Don't really like achievements think it's tacky so would prefer them not to be in game, who cares if I killed a thousand wolves , but some love this kind of thing just not for me.
I really like achievements in games, and I don't think they can all just be replaced by quests in the traditional sense. In a way all achievements are quests as it is, but they are more player quests than they are character quests, if that makes sense. So what do achievements do for me? It's pretty much all psychological of course.
1. An achievement is a goal, and reaching a goal is satisfying in and of itself. It makes you feel good. It also increases what is called self efficacy, which is the belief in your own ability to accomplish something if you try.
2. Having a goal like that increases the odds of me completing a task that may otherwise seem grindy or boring. Like, kill 2000 spiders. If for some reaon I need to kill many spiders in an area for xp or money or to level the node, having an achievement tied to killing a ton of spiders makes the task more enjoyable to me. Especially if it's divided up into sub-goals like bronze, silver, gold etc.
3. Achievements can also function as a guide to content players can do. I would prefer a proper ingame quest to guide players towards that content when possible, but sometimes that might not be enough, and the achievements can help further guide.
4. There is an element of showing off as well. Just like showing off cool looking gear or or mounts or amazing stats, showing off and comparing difficult achievements to others can be fun too I think.
5. Finally it's just more shit to do in the game. If at some point I feel stuck or can't decide what to do for a specific play session, I can take a look at any achievements I haven't completed and start working on one.
4. There is an element of showing off as well. Just like showing off cool looking gear or or mounts or amazing stats, showing off and comparing difficult achievements to others can be fun too I think.
This is one point that I think make achievements not a good idea in games.
In my experience, achievements have been used as a means of gatekeeping more than any other system or mechanic in a game, or any third party tool.
What's that, you want to join my group to do this content? Show me what bosses you've got kill achievements from so I know if you are good enough or not.
To me, any achievement system that allows you to see other players achievements - or
In game or out of it - is a bad thing for the game over all. It generates toxicity more than anything I have come across in 20 years of playing MMO's.
0
Options
VirtekMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Achievements for the sake of achievements are a core driving force for a certain type of person.
The same can be said for cosmetics, exploration, roleplay, etc. All things that typically don't give a "reward" outside of the feeling it gives that person. For them, it is more than enough though.
I happen to be one of those people, when it comes to exploration, achievements, and cosmetics.
That being said, it would attract more people to them if they held some sort of reward for completion.
Then again, that would diminish the sense of accomplishment of those that have always done them just because they want to show them off. Thus, detracting from their enjoyment because more people will feel the need to do them.
Additionally, if you give bonuses for achievements, they will not be fun bonus things to chase any longer. They will be requirements for the progression of your character. It will add to the laundry list of things you MUST do.
In the end, I think it is better to keep them in the "do it if you just want to show off what you have done" category and let those interested in such a thing pursue them.
This stuff may be taking away from the game for me. That is a huge worry of mine.
So firstly to Vhaeyne's point, I totally agree that gameplay and the smoothness of the game experience shouldn't be jeopardized for something like achievements. I played WoW for a very long time including the pre achievement years and I don't recall ever feeling a shift in smoothness or performance when achievements were introduced, however, much like you, I have no way to prove this as it's completely anecdotal. If it can be managed in non-cumbersome way then I think its definitely worth it and based on what I have seen from intrepid so far, I think they could do it. I just want the world to be big and filled with people chasing all sorts of content that maybe I'm not even remotely interested in, and I think achievements is one way to do it.
Furthermore, I think it it could be reimagined so that it's actually functional and not just cosmetic. Like how GW2 decided to not tie their talent point system to levels but instead to events or activities that you had to complete. I think achievements could facilitate a similar role... maybe...
I'm not saying the developers shouldn't add in a task for players to do this - I am asking why it needs another system, when the quest system already exists.
No one in this thread was able to answer this, hopefully you can.
Now to Noaani's question. You're not wrong in the sense that they are somewhat similar systems but just as how I mentioned in my previous post that subtle differences can change everything I think that the variance here is that achievements are outside the 4th wall, whereas quests are inside it. Quests require story, character, world continuity as well as background development for them to fit within the world. This immediately limits how many quests can be incepted into a world as it requires a decent amount of dev time. Achievements however, exist outside the 4th wall and aren't required to make any sense with story, lore, zones, characters etc... as mentioned before, if you intended on making copious amounts of activities like achievements, turning them into quests is much more cumbersome for Intrepid as it requires more development time. Another notable difference is that almost all quests provide meaningful rewards, story progression and experience. All things that quite directly improve your character's strength. Achievements however, are typically focused on cosmetic and non-power increasing rewards.
If you were to blur the line between quests and achievements and bring them both closer to each other (or make them the same), I think it would be an improvement for achievements, but terrible for the quest design / experience and I personally would prefer the quests to be the best they can be as this is something that essentially 100% of the players will engage with as opposed to achievements which would be a smaller subset of the community.
Furthermore, I would prefer a game with less quests but much more in depth, story driven and elaborate activities, which kind of flies in the face of achievements and quests being the same.
I guess my opinion hinges on a balance between your thoughts and my appreciation for complimentary systems. Think of how armor, talents and levels are all different systems yet all perform the same role of increasing your character's power. These systems are managed very separately but all compliment each other. If these were all amalgamated into one system I think the experience would be poorer for it. I do agree that you don't want to go the other way though and have it be too complex though.
Quests require story, character, world continuity as well as background development for them to fit within the world.
If this were true, it would be a valid point.
I can't count how many games I have played that have had at least a number of quests that involve simply clicking an item, killing an amount of a specific type of mob, and then the quest auto-completes. No story, no characters (other than the targets), no world building or continuity at all.
