Quest Markers in TW3

[post.80]

@Dragonbird has ate his own tongue, so he has nothing to say then, hahaa

Bravo, @eunoia_evanescent great videos are in the links. I've watched with pleasure all of them. Catch a REDpoint !
If The game will allow me to play comfortabe for the first time without questmarkers , then I could trully name Witcher 3 as the game of decade. Unfortunately Mods on consoles are not available.

 

[dragonbird]

@Dragonbird has ate his own tongue, so he has nothing to say then, hahaa

Nope, just looked down and counted the bumps again. I'm still not a "he".

I may be a bit confused about your post but Yeah. while old school developers where limited by hardware, current developers are limited by their ability to create interesting mechanics and creative design choices. (Some what)...

OK, I'm off to watch the videos, because I do think this is an interesting topic. But I suspect I'm going to agree with a lot of it. Because I also agree with a lot of what you said.

And a bit more on my overall argument on this.
- Classic RPG's (by which I mean roughly those prior to 1990) didn't have square-by-square exploration because it was exciting, they had it because of technical constraints on how to engage the player for an extended period.
- Those constraints no longer exist, so a good game developer should be able to engage the player using alternative methods.
- The problem is that a lot of game developers don't use alternative methods. They remove the square-by-square exploration but don't replace it with something else. And they give us quest markers too. This means that complexity has been reduced.
- Players who liked the older games are dissatisfied with this, but I think that a lot of the time, the focus of that dissatisfaction is misdirected. The problem isn't the fact that square-by-square exploration has been removed, it's that it wasn't replaced by something more interesting.

Therefore, in my opinion, the demand shouldn't be to remove quest markers, or to force you to explore every inch of the locale, the demand should be to have varied and mentally challenging methods of finding out where you need to go. If a quest marker appears once you've "solved" the challenge, it's OK.

So I don't want games to revert back to classic RPG mechanics. I want them to do something innovative that challenges me.

 

[post.80]

Nope, just looked down and counted the bumps again. I'm still not a "he".



OK, I'm off to watch the videos, because I do think this is an interesting topic. But I suspect I'm going to agree with a lot of it. Because I also agree with a lot of what you said.

And a bit more on my overall argument on this.
- Classic RPG's (by which I mean roughly those prior to 1990) didn't have square-by-square exploration because it was exciting, they had it because of technical constraints on how to engage the player for an extended period.
- Those constraints no longer exist, so a good game developer should be able to engage the player using alternative methods.
- The problem is that a lot of game developers don't use alternative methods. They remove the square-by-square exploration but don't replace it with something else. And they give us quest markers too. This means that complexity has been reduced.
- Players who liked the older games are dissatisfied with this, but I think that a lot of the time, the focus of that dissatisfaction is misdirected. The problem isn't the fact that square-by-square exploration has been removed, it's that it wasn't replaced by something more interesting.

Therefore, in my opinion, the demand shouldn't be to remove quest markers, or to force you to explore every inch of the locale, the demand should be to have varied and mentally challenging methods of finding out where you need to go. If a quest marker appears once you've "solved" the challenge, it's OK.

So I don't want games to revert back to classic RPG mechanics. I want them to do something innovative that challenges me.

Sorry then, Mr @Dragonbird, I am still learning English so I has got imited words, which I could use in my sentences to being understandable for everyone (and make sense to me) Get my apologise then. I have some problems with speaking and writting in English, but I understand 90% what peaple are saying to me in that language. That is very irritating to me, no native speaker, eh.

Yes, it is very intersting topic indeed.

Unfortunately Questmarkers mostly take away from players pleasure of reaching a point by themselfs. Some of old games(1990), in which quests are not well-descibed and NPC not telling you how to reach a point you are looking for, make "square-by-square exploration" .
We do not talk about monsterhunting right now, becouse this is another part of the game of Witcher 3. It looks like something new in mechanic and I hope that part is really engaging than simple mark on the map where monster is . We are talking now about simple moves in the open world game. How to get to that City, or how to find another NPC without the maps or questmarkers, without any knowladge.

