whoever leads the town and, because the devs have though about some of the reasonable and most likely thing you would do with the information Dijkustra gave you, there is a dialogue option in the towns around the forest that let you ask about Johnny. You get a more specific location by the leader or elder of the town. You are told about some of Johnny’s activities and apparently there is an orphanage not far west of the town where he is said to have been seen with the person you are looking for, Ciri. you might notice that the locals react to mention of the orphanage, you know there is a mystery here, but you have a trail to follow. So you head to the orphanage where you meet Gran, who in a state and has no interest in helping you. However the orphans are willing to talk and they tell you about a fowl and wild boy who came by their windows in the night, but disappeared into the woods and is said to wonder the woods around the orphanage (or something like that). So now you go looking around the orphanage and find tracks. You follow the tracks to his lair in the woods.
The difference here is that this whole time you seem to be playing a story mission right from when you are told about Johnny (a part of the world is not waiting for you to reach a quest marker). Here the quest isn't disconnected from the world. Recognize that this is a sensation though. The quest is still static, though it keeps into account what the player might do; All the elements of the quest are static and disconnected but because we don’t see where quest and world start and end, it’s not as obvious to us that the whole thing is contrived (the sensation is a slight of hand). a game without quest markers also brings out the potential for exploration. The world in my example feels more alive in that it is interactive with the elements of story, story that is part check list and part engaging conversations with usually nothing to bridge these experiences with is now linked with everything you did to get to Johnny. While when you have quest markers in the game, even if you get to them by horse rather than by quick travel, the act of travelling and exploring is still separate from the story because we can see the distinction between the two. removing quest markers from the game becomes far more pleasing because even your personal actions (side activities/quests), not related to story, feel a part of the story and every action is not seen in isolation but as the effort to reach a goal and a reward (so long as the game is designed to work without quest markers). This also makes the world more believable in another way. A story is usually a series of events with some kind of order of cause and effect. The thing about games, with stories that are transplanted from world, is that they don’t keep in mind that in the real world, cause and effect, make arbitrary the thing we are focusing on to call the story, from other things that the story is a part of we regard as events that are just happening in the world. The events of the real world happen because of so many reasons that a story, pasted no a world, without considering the presence of those effects, is hard to believe in. this is why getting rid of quest markers can be seen to make the world more believable. a game the blurs the lines not just between story and setting, crates a more believable and enjoyable experience.
so.. this is ridicules. I guess I’m a geek. I can’t even tell if any of this is worth reading any more. All I have done is tried to describe some things I have thought about and seen in connection with quest markers. And quest markers aren't even that big a deal… but they are. I needed some place to vent this from my 19 year old brain, I don’t know why. I doubt anyone could thinks that a tiny related post on another thread justifies the inspiration of 4000 words. it doesn't
cant wait to wake up tomorrow and read this.
My hope is that the devs make the best game they can possibly make, what I have written about is only a preference, anything I say in the end is irrelevant because it’s CDPR's choice. I can’t wait to see what they have made and I can’t wait to play it. I’m expecting to be blown away by it.
:victory:
I am going to describe some of my thoughts on this here because I don’t think this has been talked about enough its still important even after it was forgotten about when the forum was updated more than a year ago. I don’t want to make it seem like the games success hinges on it, it doesn't, but I think it is still important. I’m concerned. And I can’t help it because I really like the games.
I agree, quest markers are the scourge of RPG and if CDPR do get rid of them, they will be saints ,and the witcher 3 will be the best game ever(bit of an exaggeration)... no seriously they turn an open world RPG into a tour simulator at worst; at least they rob potential from the open world, and from exploration, because when something’s pointing you in the direction you need to go the hole time, there stops being much of a need to explore the world than there could be. Don’t bring out pitchforks yet just read if you’re interested in hearing an opinion, because that's all it is.
First I want to make a point of saying that quest markers are not necessary. Many games have them these days have them, but they didn't always. In Morrorwind, the most beloved of the elders scrolls series, there are no quest markers. You had to find your way to every quest using the information in your extensive journal and map to find your way around the open world. Regardless it is still considered to be the best RPG Bethesda has ever made. Why you say? Wouldn't that make it hard to find your objective? The answer is yes, but that’s a good thing, and I will get to that later, but finding your way around an open world without quest markers is only as difficult as it is to find your way around the real world without a GPS. It’s not hard if you know what you are looking for and have a map and know how to read it. finding things like people is a little harder without quest markers, but it doesn't warrant the use of them so much as gives them an excuse, because other means can be made available that don’t take from the experience and can even add to it.