In fact, I can't think of an MMO that DOESN'T have at least some quests like this.
Then there are quests that are automatically given to you when you enter an area, or when you kill a boss, or when you complete a different quest.
Quests are sometimes used as a tool for world building, story telling and character development. However, quests do not require these things to be present. Your definition of an achievement here is basically just a quest where these things are not present - which is precisely my point.
The reward point you bring up is not really much of a thing. Quests can result in cosmetic gear, and many games have quests where this is the case. Achievements can result in useful items, and many games have achievements where this is the case. As such, the rewards here are already blurred based on your suggestion of cosmetic rewards for achievements and useful rewards for quests.
Basically, your post here seems to come down to "my opinion is that quests do this these things, and achievements do these other things, but please ignore the quests and achievements behind that curtain over there that do the things they are not supposed to do".
You are talking about things as you would prefer, rather than how they could be. There is no reason a quest journal can't have a section for achievements along with sections for quests by type or zone - none of your points here prevent anything like that at all.
Quests require story, character, world continuity as well as background development for them to fit within the world.
If this were true, it would be a valid point.
I can't count how many games I have played that have had at least a number of quests that involve simply clicking an item, killing an amount of a specific type of mob, and then the quest auto-completes. No story, no characters (other than the targets), no world building or continuity at all.
In fact, I can't think of an MMO that DOESN'T have at least some quests like this.
Then there are quests that are automatically given to you when you enter an area, or when you kill a boss, or when you complete a different quest.
Quests are sometimes used as a tool for world building, story telling and character development. However, quests do not require these things to be present. Your definition of an achievement here is basically just a quest where these things are not present - which is precisely my point.
The reward point you bring up is not really much of a thing. Quests can result in cosmetic gear, and many games have quests where this is the case. Achievements can result in useful items, and many games have achievements where this is the case. As such, the rewards here are already blurred based on your suggestion of cosmetic rewards for achievements and useful rewards for quests.
Basically, your post here seems to come down to "my opinion is that quests do this these things, and achievements do these other things, but please ignore the quests and achievements behind that curtain over there that do the things they are not supposed to do".
You are talking about things as you would prefer, rather than how they could be. There is no reason a quest journal can't have a section for achievements along with sections for quests by type or zone - none of your points here prevent anything like that at all.
I mean...youre also talking about things as you would prefer. Technically both systems would work but it comes down to which preference is the majority in this case. My vote goes for a separate system because a quest for 10000 kills of a specific enemy is silly to me. Yet if it is simply a background achievment, seems completely fine to me.
Also using poor quest design as an argument for a system isn't a great play. Grindy quests are just filler and not great content. New World is a perfect example of this as far as current examples go. Extreme lack of story, and just grind out the "content".
Quests aren't always used for world building and story telling, but they should be. Its just poor game design and outdated game design to use them as just a step in leveling. They should be world progressions tools as well as character progression tools, and also just fun and unique experiences. If anything the grindy quests should be separated entirely and just turned into achievements that may grant xp or rewards as you progress through them, leaving actual quests as story and world development that focus on building a players interest in the lore of the game and the desire to complete them with the community while simultaneously progressing themselves.
I mean...youre also talking about things as you would prefer.
Indeed I am.
However, the question I have posed to others is - why should the systems be separate?
The only answers presented all amount to "because I prefer it that way".
Needing to kill 10,000 of a specific enemy seems perfectly fine as a quest, to me. Not entirely out of line with games I have played (Archeage making you run two instances 100 times each is an example that comes to mind that is far above killing 10k of one mob).
As to your point about quests - you are basically saying that all quests need to be world building, character building, story telling masterpieces, every time.
While I agree that quests in general should do all of these things, no one quest needs to do them all, and indeed some quests can do none if the above and still be good additions to the game (I've seen games with short quest chains that are essentially all just a setup for a joke with the last quest - well worth the time and effort from both developer and player perspectives).
I mean, quests are a games main story telling tool (other than perhaps in game literature), and developers should use quests to tell stories.
However, the question I have posed to others is - why should the systems be separate?
The only answers presented all amount to "because I prefer it that way".
@Dolyem is exactly right to point out that both of us are speaking from our preference and when you address that with the "because I prefer it that way" comment I think that you have hit the nail on the head and answered your own question. Everything in a video game is preferential and serves no objective value beyond being fun, which is fundamentally subjective.
When you asked me to answer the question of why they can't be the same I certainly answered it from my perspective but let me ask, would you prefer quests to be a big logbook of to dos with some to dos being more important than others or would you prefer a super in depth questing experience that was 100% committed to story and development?
If you prefer the former then it really just comes down to you and I preferring different things but if you would prefer the latter then my reasons in the previous post stand. Separate systems protects the integrity of quests while also still allowing for list based accomplishments like achievements.
To further my point, I really think quests in other games are done poorly with very little player investment or care factor... I wouldn't want to duplicate that and instead would prefer they go the other way. SWTOR for example didn't hand out quests like M&M's and instead made them all story based and voice acted. I know SWTOR didn't crush the MMO scene but it had amazing storytelling.
Quests aren't always used for world building and story telling, but they should be. Its just poor game design and outdated game design to use them as just a step in leveling. They should be world progressions tools as well as character progression tools, and also just fun and unique experiences. If anything the grindy quests should be separated entirely and just turned into achievements that may grant xp or rewards as you progress through them, leaving actual quests as story and world development that focus on building a players interest in the lore of the game and the desire to complete them with the community while simultaneously progressing themselves.