But If in that games was good wriiten dialog with NPC, which has told you how you could get there, "square-by-square exploration" is not really needed, becouse you get detailed insructions from them. I give you an exemple how dialouge would have looked between Geralt and blacksmith:
Geralt: - Hi there,I need to earn some money, Maybe I could help somehow. Is anything a could do for you?
Blacksmith: oh good to see you again, Geralt. Yes indeed, a have small package to send my brother but postman not arrived to town in this week. I dont wknow why, but nobody replaced him to work. So, If you will be so kind, that maybe you could take this package and give it to my brother? I will pay you 100 orens?
Geralt: OK, I will. Tell me more where your brother lives.
Blacksmith: far away, but i give you execly explanatiion where You should go to get to him.
See that highest tree on the hill on the north?
Geralt: yes I see.
Blacksmith: You must go there. Opposite is small path which you must follow along. After 2 miles riding you should see on the horizon very old dericked water-millhouse. There is small river you must go through, but be carful, its dangerous. then you must turn to west going along from a while, I dont remember how much, but there is a big grassland where people mostly keep an eye on sheep and neat. There you also find small settler, and there is safty to make aspleep a night. These people are very kind and for one well told story, accomodate you for free. I supose that you have really good adventures to tell.
Next morning as you wake up and eat a breakfast they give you more details. tell them that you want to visit my brother - John. Mostly is well known among these people, they will give more clues how you culd get to him safty.
Geralt: And that's it?
Blacksmith: Yes, but it is only half way to my brother. From that settler is 3 miles away to my brother along. I have always driven to him through the Dark Forrest but there is very dangerous place right now. I would not recomend to you driving there. Maybe thats why the postmen lose away in the forrest, so not came to me, I dont kwow, but its very strange.
Geralt : OK then I will follow to your instructions. Thanks.
Blacksmith: Good luck . When you go back to me, I will give your fairly earned money, and maybe you can tell me one good aventure story for me,. But not now, I have got a lot of work right now. Goodbye!

I know it look very skyrimish bad wriiten example of quest but explain, why questmarkers are awful to me. It has nothing to do with engegment. Player, which follow by questmarkers often do not remember for what he is going there, becouse questmark. Make a fasttravel do quck quest and it is done.
Player put not attention about form of landscape. Only think to himself: How is thare a wonderful graphics! Ok then quest is finished, let's do another one.
In Morrowind quests are really well written and it is one of my favorites games i have ever played. I remember what Witcher 2 has also fimiliar quest design but only in 1 side quest at that form. I dont remember how it was named... I was looking for hidden place (somwhere opposite the broken ship) where was some notes of important dwarf needed for investigation about Stannis foult or hisinnocence and that was so cool that remind me how well was constructed quests in Morrowind, so after ended Wicher 2 i came back to play Morrowind since 1998

Anyway, Even If you had not enouth time to finish that quest, You can always make a savepoint, and most important cleues, instructions of how to get somewhere, was sumed up as specifics notes in your journalbook. If you came back to home after finished work and you turn on your game, that the notes still were in the journal, Nothings changed. (not counting bugs of course).
And I do not think that Questmarkers are most interestning than a good written dialoge about how to get somewhere. thats it.

 

[dragonbird]

@post80 - I'd love for the game to do it like that.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Mr @Dragonbird

Warms my heart.

On quest markers, or rather a lack of quest markers, if you didn't have them, playing the game would then involve a good amount of time spent reading up on what you were last doing, going through text logs of what was said, looking up directions again etc. when you've been away from it for some time. You get this overhead of things you must do just so that you can even get back to actually playing the game. Alternatively, you can just follow the quest marker, see what happens and go "Oh, right, this is what that was all about, now I remember." You get the same result, except you didn't spend 30 minutes doing extensive research.

You may argue that you enjoy this, and that's perfectly valid, you probably do enjoy it, I see no reason why you'd lie about it. That doesn't mean the company should cater to your needs only though, when it's clearly targeting a very large audience with its products. What we should be looking for then, is an agreeable compromise. We had something similar in the fast travel thread. Some people said 'no' to fast travel, others said 'yes' to it. The solution which I liked the most, as I saw it as the best compromise, and the thing that the devs seem to have decided to ultimately go with, is limited fast travel. You must go to a predetermined location before you can use it, instead of the Skyrim-like fast travel from wherever you want.