So In Morrorwind you had to use your head to figure out the best way of getting somewhere because you didn't have quest markers. This gave the game an element of freedom to do what you liked to achieve your goals or get to your destination. It also has an interesting side effect, because in forcing the player to keep track of information, we learn more about locations, we become familiar with there names but not only that, we become familiar with the goals of the quest and the lore of the world. This is important because when something as simple as a quest marker is removed, we are suddenly dependent on our own means, and we have to use what we know about the world to achieve our goal, rather than have all the work done for us by following a massive arrow or exclamation mark. Quest markers seem to me like excessive hand holding. It’s as if developers fear we will not be able to figure out what to do, and that’s probably what it is (partly is). Any way Without this hand holding the world becomes more believable because rather than in a game, like Skyrim, where your objectives are three world sentences, (like “kill the bandit” or “go to Whiterun”) you are dependent on knowing the details of events, and the world gains depth from all the lore that the developers have meticulously put into the game world. Lore that you now, at least on some level, have to know if you want to play the game, and that could be a conflict between two religions of factions (a conflict which gives depth to the setting, and something the witcher games do the best). You learn something about the game world regardless when there are quest markers but it’s from observing the world (books, item descriptions, visual appearance, anything that slips your way) and not from participating in it. When you do learn something, it is usually from conversations, and that is not in all games an engaging experience it depends. Some games have other means like dark souls. like many RPG, Dark souls has an extensive law in order to engage their audience in the setting, but besides the tiny sections of dialogue and even a vague set of objectives with no consistent direction to follow (another example of a game with no quest markers), you get no indication of the law, unless you are looking for it (that gives the world an element of mystery). In dark souls however, just by playing the game you lean about the world, and this is especially conveyed through mood. Everything In Dark Souls is aimed at creating a mood, everything right down to the sound of your foot steps and even your uncertain objectives that place you in the same situation as the character you play as (as a cursed undead in a crumbling world), and that is how we engage (we actually feel like the character, vulnerable and alone). The point is that game play and the world are not separate and neither is the player. The witcher 3 should be concerned with how the player experiences the world because we are supposed to not just see it, but feel a part of it. The quality of the experience can be made better by this. A quest marker with GPS pin point accuracy takes away other potential experiences.
Any way there is one thing CDPR have to avoid if they get rid of quest markers or at least allow you the option to play without them. The thing they have to avoid is essentially the same problem that Skyrim had when you got rid of the quest markers. It was impossible to know where to go because the journal didn't say, well anything about where to go. We need a good journal so we know what was said by Npc's and so we know the name of the place we need to go, and so where to go when we play without quest markers. this is the largest fear I have with the witcher 3 from looking at the 35 min demo because, although we saw nothing of the journal, the path to some objectives is made linear by quest markers, and if you get rid of the quest markers the game could be kind of broken, or not. Who knows how it will turn out but it is worrying because CDPR have not made an open world RPG before. What CDPR have made is possibly going to be inspired by what is already around to use as example for how to construct an open world game (every title in the last 4 or so years), and what they have already created in previous games (witcher 1 and 2 had quest markers). Although there was nothing wrong with both their previous two games, they are in fact the best games I have ever played. They have un-matched dialogue and storytelling, choice and consequence, and challenging and interesting game play. But while they do that all extraordinarily well CDPR they have to meet a new change because of the open world, and although it is possible to just paste their game play formula over an even bigger world space, it won’t necessarily be successful. That said I have no idea what game play is like yet in the witcher 3 except what I have seen in the 35 min demo. What I do know from the demo though is that while we are chasing that story mission, we have follow quest markers. That gives me an example for how things might work in quests (not monster hunting quests). Now I loved the way the past to games played but with the open world, without designing for it, all that changes in the experience of completing a story quest is the distance to your objective (not exactly). This is a problem because now the open world between you and your static and certain objective, is only as for fulfilling as the content that interests you between you and your objective. this wouldn't be a problem normally because the world is normally smaller. This isn't always a problem, but with story driven games it can be. It can because the story, being the center piece for the experience of games like the witcher, is primary, and if the work to get to your quest marker is not enjoyable and is secondary to the story (like in assassins creed; traversing the world to your objective marker) we get irritated rather than immersed in the detail the developers have meticulously put into the game for us. That said games can do it well like in red dead redemption, I’m going to use Skyrim as an example again though. Because even though It is uncertain that CDPR have thought of this, and I’m inclined to think that the witcher 3 devs know exactly what they are doing, I am still going to explain my concerns because I care about the game enough to worry about these things regardless of whether I have a reasons.
In Skyrim between you and your quest objectives there are some side activities, like in may open world games. Side activates break up the monotony, otherwise that big open world only does what I said it does, make the time between you and the story longer (assassin creed). They extend game time and etc, and when you go looking in Skyrim for something to do we expect to get something out of it. So side activates have to be enjoyable and not only. so It can be rewarding to explore the world, In Skyrim exploring can get you side quests (or random encounter, that sometimes annoyingly repeat) it can lead to discovering a dungeon, or an animals lair and then the world just looks so good too, alone the world is just worth looking at. But once I had been there, done that, I lost interest, after that all I felt interested in was the main quests, and I fast traveled everywhere and doing things as fast as I could to escape the monotony and get some enjoyment out of playing. Did anyone else feel that way? (I have complained for a reason and this isn’t the only reason I do but it is one) This is especially bad in a game like Skyrim where, in RPG, we are suppose to believe in the world and its characters, and there is such an emphasis on exploring that unfortunately, in Skyrim, losses its pleasure as you play the game. And at first I did enjoy Skyrim, I got caught up in what it does well, but the constructed nature of the game becomes more and more obvious and I don’t know how to explain everything that made that happen. I’m not saying this is just the fault of quest markers, but they do take away from the game because they separate the elements of the experience.
Now I think I’m going to explain the root motivation for why a game should not have quest markers, and this is related to other stuff. In order to talk about this I’m going to relate this to side activities and Lore, stuff I kind of already said is important but not really why. I said before that side activities, in open world games, are there to break up the monotony, and that’s not true. So now I’m going to quote someone that people here on this forum have to listen to even if they don’t listen to my ramblings, half borrowed and regurgitated. Because the person I am going to quote, just by enjoying the genera of fantasy, you owe some respect to. And I will enjoy using it.
J.R.R. Tolkien.