Couldn't agree more with this and lets hope that Intrepid does too. It would make sense considering how much time and effort they are putting into the player experience being novel and exciting.
I mean...youre also talking about things as you would prefer.
Indeed I am.
However, the question I have posed to others is - why should the systems be separate?
The only answers presented all amount to "because I prefer it that way".
Needing to kill 10,000 of a specific enemy seems perfectly fine as a quest, to me. Not entirely out of line with games I have played (Archeage making you run two instances 100 times each is an example that comes to mind that is far above killing 10k of one mob).
As to your point about quests - you are basically saying that all quests need to be world building, character building, story telling masterpieces, every time.
While I agree that quests in general should do all of these things, no one quest needs to do them all, and indeed some quests can do none if the above and still be good additions to the game (I've seen games with short quest chains that are essentially all just a setup for a joke with the last quest - well worth the time and effort from both developer and player perspectives).
I mean, quests are a games main story telling tool (other than perhaps in game literature), and developers should use quests to tell stories.
But that doesn't mean every quest.
I mean I guess in my last comment the answer to your question would be to separate the clutter objectives and chores that don't have any substance from the story-driven and lore-based quests.
And I agree that not every quest needs to be an absolute masterpiece, but if it at the very least tells a story and offers fun content that is more substantial than "Kill X amount of (insert mob name)" I would say it has enough substance to be consider a quest and not a chore.
And this also does not mean that these meaningful quests have to be serious, they are absolutely able to be funny and clever side stories which can more than likely be player favorites. The whole point I am trying to make is that memorable quests aren't the chores, they are the ones that make players interested in the quests themselves, and the objectives they need to have completed.
Pretty much every fun quest chain I can fondly recall entails the story driven parts and events, while the grinding mobs parts (usually the first couple of quests to start the chain) were just a hassle to be completed as quickly as I could to get on with the story. Those grind quests could have been completely removed without affecting the rest of the quest line in most cases, and they were only added as filler and a source of xp for the players (that is literally why most quests in vanilla WoW were grind quests because there wasn't enough xp to level properly through quests).
All of that being said, this MMO is aiming to revolutionize the genre and set itself apart from the low quality MMO's that we have been settling for. So why wouldn't you want an MMO that actually has unique and fun quests instead of the grindfest ones that should clearly be separated into a different category than quests to begin with. Let quests be something with substance that players look forward to completing while the chores can just be an optional passive in the background on a different tab, like a completionist tab for earning achievements that could include killing a certain about of a type of mob in the zone or gathering things, etc. Don't need your log looking like New World's where its just an unorganized list of crap you just keep picking up and all of the objectives are just "Kill these here" or "loot these here" and repeat.
Edit: Also think of how much time they can spend on other things if they arent making up quest scripts just for clearing some more mobs again. They put that as just a background tracker and they have more time for other assets.
When you asked me to answer the question of why they can't be the same I certainly answered it from my perspective but let me ask, would you prefer quests to be a big logbook of to dos with some to dos being more important than others or would you prefer a super in depth questing experience that was 100% committed to story and development?
Every quest being committed to story and character or world development would be constricting.
I mean, the first few quests in any MMO offer no world building, nor any real character development. They are there to inform the player how to move forward or back, or other such basic things.
Quests used specifically to inform the player about game systems and such are not just important, some would say they are crucial to MMO's being successful. While it is indeed possible to try and tie in some world or character building to these quests, they are generally best - and most successful at their actual role - if no such attempt is made.
This is kind of the thing here. We already all accept quests for a multitude of reasons. Character development, world development, story telling, exploration, tutorial, even nostalgia in some games. There is no one set of things that every quest needs to do, and the list of things they can do includes everything that achievements do.
Edit: Also think of how much time they can spend on other things if they arent making up quest scripts just for clearing some more mobs again. They put that as just a background tracker and they have more time for other assets.
If they are creating achievements in the game using the games existing quest mechanics, why do they need to write a script?
If they don't need to write a script for an achievement if it uses a stand alone achievement system, they don't need to write one if they use the quest system.
Your point about Intrepid trying to revolutionize the genre is one I have come up against in a number of threads.
The thing I find interesting about this point is that it is always used by someone arguing that Intrepid - the company trying to revolutionize the genre - should stick to the status quo of what ever is being discussed.
Having a subset of quests that are functionally achievements in no way prevents them from having the best quests of any MMO.
Your point about Intrepid trying to revolutionize the genre is one I have come up against in a number of threads.
The thing I find interesting about this point is that it is always used by someone arguing that Intrepid - the company trying to revolutionize the genre - should stick to the status quo of what ever is being discussed.
In all of my posts I've been clear that I think they handle achievements differently to other games, I just don't agree that amalgamating quests and achievements into one system is beneficial.
Quests used specifically to inform the player about game systems and such are not just important, some would say they are crucial to MMO's being successful. While it is indeed possible to try and tie in some world or character building to these quests, they are generally best - and most successful at their actual role - if no such attempt is made.
Disagree with this entirely. Most games don't use quests for this function nor is it needed for it. You don't need quests for a tutorial or to explain the game... if you want to be super thematic you can use an NPC chaperone, otherwise you break the 4th wall and just use interface directives. This has been done many, many times with great success in showing people how to play. Either way it doesn't have to be a quest, furthermore, learning how to play can definitely be apart of character and world building and in fact I believe that this is the best method. I hear you pointing out exceptions and situations that could be problematic but I have never been an advocate for doing things how they have been done in the past. Hence my comments regarding reimagining achievements (still separate).
I have given multiple reasons for why I think combining them is a bad move, can you explain to me why its a good move @Noaani ?