What is important is to give people the option to not use quest markers if they so desire. Make sure the game is designed in a way that lets you have all the information needed to get to a quest location without resorting to tracking the quest. In TW1, for examle, I recall a quest where you had to get some very old wine for a gentleman at the Hairy bear tavern. He tells you exactly where to go, what you need to do, and how you can then turn the quest back in. You get an optional quest marker, but you don't really need it. There were also instances though, where all the quest giver would say was "I'll mark it on your map." Now, that's still a valid way to do it, in theory, but it means you then have to use a map that gives you your exact location, and it also means enabling the quest marker to see where that person put a mark on your map. At that point, you're forcing the player to use those mechanics, even if they can turn it off. That should not happen. You should then have an in-game item that's a map, which you could look at. One that doesn't have all the UI elements the actual Map screen has.

Also, if your character is not aware of where to go, there is no reason for you to have a quest marker providing you with that information. The Johnny demo from E3 was such an example. Your character is given a fairly general area as to where to look, yet the player has the target's exact location. Now, I assume that this was done for the purposes of the demo, but it's something that's still worth mentioning. That's a situation where I'd expect to be required to ask around if someone's seen the creature's lair, unless I'm willing to waste time exploring the vast general area on my own, without any further information. Only when I get that information, should I be allowed to use a quest marker. Again, players who opt not to use quest markers should not be punished for doing so. There should not be a moment in the game where tracking a quest provides you with more information than listening to the NPCs directions would have.

 

[kissybyc]

Also, if your character is not aware of where to go, there is no reason for you to have a quest marker providing you with that information.

Well said. This should be a principle concept for quest markers - that they synchronize player's knowledge with that of the playing character. Player is Geralt, and should only know as much as Geralt does.

Quest markers should be used in situations where Geralt, by lore, knows something that the player doesn't. For example I'd appreciate a general marker telling me where the Velen swamp is, because Geralt would have known it out of his knowledge.

In one of the earlier interviews, Mateusz said that TW3 has animated quest journals to remind players what we should do. I think that, combined with the witcher sense, could make most quest markers unnecessary.

 

[Thothistox]

Well said. This should be a principle concept for quest markers - that they don't invoke meta-gaming information to break immersion. The player is Geralt, and therefore should only know as much as Geralt does.

Quest markers should be used in situations where Geralt, by lore, knows something that the player doesn't. For example I'd appreciate a general marker telling me where the Velen swamp is, because Geralt would have known it out of his knowledge.

Exactly what I've been saying. If there are quest markers they should fill in the gap between what the player knows and what the playing character knows, but never more.

 

[SageFox.326]

---------- Updated at 07:12 AM ----------

Well said. This should be a principle concept for quest markers - that they don't invoke meta-gaming information to break immersion. The player is Geralt, and therefore should only know as much as Geralt does.

Quest markers should be used in situations where Geralt, by lore, knows something that the player doesn't. For example I'd appreciate a general marker telling me where the Velen swamp is, because Geralt would have known it out of his knowledge.

In one of the earlier interviews, Mateusz said that TW3 has animated quest journals to remind players what we should do. I think that, combined with the witcher sense, could make most quest markers unnecessary.

Outstanding comment.

 

[Nucta.397]

And the discussion is still going on...

I've read all posts and my head is exploding.))

I have to tell you - after I played through Dark Souls series my life would never be the same... DS2 is a game without markers, map, journal, witcher sense-like mechanics and so on. It punishes you for every wrong move. Still, I had the real sense of fulfillment when I first managed to finish Pate's ans Creyton's quest line. Conclusion: there are gamers who want to find everything by themselves, who are ok with punishment for every wrong move.

Dark and Insane modes are great but what if they include options to turn off features that this particular gamer wants to turn off? (it was mentioned somewhere - take Thief 4 as an example). Everyone will be happy! No need for extra-work: I want to search myself for that cave (nobody wants to explain where it is)! I will find it sometime. Ans will be very happy doing this.

Take other popular game, mm, Skyrim, mm. Remember treasure hunt? I couldn't find Riften treasure for weeks. Suddenly I was crossing some bridge... near some cave... I looked on my right.. and that was it, that place. I still remember the feeling of content, it was so good. We play game for these moments of joy. And the more effort we put into achieving game's goals - the more pleasure we get.

I loaded W2 and read through the journal. The only thing that is somewhat hard to find without directions is a cave under waterfall in the 2nd chapter. With such a rich in-depth journal (confirmed in W3) it will be easy to find everything without quest markers.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

And the discussion is still going on...

I've read all posts and my head is exploding.))