Yes… Tolkien did something interesting. You might know fictional stories have been around for a long time, but what we call Fantasy is actually fairly recent thing. Tolkien’s books, The Lord of the Rings, did something unique. Tolkien didn't just have fictional things like magic in his books (he didn’t just introduce the way we would go on to portray wizards in fiction through Gandalf the Grey) but Lord of the Rings is set in a completely fictional world. This doesn't seem so revolutionary, but a completely fictional world was unique. He called it the Secondary World, and this is what he says.
“Inside it, what [the auther} Relates is ‘true’: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken: the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside.”
-Tolkien on Secondary Belief
I am using this quote because it has authority, but I really have very little knowledge about all of this and am just kind of connecting the dots when I see them.
Anyway you can see where I am going. For Tolkien it is important that even though your world is fictional, that things consistently make sense. Just because your world doesn't exist doesn't mean that anything can happen (it only means it has to accord with the rules of that world). Well, anything can happen (and sometimes inconsistent things can happen, like magic, and that’s good; it can even make the world more believable if done well, but I wont explain why); it’s up to the author how consistent your rules are, but not playing by your own rules places limits on the believability of that setting, and the success, if that is the goal of the ‘art’, to keep you ‘inside’ the experience (this depends on many things). Why did you think that, in elder scrolls games, the developers have created (for you) volumes of books to read in the game that you may never look at? Isn't that a waste of time? Why are visuals are so important to us in a game? Why is it that so much effort is put into making the world in Dark Souls, even just to link characters (especially enemies) with the games lore? Why did Tolkien invent multiple languages for the lord of the rings books? I could go on forever but I will finally ask. Why is it that the witcher games have such a good story, world, characters and game play? It’s not just because of this that the games are good at playing by their own rules, but this is important, its one of the reasons at least.
And this is why I have my gripe with many game mechanics that have become trendy, and have been copied for all the wrong reasons and to all the wrong ends.
Side activities are not there as filler between you and your objective just as quests are not separate from the world, it’s characters, or game play. Quest markers are not just inconsistent with the fact that characters we play as don’t have a GPS with accuracy that would make the CIA drool, but because quest markers separate the story form the world, or at least some events or happenings from being connected with others (like when story is transplanted from the world and game play). This is an issue in a medium where the story and the world are one and the same. Disconnecting the aspects of things we in the real world experience as inseparable, is what creates this displeasure when we notice something that rubs us the wrong way. It’s partly the reason we complain about whether or not dismemberment in the witcher 3 is just overdone. I mean it looks cool, right? But if dismemberment is so cool why do some people complain about it? Some people don’t have a problem, and that’s fine, but this affects some of us more than others. And sometimes it affects most of us (Mass Effect 3’s ending). But this is also why we think, at least partly, why the witcher games are so good. Story and setting are pulled off brilliantly.
Now there is one more thing I want to talk about… if you’re willing to listen. because I'm going yo look at the 35 min demo.
So in the 35 min demo of the witcher 3 wild hunt Geralt talks to Dijkustra and in exchange for the griffins head he tells Geralt that the ashen haired woman he is looking for, called Ciri, was last seen in Vellin in the company of some strange creature. We are told that this creature is called Johnny, and he lives in some burrow in the woods in vellin. Anyone who saw the game play knows what happens next. Geralt/you fast travel to vellin, taking only a couple min procrastinating before you leave. Fast travel itself takes maybe less than a minute, and when you arrive, you walk up to Johnny’s lair, a burrow in the woods. While all this is happening Johnny’s location is marked, by an exclamation mark, on your map and mini map.
Now I don’t know if in this play through of the demo, the devs made sure it was easy to get to Johnny’s lair as quickly as possible to show as much of the content they wanted to show. But the quest marker was in the game. How quest markers work, I don’t know. Maybe that quest marker only comes up if you have already visited Johnny’s lair and know where he lives. This is possible because from the dialogue with Gran, another character in this quest, we know that Geralt has already asked around about Ciri (“the woman I asked about earlier”). Maybe Geralt has already been there and that is why there is a quest marker. The point of saying this is I am very uncertain about the game and how it plays. Witcher Senses (a game play mechanic) makes me even more uncertain because we seem to be able to track Johnny, an ability we have been told we can use to hunt beasts with. So I am really uncertain that there is even a point to everything I have just said, because CDPR seem to have a mechanic which is not only interesting and potentially brilliant, but is an alternative to the quest marker we are given to find Johnny, and so suggests they are making a game without quest markers. But there are still quest markers in the game. It might just be possible that this was game play on lower difficulty. Which is likely, and we know that when it comes to difficulty settings CDPR doesn’t neglect those interested in the hard core experience (dark mode & permadeath difficulty). In any case I want to just briefly paint a picture for you to show you what might be the case when you play without quest markers.
When Geralt has finished listening to Dijkustra, he/you leave Novigrad on horse (or not, the world is so big fast travel is really convenient). Because there is no quest marker to follow, you now need to use the information given by Dijkustra to find Johnny. So you know he is in vellen in a forest. So you look at your map you find vellin and you do what someone might do if you go looking for someone, you go to the nearest town to the forest and ask the locals. If you wanted to you could just roam the forest till you find him, but the game is pretty big, so you ask the locals at Downwarren. Form the locals you get a sense that the town is an oasis amongst its dangerous surroundings. You know the local town’s people fear the forests and the bleak harsh conditions of what is now known as no mans land. You talk to whoever leads the town and, because the devs have though about some of the reasonable and most likely thing you would do with the information Dijkustra gave you, there is a dialogue option in the towns around the forest that let you ask about Johnny. You get a more specific location by the leader or elder of the town. You are told about some of Johnny’s activities and apparently there is an orphanage not far west of the town where he is said to have been seen with the person you are looking for, Ciri. you might notice that the locals react to mention of the orphanage, you know there is a mystery here, but you have a trail to follow. So you head to the orphanage where you meet Gran, who in a state and has no interest in helping you. However the orphans are willing to talk and they tell you about a fowl and wild boy who came by their windows in the night, but disappeared into the woods and is said to wonder the woods around the orphanage (or something like that). So now you go looking around the orphanage and find tracks. You follow the tracks to his lair in the woods.