Edit: Also think of how much time they can spend on other things if they aren't making up quest scripts just for clearing some more mobs again. They put that as just a background tracker and they have more time for other assets.
If they are creating achievements in the game using the games existing quest mechanics, why do they need to write a script?
Regarding this point. I think @Dolyem is saying what I said earlier, which is that quests in any meaningful capacity would take more time to implement than achievements and if combined the Devs time would be stretched. Instead, a two systems method would likely result in achievements being very simple and quick to implement, likely not even requiring server downtime, while actual quests could receive the attention they deserve. Quests are more in depth, or at least should be if you want the game to be good, and handcuffing the Devs to a single system that requires more input, even for petty implementations like kill 1000 of blah, would require more time and effort.
The inevitable outcome is that their time would be spent doing this instead of perhaps implementing more meaningful content.
Regarding this point. I think Dolyem is saying what I said earlier, which is that quests in any meaningful capacity would take more time to implement than achievements and if combined the Devs time would be stretched.
Why would it take more time?
All you need to do is set the task, give it a name, and apply a reward to it if that is what you want to do.
The work involved is the same whether you are doing this using a quest system in a game, or using an achievement system in a game.
Now sure, if you wanted to write a backstory, add in some NPC's or what ever else, it would take more work. But this is now basically just turning achievements in to quests, which is not what I have been suggesting at all.
If you want to cut back on developer time, there is no question at all that what I am suggesting would lower it. Literally no question at all. To think otherwise is to not have a grasp on what I am saying at all.
Edit: Also think of how much time they can spend on other things if they aren't making up quest scripts just for clearing some more mobs again. They put that as just a background tracker and they have more time for other assets.
If they are creating achievements in the game using the games existing quest mechanics, why do they need to write a script?
Regarding this point. I think @Dolyem is saying what I said earlier, which is that quests in any meaningful capacity would take more time to implement than achievements and if combined the Devs time would be stretched. Instead, a two systems method would likely result in achievements being very simple and quick to implement, likely not even requiring server downtime, while actual quests could receive the attention they deserve. Quests are more in depth, or at least should be if you want the game to be good, and handcuffing the Devs to a single system that requires more input, even for petty implementations like kill 1000 of blah, would require more time and effort.
The inevitable outcome is that their time would be spent doing this instead of perhaps implementing more meaningful content.
Pretty much, I mean I doubt many people would like the idea of a cluttered quest log filled with quests they don't have any heart invested into. It would be much more beneficial To have the chore quests separated anyway because the people who want to do those for efficiency sake could follow that log if they want to and keep track of quests that have meaning and show that they should be paid more attention than a grind if a player is interested in lore and not just "RUSH TO MAX LEVEL!" mindset.
Regarding this point. I think Dolyem is saying what I said earlier, which is that quests in any meaningful capacity would take more time to implement than achievements and if combined the Devs time would be stretched.
Why would it take more time?
All you need to do is set the task, give it a name, and apply a reward to it if that is what you want to do.
The work involved is the same whether you are doing this using a quest system in a game, or using an achievement system in a game.
Now sure, if you wanted to write a backstory, add in some NPC's or what ever else, it would take more work. But this is now basically just turning achievements in to quests, which is not what I have been suggesting at all.
If you want to cut back on developer time, there is no question at all that what I am suggesting would lower it. Literally no question at all. To think otherwise is to not have a grasp on what I am saying at all.
I mean...seeing as quests are given by an NPC for a reason with at least a minimal reason for the task to be done, it requires some explanation. Otherwise its just daily's in a game like COD. "Kill X amount of players with this weapon!". A quest should be an adventure. Not a chore.
Regarding this point. I think Dolyem is saying what I said earlier, which is that quests in any meaningful capacity would take more time to implement than achievements and if combined the Devs time would be stretched.
Now sure, if you wanted to write a backstory, add in some NPC's or what ever else, it would take more work. But this is now basically just turning achievements in to quests, which is not what I have been suggesting at all.
Then you and I don't agree on what quests are or what they should be... Giving the same name to something as in depth as the primary story of a game and perhaps your character's story, as you would to something like kill 10/100/1000/10000 of X creature, in my opinion is a massive and inconvenient stretch.
Separation of these vastly different things helps players identify levels of import, and the kind of activity it is. Both of these things are very important and the endeavour of trying to have both these activities represented under the same banner while still distinguishing them apart would steal more dev time and attention than necessary while also likely still being a lesser solution.
They are different kinds of activities and different kinds of people are attracted to these different kinds of content, trying to merge them somehow makes little sense to me, especially when a seperate system would be so easy and simple both to implement and to manage in the future.
Then you and I don't agree on what quests are or what they should be...
I don't think you are in any position to make that assumption.
I am not arguing for achievements to be called quests - I am suggesting they should use the same back end system as quests.
In terms of separation, that is really simple.
Have a journal that breaks down in to Quests, Tasks, Errands and Achievements.
Allow it to be sorted by region (or node, perhaps) for both where the entry originated from, and where the next update is (having an "unknown" section for any entries where you are unsure of where the next update is).
This way, if you are in an area, you can very easily see all the things you have to do in that location, but can very easily distinguish between not just quests and achievements, but also tasks (kill x of y) and errands (take item to z). These last two are as different from quests as achievements are, and so should have their own category here.
I like achievements for the sake of in game character titles. However, pretty much every achievement system in games has WAY too many participation awards. I like the ones which are hard to get. Maybe a hidden system?
Whatever they decide is fine with me, I think completionist players would have a much stronger opinion about this.