I have to tell you - after I played through Dark Souls series my life would never be the same... DS2 is a game without markers, map, journal, witcher sense-like mechanics and so on. It punishes you for every wrong move. Still, I had the real sense of fulfillment when I first managed to finish Pate's ans Creyton's quest line. Conclusion: there are gamers who want to find everything by themselves, who are ok with punishment for every wrong move.

Dark and Insane modes are great but what if they include options to turn off features that this particular gamer wants to turn off? (it was mentioned somewhere - take Thief 4 as an example). Everyone will be happy! No need for extra-work: I want to search myself for that cave (nobody wants to explain where it is)! I will find it sometime. Ans will be very happy doing this.

Take other popular game, mm, Skyrim, mm. Remember treasure hunt? I couldn't find Riften treasure for weeks. Suddenly I was crossing some bridge... near some cave... I looked on my right.. and that was it, that place. I still remember the feeling of content, it was so good. We play game for these moments of joy. And the more effort we put into achieving game's goals - the more pleasure we get.

I loaded W2 and read through the journal. The only thing that is somewhat hard to find without directions is a cave under waterfall in the 2nd chapter. With such a rich in-depth journal (confirmed in W3) it will be easy to find everything without quest markers.

I never played DS2, but if its more or less like DS1, keep in mind they are very linear games compared to TW3, and even TW2, so it'd be too extreme to have markers in such a game, TW3 needs to deal with other possible problems.

To me the journal is great and all, but its also a game element that doesnt belong to the fiction, its the gamer's journal not Geralt's, so relying on that for discovering things is a bit inappropriate, and frankly a bit boring, just reading there. Its a good tool but I hope they rely on other methods to let you discover things, and that they make sense within the gameworld.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Dark Souls isn't really an RPG of the kind of Witcher in respect to quest structure. You don't have any traditional quests at all in Dark Souls. There are no real side quests which you can do at the same time.

It's really a different game.

 

[moonknightgog]

Dark Souls isn't really an RPG of the kind of Witcher in respect to quest structure. You don't have any traditional quests at all in Dark Souls. There are no real side quests which you can do at the same time.

It's really a different game.

Dark Souls is a JRPG. Better, it is a dungeon crawl.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Dark Souls is a JRPG. Better, it is a dungeon crawl.

Yeah, dungeon crawler might fit it best. Point is that you can't compare it to Witcher 3 when it comes to story and quest structure and stuff.

 

[BeyrAUG]

If there's one open world RPG that should be taken into account for its complete lack of anything resembling quest markers then it's either the original or the 2nd Gothic.

I like how they just give you a couple of these kind of hand drawn maps and then let you figure out how to get from point A to B all for yourself.
Pretty much exactly how people had to navigate and find their way before pocket maps became more common and widely available.

 

[sharpappple]

Yeah, dungeon crawler might fit it best. Point is that you can't compare it to Witcher 3 when it comes to story and quest structure and stuff.

I think you can compare them. its not like the two games are oil and water, one can learn from the other. in regards to quests or story, linearity is something they both handle differently that they can learn from one another. I want to make the point first that both games are linear. the difference in regards to story for the witcher games compared to dark souls, is that you have choice and consequence. that is to say that dark souls has a story that otherwise cant really be changed, except at the end of the game, and the witcher has a story that can change at many points depending on decisions you make, but ultimately everything in a game is constructed. what I mean is that even though you can change the outcome of the story in the witcher games, you are still playing a linear game. the game doesn't simulate the real world, the story doesn't rise from chaos, the story is constructed. so the difference is really that in the witcher you can change from one linearity to another at different points in time, but when you are playing the game you don't see this series of constructed events, and so the game appears to be non linear, the world appear so be reacting to our choices. the game is ultimately linear but it tries its best to simulate how our choices could change the story and the world like they do in reality. this is good in an a game where we role play, the world feels believable. the sensation is important because the game isn't non linear but it feels on linear. Dark Souls is just as linear as the witcher but it deals with it differently, it doesn't try to mimic the way the world might react to our choices. in dark souls the story is linear, that is there is a set order to the way you play through the game, but dark souls isn't like the witcher. story in dark souls is secondary to the game play. this is important because in dark souls, the story kind of is the game play.

 

[Rudlee]

Menu - Options (settings) - Quest markers -on/off.
It's easy, isn't it?