The difference here is that this whole time you seem to be playing a story mission right from when you are told about Johnny (a part of the world is not waiting for you to reach a quest marker). Here the quest isn't disconnected from the world. Recognize that this is a sensation though. The quest is still static, though it keeps into account what the player might do; All the elements of the quest are static and disconnected but because we don’t see where quest and world start and end, it’s not as obvious to us that the whole thing is contrived (the sensation is a slight of hand). a game without quest markers also brings out the potential for exploration. The world in my example feels more alive in that it is interactive with the elements of story, story that is part check list and part engaging conversations with usually nothing to bridge these experiences with is now linked with everything you did to get to Johnny. While when you have quest markers in the game, even if you get to them by horse rather than by quick travel, the act of travelling and exploring is still separate from the story because we can see the distinction between the two. removing quest markers from the game becomes far more pleasing because even your personal actions (side activities/quests), not related to story, feel a part of the story and every action is not seen in isolation but as the effort to reach a goal and a reward (so long as the game is designed to work without quest markers). This also makes the world more believable in another way. A story is usually a series of events with some kind of order of cause and effect. The thing about games, with stories that are transplanted from world, is that they don’t keep in mind that in the real world, cause and effect, make arbitrary the thing we are focusing on to call the story, from other things that the story is a part of we regard as events that are just happening in the world. The events of the real world happen because of so many reasons that a story, pasted no a world, without considering the presence of those effects, is hard to believe in. this is why getting rid of quest markers can be seen to make the world more believable. a game the blurs the lines not just between story and setting, crates a more believable and enjoyable experience.
so.. this is ridicules. I guess I’m a geek. I can’t even tell if any of this is worth reading any more. All I have done is tried to describe some things I have thought about and seen in connection with quest markers. And quest markers aren't even that big a deal… but they are. I needed some place to vent this from my 19 year old brain, I don’t know why. I doubt anyone could thinks that a tiny related post on another thread justifies the inspiration of 4000 words. it doesn't
cant wait to wake up tomorrow and read this.
My hope is that the devs make the best game they can possibly make, what I have written about is only a preference, anything I say in the end is irrelevant because it’s CDPR's choice. I can’t wait to see what they have made and I can’t wait to play it. I’m expecting to be blown away by it.
:victory:
Quest markers are the most intrusive and unbelievably annoying feature to have been added in gaming, and it honestly astounds me that these goddamn patronizing things are still not optional in most mainstream games, so here is a plead from a fed up gamer PLEASE CDPR!! FOR GODS SAKE, PLEAAASE MAKE THOSE DAMN THINGS COMPLETELY OPTIONAL!!! I cant imagine it would be so hard to do that, one major problem withs quest markers in W3 specifically is that is completely defeats the purpose of witcher senses, it becomes nearly redundant for us to search for footprints in the swamp if you highlight the 20 square meter area where they are, I particularly would like the option to actually roam around the swamp with the witcher senses in search for the clues.
While I'm completely with you on this and wouldn't mind to approach every single quest where you'd have to find someone or locate something in the way you described there, you also have to be realistic about it.I am going to describe some of my thoughts on this here because I don’t think this has been talked about enough its still important even after it was forgotten about when the forum was updated more than a year ago. I don’t want to make it seem like the games success hinges on it, it doesn't, but I think it is still important. I’m concerned. And I can’t help it because I really like the games.
I agree, quest markers are the scourge of RPG and if CDPR do get rid of them, they will be saints ,and the witcher 3 will be the best game ever(bit of an exaggeration)... no seriously they turn an open world RPG into a tour simulator at worst; at least they rob potential from the open world, and from exploration, because when something’s pointing you in the direction you need to go the hole time, there stops being much of a need to explore the world than there could be. Don’t bring out pitchforks yet just read if you’re interested in hearing an opinion, because that's all it is.
First I want to make a point of saying that quest markers are not necessary. Many games have them these days have them, but they didn't always. In Morrorwind, the most beloved of the elders scrolls series, there are no quest markers. You had to find your way to every quest using the information in your extensive journal and map to find your way around the open world. Regardless it is still considered to be the best RPG Bethesda has ever made. Why you say? Wouldn't that make it hard to find your objective? The answer is yes, but that’s a good thing, and I will get to that later, but finding your way around an open world without quest markers is only as difficult as it is to find your way around the real world without a GPS. It’s not hard if you know what you are looking for and have a map and know how to read it. finding things like people is a little harder without quest markers, but it doesn't warrant the use of them so much as gives them an excuse, because other means can be made available that don’t take from the experience and can even add to it.