Then you and I don't agree on what quests are or what they should be...
I don't think you are in any position to make that assumption.
I am not arguing for achievements to be called quests - I am suggesting they should use the same back end system as quests.
In terms of separation, that is really simple.
Have a journal that breaks down in to Quests, Tasks, Errands and Achievements.
Allow it to be sorted by region (or node, perhaps) for both where the entry originated from, and where the next update is (having an "unknown" section for any entries where you are unsure of where the next update is).
This way, if you are in an area, you can very easily see all the things you have to do in that location, but can very easily distinguish between not just quests and achievements, but also tasks (kill x of y) and errands (take item to z). These last two are as different from quests as achievements are, and so should have their own category here.
It seems as though what you are arguing for in the above isn't really where I believe this discussion begun. and in fact it almost seems like the conversation has shifted... earlier on in this discussion we talked about how achievement content and quest content are different and therefore should be handled separately, if you're suggesting that there is a primary "to-do list" window and Quests are one heading while achievements are another then I honestly I'm all for it and I don't think anyone would disagree, in fact I agree wholeheartedly about your point on zone relevant content but that hardly is what has been argued earlier.
Where this all started was with achievements and quests needing to be managed differently ie. quests coming from NPC's, having dialogue, story and rewards that increased you characters power directly, whereas achievements can just preexist in a logbook waiting for you to get around to if if you feel like it and typically don't reward in the same manner as quests. This has been my singular point the whole time, with little to no focus on the interface aspect.
Where this all started was with achievements and quests needing to be managed differently ie. quests coming from NPC's, having dialogue, story and rewards that increased you characters power directly, whereas achievements can just preexist in a logbook waiting for you to get around to if if you feel like it and typically don't reward in the same manner as quests. This has been my singular point the whole time, with little to no focus on the interface aspect.
The problem with this is that it is limiting.
There is literally no reason at all that quests need to have story or dialogue. These things are preferable, but not strictly necessary. There are reasons why you may want quests with no story or dialogue, and almost all games have such quests.
Conversely, there is no reason achievements have to pre-exist in a log book. There is no reason at all why developers can't put in achievements that players need to find. Perhaps it is a quest to reach the peak of every mountain in a mountain range, but the achievement is only shown to players when they reach the first peak.
Basically, what your argument is doing is boxing off quests and saying "this is all they can be", and boxing off achievements and saying "this is all they can be". The big issue here is that your boxes are missing a whole lot of potential content, and so simply should not exist.
I have given multiple reasons for why I think combining them is a bad move, can you explain to me why its a good move @Noaani ?
Also, I have given a lot of sound reasons for why I believe that handling these two very different pieces of content should be handled separately and am yet to hear why you are so fervent in your belief that combining them would be more ideal. Can you tell me why you would prefer that they are merged?
Also, I have given a lot of sound reasons for why I believe that handling these two very different pieces of content should be handled separately and am yet to hear why you are so fervent in your belief that combining them would be more ideal. Can you tell me why you would prefer that they are merged?
I literally gave you a reason in the post above this. Do you need bright flashing lights to guide you?
Your suggestion limits content. A thing either needs to have dialogue and story to be a quest, needs to be pre-existing in a players journal to be an achievement, or needs to simply not exist.
Just wanted to double check. Noaani is happy with being denegrated and insulted whenever he doesn't understand any of the speakers explanations he isn't grasping due to either missing details, the speakers own incapability at communication, or having unsaid preconceptions most other people don't hold?
Just wanted to double check. Noaani is happy with being denegrated and insulted whenever he doesn't understand any of the speakers explanations he isn't grasping due to either missing details, the speakers own incapability at communication, or having unsaid preconceptions most other people don't hold?
Careful!
Masochists and Sadists are easy to confuse!
The point remains, the tension in this thread is getting unhelpfully high.
Unfortunately, achievements don't spice my life, so I don't have much to contribute.
Another idea is particular themed chains of achievements with relative rewards for your efforts. For example if you complete a chain of cleric/healing related achievements then you get a particular cleric related augment or an increase in a cleric stat such as +1 mentality. If you complete some kind of tank chain of achievements you could gain HP or get a tank related augment.
This is how it use to work back in the day in LOTRO. I don't know what the hell is going on there now days xD
With levels you only got talent slots, and talents themselves were an achievement of sorts. Use this skill 1500 times to get an improved version of it, kill that many enemies in that area to get a small +HP or +armor. I think it is a great idea.
Comments
1. An achievement is a goal, and reaching a goal is satisfying in and of itself. It makes you feel good. It also increases what is called self efficacy, which is the belief in your own ability to accomplish something if you try.
2. Having a goal like that increases the odds of me completing a task that may otherwise seem grindy or boring. Like, kill 2000 spiders. If for some reaon I need to kill many spiders in an area for xp or money or to level the node, having an achievement tied to killing a ton of spiders makes the task more enjoyable to me. Especially if it's divided up into sub-goals like bronze, silver, gold etc.
3. Achievements can also function as a guide to content players can do. I would prefer a proper ingame quest to guide players towards that content when possible, but sometimes that might not be enough, and the achievements can help further guide.
4. There is an element of showing off as well. Just like showing off cool looking gear or or mounts or amazing stats, showing off and comparing difficult achievements to others can be fun too I think.
5. Finally it's just more shit to do in the game. If at some point I feel stuck or can't decide what to do for a specific play session, I can take a look at any achievements I haven't completed and start working on one.
This is one point that I think make achievements not a good idea in games.
In my experience, achievements have been used as a means of gatekeeping more than any other system or mechanic in a game, or any third party tool.