Yes. If they design the game with that option in mind. If they just tack it on, it may be unplayable without them, because it was designed with them in mind.
Anyway, there were quest markers in the previous games if I remember correctly...

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I think you can compare them. its not like the two games are oil and water, one can learn from the other. in regards to quests or story, linearity is something they both handle differently that they can learn from one another. I want to make the point first that both games are linear. the difference in regards to story for the witcher games compared to dark souls, is that you have choice and consequence. that is to say that dark souls has a story that otherwise cant really be changed, except at the end of the game, and the witcher has a story that can change at many points depending on decisions you make, but ultimately everything in a game is constructed. what I mean is that even though you can change the outcome of the story in the witcher games, you are still playing a linear game. the game doesn't simulate the real world, the story doesn't rise from chaos, the story is constructed. so the difference is really that in the witcher you can change from one linearity to another at different points in time, but when you are playing the game you don't see this series of constructed events, and so the game appears to be non linear, the world appear so be reacting to our choices. the game is ultimately linear but it tries its best to simulate how our choices could change the story and the world like they do in reality. this is good in an a game where we role play, the world feels believable. the sensation is important because the game isn't non linear but it feels on linear. Dark Souls is just as linear as the witcher but it deals with it differently, it doesn't try to mimic the way the world might react to our choices. in dark souls the story is linear but but really only in retrospect.

I'm not really sure what you want to tell me and what it has to to with quest markers...#

Of course I can say that each and every game is kind of predefined (I guess that's what you mean by linear) because it's designed in a special way before playing. But that doesn't mean that you can just compare each and every element of different video games easily and get the same implications.

One of the core differences between Dark Souls and Witcher in story structure is that you can follow many dedicated quests in Witcher at the same time while in Dark Souls you don't. That requires different solutions in game design and offers different challenges. Also Dark Souls is very much exploration-driven while Witcher is more story/quest-driven which again has different implications for game design.

 

[sharpappple]

I'm not really sure what you want to tell me and what it has to to with quest markers...#

Of course I can say that each and every game is kind of predefined (I guess that's what you mean by linear) because it's designed in a special way before playing. But that doesn't mean that you can just compare each and every element of different video games easily and get the same implications.

One of the core differences between Dark Souls and Witcher in story structure is that you can follow many dedicated quests in Witcher at the same time while in Dark Souls you don't. That requires different solutions in game design and offers different challenges. Also Dark Souls is very much exploration-driven while Witcher is more story/quest-driven which again has different implications for game design.

it has do with quest markers because quest markers segments story and game play, and this has implications because the witcher 3 has a key difference from the other games in the franchise, it has an open world.

they can learn from each other because they are both games where we are expected to role play, and dark souls being an open world game knows how to disguise its linearity in an open world better then most games do. the last two witcher games where not designed with an open world and can learn from games where it is done well.

the witcher in story structure allows you to follow many different dedicated quest lines, but that doesn't justify the use of quest markers in the witcher 3 as the game now has exploration play an important part of the game. there are many reasons why quest markers are problematic to the experience and Dark souls is just an example of how story can become game play in its absence and how world exploration can be done in a way that enhances the story. the game may need other means to handle the various quests you can have at any given time but not what is really being addressed with the comparison to dark souls. the handling of different quest lines can be solved by other means than quest markers. quest markers have implications on the open world and dark souls was a means of describing how the absence of quest markers has its own. I have described the implications better in earlier posts though. but that is why I think dark souls is of use in comparison.

 

[SageFox.326]

Any game with or without marks has to be designed to fit with that, so the on off options will broke the game with one of them activated.

Games with marks are someway not interested in immersion or adventure or a chalenge, finding something with a mark is not really something difficult, may work on other games with other gameplay mechanics or goals, but in this game i think is not working.

I played the old rpgs and in many of them the way of finding something was talking and reading, and later looking for what we want with the information we have. The problem of doing that is that one has to be smart and some consumers aren't, so most developers implement this markers, or auto heal, auto aim..... and all the casual new things since post 2000 era.

 

[schinderhannes.999]

OK, so just in case the player isn't able to figure that out by her- or himself the minimap now also shows indicators for the bushes and shrubberies you can collect herbs and ingredients from, apparently.
Might be just for this particular quest ('Lilac and Gooseberries') and for the showcase though and can be turned off (along with a couple of other indicators and markers) from the start, I hope.