So In Morrorwind you had to use your head to figure out the best way of getting somewhere because you didn't have quest markers. This gave the game an element of freedom to do what you liked to achieve your goals or get to your destination. It also has an interesting side effect, because in forcing the player to keep track of information, we learn more about locations, we become familiar with there names but not only that, we become familiar with the goals of the quest and the lore of the world. This is important because when something as simple as a quest marker is removed, we are suddenly dependent on our own means, and we have to use what we know about the world to achieve our goal, rather than have all the work done for us by following a massive arrow or exclamation mark. Quest markers seem to me like excessive hand holding. It’s as if developers fear we will not be able to figure out what to do, and that’s probably what it is (partly is). Any way Without this hand holding the world becomes more believable because rather than in a game, like Skyrim, where your objectives are three world sentences, (like “kill the bandit” or “go to Whiterun”) you are dependent on knowing the details of events, and the world gains depth from all the lore that the developers have meticulously put into the game world. Lore that you now, at least on some level, have to know if you want to play the game, and that could be a conflict between two religions of factions (a conflict which gives depth to the setting, and something the witcher games do the best). You learn something about the game world regardless when there are quest markers but it’s from observing the world (books, item descriptions, visual appearance, anything that slips your way) and not from participating in it. When you do learn something, it is usually from conversations, and that is not in all games an engaging experience it depends. Some games have other means like dark souls. like many RPG, Dark souls has an extensive law in order to engage their audience in the setting, but besides the tiny sections of dialogue and even a vague set of objectives with no consistent direction to follow (another example of a game with no quest markers), you get no indication of the law, unless you are looking for it (that gives the world an element of mystery). In dark souls however, just by playing the game you lean about the world, and this is especially conveyed through mood. Everything In Dark Souls is aimed at creating a mood, everything right down to the sound of your foot steps and even your uncertain objectives that place you in the same situation as the character you play as (as a cursed undead in a crumbling world), and that is how we engage (we actually feel like the character, vulnerable and alone). The point is that game play and the world are not separate and neither is the player. The witcher 3 should be concerned with how the player experiences the world because we are supposed to not just see it, but feel a part of it. The quality of the experience can be made better by this. A quest marker with GPS pin point accuracy takes away other potential experiences.
Any way there is one thing CDPR have to avoid if they get rid of quest markers or at least allow you the option to play without them. The thing they have to avoid is essentially the same problem that Skyrim had when you got rid of the quest markers. It was impossible to know where to go because the journal didn't say, well anything about where to go. We need a good journal so we know what was said by Npc's and so we know the name of the place we need to go, and so where to go when we play without quest markers. this is the largest fear I have with the witcher 3 from looking at the 35 min demo because, although we saw nothing of the journal, the path to some objectives is made linear by quest markers, and if you get rid of the quest markers the game could be kind of broken, or not. Who knows how it will turn out but it is worrying because CDPR have not made an open world RPG before. What CDPR have made is possibly going to be inspired by what is already around to use as example for how to construct an open world game (every title in the last 4 or so years), and what they have already created in previous games (witcher 1 and 2 had quest markers). Although there was nothing wrong with both their previous two games, they are in fact the best games I have ever played. They have un-matched dialogue and storytelling, choice and consequence, and challenging and interesting game play. But while they do that all extraordinarily well CDPR they have to meet a new change because of the open world, and although it is possible to just paste their game play formula over an even bigger world space, it won’t necessarily be successful. That said I have no idea what game play is like yet in the witcher 3 except what I have seen in the 35 min demo. What I do know from the demo though is that while we are chasing that story mission, we have follow quest markers. That gives me an example for how things might work in quests (not monster hunting quests). Now I loved the way the past to games played but with the open world, without designing for it, all that changes in the experience of completing a story quest is the distance to your objective (not exactly). This is a problem because now the open world between you and your static and certain objective, is only as for fulfilling as the content that interests you between you and your objective. this wouldn't be a problem normally because the world is normally smaller. This isn't always a problem, but with story driven games it can be. It can because the story, being the center piece for the experience of games like the witcher, is primary, and if the work to get to your quest marker is not enjoyable and is secondary to the story (like in assassins creed; traversing the world to your objective marker) we get irritated rather than immersed in the detail the developers have meticulously put into the game for us. That said games can do it well like in red dead redemption, I’m going to use Skyrim as an example again though. Because even though It is uncertain that CDPR have thought of this, and I’m inclined to think that the witcher 3 devs know exactly what they are doing, I am still going to explain my concerns because I care about the game enough to worry about these things regardless of whether I have a reasons.
In Skyrim between you and your quest objectives there are some side activities, like in may open world games. Side activates break up the monotony, otherwise that big open world only does what I said it does, make the time between you and the story longer (assassin creed). They extend game time and etc, and when you go looking in Skyrim for something to do we expect to get something out of it. So side activates have to be enjoyable and not only. so It can be rewarding to explore the world, In Skyrim exploring can get you side quests (or random encounter, that sometimes annoyingly repeat) it can lead to discovering a dungeon, or an animals lair and then the world just looks so good too, alone the world is just worth looking at. But once I had been there, done that, I lost interest, after that all I felt interested in was the main quests, and I fast traveled everywhere and doing things as fast as I could to escape the monotony and get some enjoyment out of playing. Did anyone else feel that way? (I have complained for a reason and this isn’t the only reason I do but it is one) This is especially bad in a game like Skyrim where, in RPG, we are suppose to believe in the world and its characters, and there is such an emphasis on exploring that unfortunately, in Skyrim, losses its pleasure as you play the game. And at first I did enjoy Skyrim, I got caught up in what it does well, but the constructed nature of the game becomes more and more obvious and I don’t know how to explain everything that made that happen. I’m not saying this is just the fault of quest markers, but they do take away from the game because they separate the elements of the experience.