What's that, you want to join my group to do this content? Show me what bosses you've got kill achievements from so I know if you are good enough or not.
To me, any achievement system that allows you to see other players achievements - or
In game or out of it - is a bad thing for the game over all. It generates toxicity more than anything I have come across in 20 years of playing MMO's.
This is a tough one for me.
Achievements for the sake of achievements are a core driving force for a certain type of person.
The same can be said for cosmetics, exploration, roleplay, etc. All things that typically don't give a "reward" outside of the feeling it gives that person. For them, it is more than enough though.
I happen to be one of those people, when it comes to exploration, achievements, and cosmetics.
That being said, it would attract more people to them if they held some sort of reward for completion.
Then again, that would diminish the sense of accomplishment of those that have always done them just because they want to show them off. Thus, detracting from their enjoyment because more people will feel the need to do them.
Additionally, if you give bonuses for achievements, they will not be fun bonus things to chase any longer. They will be requirements for the progression of your character. It will add to the laundry list of things you MUST do.
In the end, I think it is better to keep them in the "do it if you just want to show off what you have done" category and let those interested in such a thing pursue them.
@Noaani
@Vhaeyne
So firstly to Vhaeyne's point, I totally agree that gameplay and the smoothness of the game experience shouldn't be jeopardized for something like achievements. I played WoW for a very long time including the pre achievement years and I don't recall ever feeling a shift in smoothness or performance when achievements were introduced, however, much like you, I have no way to prove this as it's completely anecdotal. If it can be managed in non-cumbersome way then I think its definitely worth it and based on what I have seen from intrepid so far, I think they could do it. I just want the world to be big and filled with people chasing all sorts of content that maybe I'm not even remotely interested in, and I think achievements is one way to do it.
Furthermore, I think it it could be reimagined so that it's actually functional and not just cosmetic. Like how GW2 decided to not tie their talent point system to levels but instead to events or activities that you had to complete. I think achievements could facilitate a similar role... maybe...
@Noaani
Now to Noaani's question. You're not wrong in the sense that they are somewhat similar systems but just as how I mentioned in my previous post that subtle differences can change everything I think that the variance here is that achievements are outside the 4th wall, whereas quests are inside it. Quests require story, character, world continuity as well as background development for them to fit within the world. This immediately limits how many quests can be incepted into a world as it requires a decent amount of dev time. Achievements however, exist outside the 4th wall and aren't required to make any sense with story, lore, zones, characters etc... as mentioned before, if you intended on making copious amounts of activities like achievements, turning them into quests is much more cumbersome for Intrepid as it requires more development time. Another notable difference is that almost all quests provide meaningful rewards, story progression and experience. All things that quite directly improve your character's strength. Achievements however, are typically focused on cosmetic and non-power increasing rewards.
If you were to blur the line between quests and achievements and bring them both closer to each other (or make them the same), I think it would be an improvement for achievements, but terrible for the quest design / experience and I personally would prefer the quests to be the best they can be as this is something that essentially 100% of the players will engage with as opposed to achievements which would be a smaller subset of the community.
Furthermore, I would prefer a game with less quests but much more in depth, story driven and elaborate activities, which kind of flies in the face of achievements and quests being the same.
I guess my opinion hinges on a balance between your thoughts and my appreciation for complimentary systems. Think of how armor, talents and levels are all different systems yet all perform the same role of increasing your character's power. These systems are managed very separately but all compliment each other. If these were all amalgamated into one system I think the experience would be poorer for it. I do agree that you don't want to go the other way though and have it be too complex though.
Hope this cleared up my thoughts.
I can't count how many games I have played that have had at least a number of quests that involve simply clicking an item, killing an amount of a specific type of mob, and then the quest auto-completes. No story, no characters (other than the targets), no world building or continuity at all.
In fact, I can't think of an MMO that DOESN'T have at least some quests like this.
Then there are quests that are automatically given to you when you enter an area, or when you kill a boss, or when you complete a different quest.
Quests are sometimes used as a tool for world building, story telling and character development. However, quests do not require these things to be present. Your definition of an achievement here is basically just a quest where these things are not present - which is precisely my point.
The reward point you bring up is not really much of a thing. Quests can result in cosmetic gear, and many games have quests where this is the case. Achievements can result in useful items, and many games have achievements where this is the case. As such, the rewards here are already blurred based on your suggestion of cosmetic rewards for achievements and useful rewards for quests.
Basically, your post here seems to come down to "my opinion is that quests do this these things, and achievements do these other things, but please ignore the quests and achievements behind that curtain over there that do the things they are not supposed to do".
You are talking about things as you would prefer, rather than how they could be. There is no reason a quest journal can't have a section for achievements along with sections for quests by type or zone - none of your points here prevent anything like that at all.
I mean...youre also talking about things as you would prefer. Technically both systems would work but it comes down to which preference is the majority in this case. My vote goes for a separate system because a quest for 10000 kills of a specific enemy is silly to me. Yet if it is simply a background achievment, seems completely fine to me.
Also using poor quest design as an argument for a system isn't a great play. Grindy quests are just filler and not great content. New World is a perfect example of this as far as current examples go. Extreme lack of story, and just grind out the "content".
Quests aren't always used for world building and story telling, but they should be. Its just poor game design and outdated game design to use them as just a step in leveling. They should be world progressions tools as well as character progression tools, and also just fun and unique experiences. If anything the grindy quests should be separated entirely and just turned into achievements that may grant xp or rewards as you progress through them, leaving actual quests as story and world development that focus on building a players interest in the lore of the game and the desire to complete them with the community while simultaneously progressing themselves.
Indeed I am.