Now I think I’m going to explain the root motivation for why a game should not have quest markers, and this is related to other stuff. In order to talk about this I’m going to relate this to side activities and Lore, stuff I kind of already said is important but not really why. I said before that side activities, in open world games, are there to break up the monotony, and that’s not true. So now I’m going to quote someone that people here on this forum have to listen to even if they don’t listen to my ramblings, half borrowed and regurgitated. Because the person I am going to quote, just by enjoying the genera of fantasy, you owe some respect to. And I will enjoy using it.
J.R.R. Tolkien.
Yes… Tolkien did something interesting. You might know fictional stories have been around for a long time, but what we call Fantasy is actually fairly recent thing. Tolkien’s books, The Lord of the Rings, did something unique. Tolkien didn't just have fictional things like magic in his books (he didn’t just introduce the way we would go on to portray wizards in fiction through Gandalf the Grey) but Lord of the Rings is set in a completely fictional world. This doesn't seem so revolutionary, but a completely fictional world was unique. He called it the Secondary World, and this is what he says.
“Inside it, what [the auther} Relates is ‘true’: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken: the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside.”
-Tolkien on Secondary Belief
I am using this quote because it has authority, but I really have very little knowledge about all of this and am just kind of connecting the dots when I see them.
Anyway you can see where I am going. For Tolkien it is important that even though your world is fictional, that things consistently make sense. Just because your world doesn't exist doesn't mean that anything can happen (it only means it has to accord with the rules of that world). Well, anything can happen (and sometimes inconsistent things can happen, like magic, and that’s good; it can even make the world more believable if done well, but I wont explain why); it’s up to the author how consistent your rules are, but not playing by your own rules places limits on the believability of that setting, and the success, if that is the goal of the ‘art’, to keep you ‘inside’ the experience (this depends on many things). Why did you think that, in elder scrolls games, the developers have created (for you) volumes of books to read in the game that you may never look at? Isn't that a waste of time? Why are visuals are so important to us in a game? Why is it that so much effort is put into making the world in Dark Souls, even just to link characters (especially enemies) with the games lore? Why did Tolkien invent multiple languages for the lord of the rings books? I could go on forever but I will finally ask. Why is it that the witcher games have such a good story, world, characters and game play? It’s not just because of this that the games are good at playing by their own rules, but this is important, its one of the reasons at least.
And this is why I have my gripe with many game mechanics that have become trendy, and have been copied for all the wrong reasons and to all the wrong ends.
Side activities are not there as filler between you and your objective just as quests are not separate from the world, it’s characters, or game play. Quest markers are not just inconsistent with the fact that characters we play as don’t have a GPS with accuracy that would make the CIA drool, but because quest markers separate the story form the world, or at least some events or happenings from being connected with others (like when story is transplanted from the world and game play). This is an issue in a medium where the story and the world are one and the same. Disconnecting the aspects of things we in the real world experience as inseparable, is what creates this displeasure when we notice something that rubs us the wrong way. It’s partly the reason we complain about whether or not dismemberment in the witcher 3 is just overdone. I mean it looks cool, right? But if dismemberment is so cool why do some people complain about it? Some people don’t have a problem, and that’s fine, but this affects some of us more than others. And sometimes it affects most of us (Mass Effect 3’s ending). But this is also why we think, at least partly, why the witcher games are so good. Story and setting are pulled off brilliantly.
Now there is one more thing I want to talk about… if you’re willing to listen. because I'm going yo look at the 35 min demo.
So in the 35 min demo of the witcher 3 wild hunt Geralt talks to Dijkustra and in exchange for the griffins head he tells Geralt that the ashen haired woman he is looking for, called Ciri, was last seen in Vellin in the company of some strange creature. We are told that this creature is called Johnny, and he lives in some burrow in the woods in vellin. Anyone who saw the game play knows what happens next. Geralt/you fast travel to vellin, taking only a couple min procrastinating before you leave. Fast travel itself takes maybe less than a minute, and when you arrive, you walk up to Johnny’s lair, a burrow in the woods. While all this is happening Johnny’s location is marked, by an exclamation mark, on your map and mini map.
Now I don’t know if in this play through of the demo, the devs made sure it was easy to get to Johnny’s lair as quickly as possible to show as much of the content they wanted to show. But the quest marker was in the game. How quest markers work, I don’t know. Maybe that quest marker only comes up if you have already visited Johnny’s lair and know where he lives. This is possible because from the dialogue with Gran, another character in this quest, we know that Geralt has already asked around about Ciri (“the woman I asked about earlier”). Maybe Geralt has already been there and that is why there is a quest marker. The point of saying this is I am very uncertain about the game and how it plays. Witcher Senses (a game play mechanic) makes me even more uncertain because we seem to be able to track Johnny, an ability we have been told we can use to hunt beasts with. So I am really uncertain that there is even a point to everything I have just said, because CDPR seem to have a mechanic which is not only interesting and potentially brilliant, but is an alternative to the quest marker we are given to find Johnny, and so suggests they are making a game without quest markers. But there are still quest markers in the game. It might just be possible that this was game play on lower difficulty. Which is likely, and we know that when it comes to difficulty settings CDPR doesn’t neglect those interested in the hard core experience (dark mode & permadeath difficulty). In any case I want to just briefly paint a picture for you to show you what might be the case when you play without quest markers.
When Geralt has finished listening to Dijkustra, he/you leave Novigrad on horse (or not, the world is so big fast travel is really convenient). Because there is no quest marker to follow, you now need to use the information given by Dijkustra to find Johnny. So you know he is in vellen in a forest. So you look at your map you find vellin and you do what someone might do if you go looking for someone, you go to the nearest town to the forest and ask the locals. If you wanted to you could just roam the forest till you find him, but the game is pretty big, so you ask the locals at Downwarren. Form the locals you get a sense that the town is an oasis amongst its dangerous surroundings. You know the local town’s people fear the forests and the bleak harsh conditions of what is now known as no mans land. You talk to whoever leads the town and, because the devs have though about some of the reasonable and most likely thing you would do with the information Dijkustra gave you, there is a dialogue option in the towns around the forest that let you ask about Johnny. You get a more specific location by the leader or elder of the town. You are told about some of Johnny’s activities and apparently there is an orphanage not far west of the town where he is said to have been seen with the person you are looking for, Ciri. you might notice that the locals react to mention of the orphanage, you know there is a mystery here, but you have a trail to follow. So you head to the orphanage where you meet Gran, who in a state and has no interest in helping you. However the orphans are willing to talk and they tell you about a fowl and wild boy who came by their windows in the night, but disappeared into the woods and is said to wonder the woods around the orphanage (or something like that). So now you go looking around the orphanage and find tracks. You follow the tracks to his lair in the woods.
The difference here is that this whole time you seem to be playing a story mission right from when you are told about Johnny (a part of the world is not waiting for you to reach a quest marker). Here the quest isn't disconnected from the world. Recognize that this is a sensation though. The quest is still static, though it keeps into account what the player might do; All the elements of the quest are static and disconnected but because we don’t see where quest and world start and end, it’s not as obvious to us that the whole thing is contrived (the sensation is a slight of hand). a game without quest markers also brings out the potential for exploration. The world in my example feels more alive in that it is interactive with the elements of story, story that is part check list and part engaging conversations with usually nothing to bridge these experiences with is now linked with everything you did to get to Johnny. While when you have quest markers in the game, even if you get to them by horse rather than by quick travel, the act of travelling and exploring is still separate from the story because we can see the distinction between the two. removing quest markers from the game becomes far more pleasing because even your personal actions (side activities/quests), not related to story, feel a part of the story and every action is not seen in isolation but as the effort to reach a goal and a reward (so long as the game is designed to work without quest markers). This also makes the world more believable in another way. A story is usually a series of events with some kind of order of cause and effect. The thing about games, with stories that are transplanted from world, is that they don’t keep in mind that in the real world, cause and effect, make arbitrary the thing we are focusing on to call the story, from other things that the story is a part of we regard as events that are just happening in the world. The events of the real world happen because of so many reasons that a story, pasted no a world, without considering the presence of those effects, is hard to believe in. this is why getting rid of quest markers can be seen to make the world more believable. a game the blurs the lines not just between story and setting, crates a more believable and enjoyable experience.
so.. this is ridicules. I guess I’m a geek. I can’t even tell if any of this is worth reading any more. All I have done is tried to describe some things I have thought about and seen in connection with quest markers. And quest markers aren't even that big a deal… but they are. I needed some place to vent this from my 19 year old brain, I don’t know why. I doubt anyone could thinks that a tiny related post on another thread justifies the inspiration of 4000 words. it doesn't
cant wait to wake up tomorrow and read this.
My hope is that the devs make the best game they can possibly make, what I have written about is only a preference, anything I say in the end is irrelevant because it’s CDPR's choice. I can’t wait to see what they have made and I can’t wait to play it. I’m expecting to be blown away by it.
:victory:
All the asking around or overhearing something by chance which would give you further details or the crucial information on the location right away would require quite a lot of additional work to be done (voice over work first and foremost) - additional work that's probably not worth the effort (well, it would be, as far as I'm concerned but CDPR might think different) and probably would be too much to ask for anyway.
Take all the quests or quest stages revolving around finding or tracking down someone or something (which I guess would be many) and multiply that with, let's say 3 alternative ways to learn about the (approximate) location, be it asking around, overhearing something or maybe eavesdropping. This would probably amount to, I don't know, something in the upper three digit range? Now imagine all the additional voice over work this would require. And you probably wouldn't be able to recycle any of it, because the lines are specifically tailored to the respective quest or quest stage, including mentions of specific names and other things.
You probably could do it for important or more relevant quests or quest stages but for all of them?
How about this approach:
It's maybe not as good and as immersive as what you described but at least it would be quest/exclamation marker-free.It's quite simple really:
JUST have this little yellow throbbing bugger active for the APPROXIMATE direction you'd have to take to get to the 'mission area' and once you cross its invisible border and enter the 'mission area', have the game either (optionally of course) turn off EVERYTHING of the indicative sort (exclamations, arrows, overlays, etc) on/around the minimap or turn off the minimap completely.
This happening would be the signal for the player to switch on the Witcher Senses and look for corpses/killed prey, droppings, tracks, footprints, blood trails, sound pings, etc. in the vicinity to accordingly draw conclusions from resp. to follow or trace them back to their origin.
Last edited:
No it's not. If you create a game where you count with questmarks, you don't implement anything what would help you find things by your own(descriptions of places, options to ask people to tell you about the area etc). How are you supposed to find Johny if game tells you:"Find creature called Johny, he lives in the swamps". Good luck finding him on such a big map, there can be several huge swamps all around map.
Same counts for Witcher senses. If they are done in way that you can´t find your target without them, good luck with not using them. That is why tweaking of graphical effects would be best way to nerf them. You don't have to change much in order to make player use their eyes, not just follow red trail like idiot.