However, the question I have posed to others is - why should the systems be separate?
The only answers presented all amount to "because I prefer it that way".
Needing to kill 10,000 of a specific enemy seems perfectly fine as a quest, to me. Not entirely out of line with games I have played (Archeage making you run two instances 100 times each is an example that comes to mind that is far above killing 10k of one mob).
As to your point about quests - you are basically saying that all quests need to be world building, character building, story telling masterpieces, every time.
While I agree that quests in general should do all of these things, no one quest needs to do them all, and indeed some quests can do none if the above and still be good additions to the game (I've seen games with short quest chains that are essentially all just a setup for a joke with the last quest - well worth the time and effort from both developer and player perspectives).
I mean, quests are a games main story telling tool (other than perhaps in game literature), and developers should use quests to tell stories.
But that doesn't mean every quest.
@Dolyem is exactly right to point out that both of us are speaking from our preference and when you address that with the "because I prefer it that way" comment I think that you have hit the nail on the head and answered your own question. Everything in a video game is preferential and serves no objective value beyond being fun, which is fundamentally subjective.
When you asked me to answer the question of why they can't be the same I certainly answered it from my perspective but let me ask, would you prefer quests to be a big logbook of to dos with some to dos being more important than others or would you prefer a super in depth questing experience that was 100% committed to story and development?
If you prefer the former then it really just comes down to you and I preferring different things but if you would prefer the latter then my reasons in the previous post stand. Separate systems protects the integrity of quests while also still allowing for list based accomplishments like achievements.
To further my point, I really think quests in other games are done poorly with very little player investment or care factor... I wouldn't want to duplicate that and instead would prefer they go the other way. SWTOR for example didn't hand out quests like M&M's and instead made them all story based and voice acted. I know SWTOR didn't crush the MMO scene but it had amazing storytelling.
Couldn't agree more with this and lets hope that Intrepid does too. It would make sense considering how much time and effort they are putting into the player experience being novel and exciting.
I mean I guess in my last comment the answer to your question would be to separate the clutter objectives and chores that don't have any substance from the story-driven and lore-based quests.
And I agree that not every quest needs to be an absolute masterpiece, but if it at the very least tells a story and offers fun content that is more substantial than "Kill X amount of (insert mob name)" I would say it has enough substance to be consider a quest and not a chore.
And this also does not mean that these meaningful quests have to be serious, they are absolutely able to be funny and clever side stories which can more than likely be player favorites. The whole point I am trying to make is that memorable quests aren't the chores, they are the ones that make players interested in the quests themselves, and the objectives they need to have completed.
Pretty much every fun quest chain I can fondly recall entails the story driven parts and events, while the grinding mobs parts (usually the first couple of quests to start the chain) were just a hassle to be completed as quickly as I could to get on with the story. Those grind quests could have been completely removed without affecting the rest of the quest line in most cases, and they were only added as filler and a source of xp for the players (that is literally why most quests in vanilla WoW were grind quests because there wasn't enough xp to level properly through quests).
All of that being said, this MMO is aiming to revolutionize the genre and set itself apart from the low quality MMO's that we have been settling for. So why wouldn't you want an MMO that actually has unique and fun quests instead of the grindfest ones that should clearly be separated into a different category than quests to begin with. Let quests be something with substance that players look forward to completing while the chores can just be an optional passive in the background on a different tab, like a completionist tab for earning achievements that could include killing a certain about of a type of mob in the zone or gathering things, etc. Don't need your log looking like New World's where its just an unorganized list of crap you just keep picking up and all of the objectives are just "Kill these here" or "loot these here" and repeat.
Edit: Also think of how much time they can spend on other things if they arent making up quest scripts just for clearing some more mobs again. They put that as just a background tracker and they have more time for other assets.
I mean, the first few quests in any MMO offer no world building, nor any real character development. They are there to inform the player how to move forward or back, or other such basic things.
Quests used specifically to inform the player about game systems and such are not just important, some would say they are crucial to MMO's being successful. While it is indeed possible to try and tie in some world or character building to these quests, they are generally best - and most successful at their actual role - if no such attempt is made.
This is kind of the thing here. We already all accept quests for a multitude of reasons. Character development, world development, story telling, exploration, tutorial, even nostalgia in some games. There is no one set of things that every quest needs to do, and the list of things they can do includes everything that achievements do.
If they are creating achievements in the game using the games existing quest mechanics, why do they need to write a script?
If they don't need to write a script for an achievement if it uses a stand alone achievement system, they don't need to write one if they use the quest system.
Your point about Intrepid trying to revolutionize the genre is one I have come up against in a number of threads.
The thing I find interesting about this point is that it is always used by someone arguing that Intrepid - the company trying to revolutionize the genre - should stick to the status quo of what ever is being discussed.
Having a subset of quests that are functionally achievements in no way prevents them from having the best quests of any MMO.
In all of my posts I've been clear that I think they handle achievements differently to other games, I just don't agree that amalgamating quests and achievements into one system is beneficial.
Disagree with this entirely. Most games don't use quests for this function nor is it needed for it. You don't need quests for a tutorial or to explain the game... if you want to be super thematic you can use an NPC chaperone, otherwise you break the 4th wall and just use interface directives. This has been done many, many times with great success in showing people how to play. Either way it doesn't have to be a quest, furthermore, learning how to play can definitely be apart of character and world building and in fact I believe that this is the best method. I hear you pointing out exceptions and situations that could be problematic but I have never been an advocate for doing things how they have been done in the past. Hence my comments regarding reimagining achievements (still separate).
I have given multiple reasons for why I think combining them is a bad move, can you explain to me why its a good move @Noaani ?
Regarding this point. I think @Dolyem is saying what I said earlier, which is that quests in any meaningful capacity would take more time to implement than achievements and if combined the Devs time would be stretched. Instead, a two systems method would likely result in achievements being very simple and quick to implement, likely not even requiring server downtime, while actual quests could receive the attention they deserve. Quests are more in depth, or at least should be if you want the game to be good, and handcuffing the Devs to a single system that requires more input, even for petty implementations like kill 1000 of blah, would require more time and effort.
The inevitable outcome is that their time would be spent doing this instead of perhaps implementing more meaningful content.
Correct me if I'm wrong @Dolyem
All you need to do is set the task, give it a name, and apply a reward to it if that is what you want to do.
The work involved is the same whether you are doing this using a quest system in a game, or using an achievement system in a game.
Now sure, if you wanted to write a backstory, add in some NPC's or what ever else, it would take more work. But this is now basically just turning achievements in to quests, which is not what I have been suggesting at all.
If you want to cut back on developer time, there is no question at all that what I am suggesting would lower it. Literally no question at all. To think otherwise is to not have a grasp on what I am saying at all.
Pretty much, I mean I doubt many people would like the idea of a cluttered quest log filled with quests they don't have any heart invested into. It would be much more beneficial To have the chore quests separated anyway because the people who want to do those for efficiency sake could follow that log if they want to and keep track of quests that have meaning and show that they should be paid more attention than a grind if a player is interested in lore and not just "RUSH TO MAX LEVEL!" mindset.
I mean...seeing as quests are given by an NPC for a reason with at least a minimal reason for the task to be done, it requires some explanation. Otherwise its just daily's in a game like COD. "Kill X amount of players with this weapon!". A quest should be an adventure. Not a chore.
Then you and I don't agree on what quests are or what they should be... Giving the same name to something as in depth as the primary story of a game and perhaps your character's story, as you would to something like kill 10/100/1000/10000 of X creature, in my opinion is a massive and inconvenient stretch.
Separation of these vastly different things helps players identify levels of import, and the kind of activity it is. Both of these things are very important and the endeavour of trying to have both these activities represented under the same banner while still distinguishing them apart would steal more dev time and attention than necessary while also likely still being a lesser solution.
They are different kinds of activities and different kinds of people are attracted to these different kinds of content, trying to merge them somehow makes little sense to me, especially when a seperate system would be so easy and simple both to implement and to manage in the future.
I am not arguing for achievements to be called quests - I am suggesting they should use the same back end system as quests.
In terms of separation, that is really simple.
Have a journal that breaks down in to Quests, Tasks, Errands and Achievements.
Allow it to be sorted by region (or node, perhaps) for both where the entry originated from, and where the next update is (having an "unknown" section for any entries where you are unsure of where the next update is).
This way, if you are in an area, you can very easily see all the things you have to do in that location, but can very easily distinguish between not just quests and achievements, but also tasks (kill x of y) and errands (take item to z). These last two are as different from quests as achievements are, and so should have their own category here.
Whatever they decide is fine with me, I think completionist players would have a much stronger opinion about this.
It seems as though what you are arguing for in the above isn't really where I believe this discussion begun. and in fact it almost seems like the conversation has shifted... earlier on in this discussion we talked about how achievement content and quest content are different and therefore should be handled separately, if you're suggesting that there is a primary "to-do list" window and Quests are one heading while achievements are another then I honestly I'm all for it and I don't think anyone would disagree, in fact I agree wholeheartedly about your point on zone relevant content but that hardly is what has been argued earlier.
Where this all started was with achievements and quests needing to be managed differently ie. quests coming from NPC's, having dialogue, story and rewards that increased you characters power directly, whereas achievements can just preexist in a logbook waiting for you to get around to if if you feel like it and typically don't reward in the same manner as quests. This has been my singular point the whole time, with little to no focus on the interface aspect.
There is literally no reason at all that quests need to have story or dialogue. These things are preferable, but not strictly necessary. There are reasons why you may want quests with no story or dialogue, and almost all games have such quests.
Conversely, there is no reason achievements have to pre-exist in a log book. There is no reason at all why developers can't put in achievements that players need to find. Perhaps it is a quest to reach the peak of every mountain in a mountain range, but the achievement is only shown to players when they reach the first peak.
Basically, what your argument is doing is boxing off quests and saying "this is all they can be", and boxing off achievements and saying "this is all they can be". The big issue here is that your boxes are missing a whole lot of potential content, and so simply should not exist.
Also, I have given a lot of sound reasons for why I believe that handling these two very different pieces of content should be handled separately and am yet to hear why you are so fervent in your belief that combining them would be more ideal. Can you tell me why you would prefer that they are merged?
I literally gave you a reason in the post above this. Do you need bright flashing lights to guide you?
Your suggestion limits content. A thing either needs to have dialogue and story to be a quest, needs to be pre-existing in a players journal to be an achievement, or needs to simply not exist.
Your method restricts, mine does not.
That is your reason.
Consider this a bright flashing light.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Careful!
Masochists and Sadists are easy to confuse!
The point remains, the tension in this thread is getting unhelpfully high.
Unfortunately, achievements don't spice my life, so I don't have much to contribute.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
This is how it use to work back in the day in LOTRO. I don't know what the hell is going on there now days xD
With levels you only got talent slots, and talents themselves were an achievement of sorts. Use this skill 1500 times to get an improved version of it, kill that many enemies in that area to get a small +HP or +armor. I think it is a great idea.
I wouldn't call anything in this thread a lack of emotional control, nor tense.