Great minds think alike. You and I have the same idea, It only makes sense. If Geralts medallion goes off at the same time the yellow pointer disapears, we know we have reached the area. It would be even better if the gamepad started to shake as the yellow arrow drops off the mini map. Vibration/Mini Map ON/OFF Options of course, I think Geralt should say things some times when he is close, but not the same thing every time. The medallion/gamepad vibrations could become more intense the closer we get to our X on the map, with or without witcher sense mode activated. On a side note, I know I will be playing with the markers on my mini map. I want to enjoy the story at a good pace, but I love player choice options to turn stuff ON/OFF at will. At some point I want to play the game with a clean screen, in general I have never liked seeing floating text, enemy names or healthbars in games. TW3 looks so fucking awesome that I really don't want to see anything else on screen unless I choose to. One more thing, it's a little off topic maybe, but some special effects can look really stupid and out of place in a game like this or any game really. e.g DAI has a really stupid effect that trails your horse when you go faster, it looks really fucking dumb. I hope CDPR looks at this stuff in their game with a keen eye and good taste. e.g a lot of people didn't like the cheesey bolt trails when Geralt fired his crossbow, and others like myself don't like the line sword trails that follow Geralts sword swings. Others think the glowing wolf eyes were stupid looking, anyways I don't mind special effects. If they are blending well with the look/art style of the world it will fit, but some times less is more. I like natural things to have more natural looking effects, dare I say it should look more organic. Less flash, more real please. e.g the warewolf when it got bigger does not need to be glowing for me to know that it has morphed before my very eyes. I saw it change when it stood still and howled and beat it's chest, but why does it need to glow and have orange lines follow it's every attack/slash when it trys to hit Geralt? I think some simple and clear motion blur would be more fantastic than some of the over the top shit I have seen. Now don't get me wrong, when it comes to AARD & IGNI those magick effects look Great! I think a dev even said that that the IGNI fire effect should look even more awesome then what we saw in the 35min demo by the time the game is done. Oh yeah, quest markers can just be an option.
Last edited:
I agree with ONLY ONCE. Clever solution without requirement for much more additional work. I like you sir. Take a redpoint.
Aditional possibility would be little more classic one. Once someone gives you quest or some information, it updates journal with some juicy and precise info, which would otherwise take ages for npcs to say(and create dialogs for it). It would require "just" lot of writing work.
Quest markers on/off is all well and good but often, as @broccolisoup mentioned there is no description of where to go. So if they do this it's vital that there is a good enough description to get there. Personally, whilst I'm not of the mind that they are the scourge of open world games I would like for there to be an option to turn them off. I like the idea of finding my own way usually but sometimes i just can't be arsed. So yeah if they put in an option to turn them off with a description that would be cool.
Also they can get around Geralt himself not being told where the location is by have dandelion describe where it is in the journal entry eg. "Geralt went to meet Johnny who lived just south of the orphanage in the swamps". or whatever.
Also they can get around Geralt himself not being told where the location is by have dandelion describe where it is in the journal entry eg. "Geralt went to meet Johnny who lived just south of the orphanage in the swamps". or whatever.
This.
Quest markers are a cancer. There isn't any good reason to introduce witcher senses to find Johnny, if there is a quest marker which indicate where he is.
I don't have negative or positive opinion about questmarkers, this was just saying a fact how it is, however, if you put in your game option to choose whether you want help form markers or not, it is good for both, casual and hardcore gamers without making an experience worse for one or the other side.
EDIT:But you must be able to provide crucial infromation to those who don't want quest markers, as I said.
Last edited:
Yeah, I understood that, and I agree. What I said after is not directly related with your post. XD XD
Great song lyrics.
---------- Updated at 02:57 AM ----------
Sounds like music to me.
Last edited:
In an older interview they said that the HUD can be disabled or toned down for debugging purposes, but he was unsure if in the final game it will be able to. I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard for modders to do it. Still, I'd really appreciate if they would let you disable practically everything. Far Cry 3 had really great UI options and I hear 4 has even better UI options. Don't give less options than a ubisoft game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiVyGX-3sd8&
Interview ^
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiVyGX-3sd8&
Interview ^
Last edited:
Uh.. so tempting, I know something cool about this but I can't confirm or deny.In an older interview they said that the HUD can be disabled or toned down for debugging purposes, but he was unsure if in the final game it will be able to. I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard for modders to do it. Still, I'd really appreciate if they would let you disable practically everything. Far Cry 3 had really great UI options and I hear 4 has even better UI options. Don't give less options than a ubisoft game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiVyGX-3sd8&
Intveriew ^
Last edited:
A game that embraces good writing and a well done journal doesn't need quest markers. In that case you don't need quest markers because your game is good enough to get along without them, focussing on immersion and narrative progression. So a quest marker on/off toggle is thinkable but unnecessary in that case. Only reason to implement it would be the possible wish to cater to people who refuse to think for themselves or just read a few lines of text every now and then while playing games....
A simple quest marker on/off toggle is also pointless if the journal and writing isn't capable of giving you the proper information what to do and where to head next (and it usually isn't because the writing quality in video games is in most cases abysmal...) because nobody would turn it off (unless you want to punish yourself ). I think in many cases having markers and stuff is also a nice excuse for game developers if they want to spare the time and effort for good writing and a well done journal...
A simple quest marker on/off toggle is also pointless if the journal and writing isn't capable of giving you the proper information what to do and where to head next (and it usually isn't because the writing quality in video games is in most cases abysmal...) because nobody would turn it off (unless you want to punish yourself ). I think in many cases having markers and stuff is also a nice excuse for game developers if they want to spare the time and effort for good writing and a well done journal...
Last edited: