Should I include a quest system?

For a project I am working on, I'm debating whether I need a quest system to help guide the player through the early parts of the game...or if there's a better way to do it.

The game I'm working on, Worldseeker, is a space exploration game. The player character starts in the asteroid field of a solar system. The sequence I have in mind goes like this:

1. Players mine asteroids for Iron, Carbon, and Silicon
2. The player builds a Colony Probe
3. The player finds a planet or moon that can support life; the Colony Probe is deployed
4. After a short time, the Colony Probe's beacon comes online; this causes Colony Ships to start periodically appearing in the system. However, this also draws pirates
5. Escorting colony ships to the colony allows the colony to upgrade to provide new, powerful advantages in the system that it exists in; you can create an Astrometrics Lab, for instance, to gain information about other planets/asteroids/moons, or you could create a Research Lab to gain the ability to create equippable upgrades for your ship, or a number of other structures (I'm going to be implementing the Astrometrics Lab for prototype purposes.)
6. Destroying pirate bases yields large amounts of asteroid resources, as well as ruined tech that can be researched in the Research Lab to learn new technologies.

So, in other words, similar to a space-based version of an early build of Terraria. When the player has expanded to their heart's content in the current solar system...well, that's the limit of the version I'm intending to build, but I have plans to expand the game in the future.

So, what should I build that would help me help my players understand how to play the game? I don't think just dropping players in an asteroid field is a good idea, but a full-on quest system is too heavy-handed for what I'm trying to do. The idea is that the players fulfill their own goals with the game.

 

Throw them to the wolves, no need for hand-holding. This is SPACE not the kiddie-pool.

 

Maybe there's other clever ways you can give the players a hint. Like, leave some old mining equipment around to point out there are mining possibilities. Show them a hologram or blueprints for a probe. Etc.

 

That's an interesting approach. For the full record, I'm not having human playable characters (yet) - everything is done from ships.

That said, there's possibilities with that - the player starts a new solar system with an abandoned mining shuttle in front of their scout ship, attached to an asteroid. Immediately the radar pings an unfamiliar small vessel signature - a prototype colony unit abandoned on a nearby super-asteroid. The player first runs a scan on the prototype unit to gain the schematic for the unit and the mining system; the player has just enough on-board materials to build a mining system, though, not the colony unit. When the onboard factory has produced the mining system, a notice appears that lets you equip it...then, you go a-minin' in the a-steroid field (side note: dashes in weird places change things drastically.) Additionally, the player can find the wrecked mining ship to scan, and learn to create an upgrade to the mining system that allows for extraction of advanced materials.

So, maybe throwing the player to the wolves, but with some helpful GUI/event design, is a viable approach, that's not heavy-handed, and helps the player gain the will to explore their brand-new solar system...

 

You could also consider achievements, and a listing of at least the next achievements they could be striving for. These can lead the user through the initial steps. (We did exactly that in High Frontier and it seems to be working well.)

 

On a similar note *punny foreshadowing*, you could have a note system where it's more about keeping useful information rather than just a quest log. Admittedly this then becomes more of an exercise in databases, but there might be something there.

 

Achievements are a good idea. If the game is non linear, provide several achievements players can work towards at any given time.

Just be sure not to punish players for straying off the achievement path. I've seen a few games were the reward for an achievement is the resources to make the next achievement. And woe betide any player that tries to spend them on something else. Rewards from achievements shouldn't be a primary way to get her resources.

 

What's the starting point? When the player loads in first time are they given any sort of back story to explain who they are & what they are aiming to do?
Given the basics of the story the player may be able to work out initial moves through a basic tutorial as they navigate the asteroid field.

 

You could also add random transmissions from other ships or from asteroids/planets that are supposedly deserted, and leave it up to the player if they wish to investigate.

 

I like the general trend of these ideas -- optional, short, story-like quests/missions/objectives that can teach various mechanics. I suppose some could even be randomly generated, like the old space trading/combat game Privateer. But the early ones that teach mechanics would almost certainly have to be hand-written.

Can there be some way to remind me what I was doing when I left the game? I often have to save and quit in the middle of games, and I don't get a chance to play again for several days, by which time I've forgotten what I was working on.

 

In a vacuum, no one can hear you scream. And, in a vacuum, these kinds of design decisions are really hard. So, I always go back to the science. It goes like this. 1) I want my players to get into flow. 2) Flow has 4 clear requirements. So, 3) I need to ensure those requirements are met. The requirements are:

• Clear Goals
• Feedback (usually immediate)
• Minimal distractions
• Balanced Difficulty

Games use Quests because it is the simplest way to provide clear goals. And yet, quests are not hte only kind of goals. For instance, Minecraft has neither quests nor clear goals - until night falls. Then, players discover the implicit goal - "Don't Die". And, as they work to avoid death, they also begin exploring the world, which leads to their own, player-driven goals - "Build a Castle out of Glass, on Top of a Tree, so I can set the tree on fire. Castle in the Sky!"

Following the science is rarely a bad idea,
Gigi

 

@Gigiwoo - Nice Alien reference! Also, is that "Castle in the Sky" goal one of yours?

I see your point, though. My design might be incomplete. I'll double back and ensure that my design is in a state that can be realized. Based on what you said, I see that my scenario might be missing an implicit goal that is driving the player.

@TonyLi - Resumability is a good point. There has to be some sort of interface communicating game state, whether it's a colony advanced to a certain point, or an achievement interface, or even a quest log...or something.

@tedthebug - No, there is no explicit backstory in this setup. Players will play this game because they want to explore strange new solar systems, this isn't Final Fantasy: In Space! (Note to self: Remember FFIS as a concept, though...) There are some ways to imply story (like the abandoned mining probes, destroyed bits o' frigate, similar things.) Ultimately the point of this design is that the story is that of the player; things like the solar system you're exploring, as well as interactions with the colony/colonies and space pirates create the story that the player experience.

There are additional things I want to add, but those are too far in the future.

 

I'm personally a fan of intrinsic goal setting as opposed to extrinsic. IE: Terrarria doesn't have stated goals, but there are clearly "bosses" and boss areas (such as on the far left and right of the map), or patches of special stuff to mine, etc. It doesn't say "Now go mine this special stuff and shoot that boss and survive the night of the blood moon" - they're just things that you see and create your own objective around. In short, make an interesting world and let your users create the "quest" for themselves

 

I suppose the thing with games like terraria & mine craft is they had very simple tutorials that provided the basics such that the players could then use those concepts to experiment & progress from there. After that everyone seems to use YouTube to see how to do other things & this could be an option.

Have a simple tutorial then do a series of web stories with voice actor/s to make it look like lost transmissions from previous explorers. These videos could be done early to raise awareness of the game & perhaps get people discussing it & what is happening. If no one knows what happened to the pilot broadcasting it leaves the way open for you later on to introduce a new risk element to the game or just create a mythology like herobrine.

 

I think that's a great option to introduce some future mechanics I really want to get into the game (such as, "away team" combat.) It might also be useful in creating triggers for player made events (do you really think closing to a certain distance and scanning the "Overgrown Frigate" is a good idea? You will see a transmission...just, enjoy the ensuing massive space battle/"boss" battle.)

 

Funny you mentioned minecraft, first thing I thought of when I read "throw them to the wolves". However, as you have pointed out, Minecraft does actually give you all the tools you need to play. Breaking the blocks gives lots of audio/visual feedback, you know when you're doing it right or wrong. You create your own goals. Nothing outside the box about that, either.

I'm a creative/explorer player type. Wandering in space eludes me as being fun, because I know what's in space... nothing. That's why its space. There is nothing but space, space ships and space stations.

So... what kind of quests?

 

At this point, it would come to:

• Defend space stations/space ships/planets from enemy faction attacks, by destroying the enemy ships and/or forcing them to retreat (retreat is AI stuff, so probably not happening in the 1.0 version...unfortunately.)
• Destroy stellar objects that will impact a space station/ship/you before they hit.
• Create new outposts that offer differing advantages based on where you set them up (ice planet bases are better at making ship fuel, but have poor metal supplies; super-asteroid bases are great for making ships, but need fuel and biomatter to function.)
• Seek out enemy faction stations/ships to destroy for phat loots
• Mine resources to:
  • Improve ship (better weapons, more powerful engines, create a better ship)
  • Improve friendly base (those fighters they can build will sure help the next time pirates come 'round!)

The obvious thing I see, is that my starting point is wrong - instead of starting the player near the resources, I should instead start them near the base, but with knowledge of where the resources are. The base is (usually) a safe zone. The base lets you advance. This reinforces the importance, and function, of the base.

Invasions/enemy attacks need to be incredibly obvious, but more to the point, preventable - enemy attacks in this setup could cause bases to no longer work, and thus must be stopped. This would be an implicit goal not unlike what would help bring this design together...the problem is, alerting the player that pirate attacks matter is more difficult. This makes me think that base defense is actually a bad implicit goal; the implicit goal should be...well, implicit. This isn't. It's a reasonable explicit goal, but that lends itself poorly to the whole 'explore the solar system' setup.

Colliding stellar objects seems obvious, and implicit; it doesn't take a genius to figure out that huge asteroid + planet = sad-face. In fact, the game Asteroids is based on that very fact. Maybe I neglected this simple, understandable fact...hmmm...thoughts?

Mining is something that you do to progress in a non-combat way; it provides a semi-low-risk means to get resources, which at a base gets translated into something the player wants in-game. The problem in this setup, is that the mining is tacked-on to some extent now - you need to mine to build things, but the combat is the centerpoint of this setup's experience (either against giant space debris or enemy ships.) Ideally, mining, bases, stellar objects, and combat meld harmoniously to create an interesting game loop, but mining just turns into the odd-man out. Yet, as a creative/explorer player myself, the game wouldn't feel right without the ability to craft your own stuff in-situ, or more impressive things at an actual base. Thoughts on this?

 

Have 2 different ships at the base for the player, a lightly armed mining ship & a faster armed scout/hunter. Players can go clean a sector then go back slowly & mine or just risk it & go mine. The mining ship can gradually be upgraded to allow ore processing then up to light manufacturing then heavy manufacturing, each reducing the need to go back to the base for longer periods.
Make the ships able to be fit inside each other depending on their upgrade scale so heavy resource players can get bigger, slightly better armed resource ships with a bay for a smaller fighter & vice versa.
Heavy resource ships will eventually go further for resources but risk of encounters increases & they have lighter armaments. Heavy fighters take longer to get resources as they don't have big resource ships so spend more time going back to base & therefore remain closer longer & have less to fight. Both these increase the risk the player has to balance to meet their play style.

 

Whatever you do, don't bother with instructions, nobody reads them. You need constant input in game, throughout the game. You can't just have reminders at the start and never again.

Real people do things like play the game for 5 mins, then come back a week later wondering WTF happened in the tutorial. They don't have time for all that. This is why modern AAA games build in constant help. Go near an object? it tells you what button to press to use it.

Loading screens offer hints. Combat shouldn't be confusing to begin with... and so on. Basically you cannot assume a tutorial will solve anything.

If you have dev time you should build in analytics which are used to guide the player. The game should know when the player is stuck or know if the player's fighting skills are sucking because he never uses specials or combos.... and hint at this on screen what to do.

 

I'm not responding in detail to anything, @Asvarduil. This is just in general...

Mining for metal on the planet, defending the space base... these are surface considerations, like the story that explains the game. The game itself underlying all that is the real bear to design. I like space. I don't know what kind of game I can design out of "you're in space and sometimes, things happen" that can become fun.

Something should always be happening.

Even if it's just some little blip on a radar that you don't know what it is.

If you create a feedback loop that satisfies the conditions Gigi laid out, then you can do any quests you damn well please.

But in space... just sitting there... I might not give you 5 minutes for a meteor to start heading to the planet. I might let it hit. So, there has to be a more imperative danger to the player, or a risk they have to take, or some choices they need to make.

So that's my rambling of the day.

Start with this concept, if you want.

You're alone and your oxygen is low.

 

Actually, most of the space games I can think of don't even do this. They usually have the player be the one who makes things happen. It's almost like space is too big to be constrained to what one party thinks should be done.

 

If it was multiplayer, that would make sense. If there were civilizations and things to interact with. Still, just being in space isn't much of a game in my mind .

Edit: if you're targeting a niche that loves those games, it doesn't matter as much I guess.

 

If you really want to define "game" rigidly, you can probably find definitions that would suggest they aren't. They fit more into "virtual worlds," in which the only goals are player driven.

 

Well I'm just imagining all that time flying around. Virtual worlds are why I became interested in games. I'm just thinking about the original question, giving people guidance, and the greater question of what is there to play with. Just because the player has to piece together their own game, doesn't mean we have no responsibility in providing the right mix of pieces and some simple rules.

I like the idea of mining an asteroid. I see no reason why I'd keep doing it. Quest or no quest.

 

What's the right mix though? The X series is a pretty good example of just letting people do whatever they want. You could role play Spike Spiegel or an intergalactic trucker pretty easily, without even overlapping. The only thing you can't do is be Ender and genocide an entire race (which is actual a huge problem the games have since it means there are very few endgame goals, also, are spoilers still up for that?).

 

I agree; I always giggle a little at Eve Online, StarMade, and other games where the main progression is, "Enter orbit around rock. Shoot lasers at rock that cause numbers to increment."

Instead, I think a better idea is to shoot the asteroid with a device that does the mining, and periodically 'ejects' a capsule containing resources that you simply fly over to collect. That way, there's less tedium in the mining; also, since capsules can be picked up (and, used) by pirates, it gives a territorial objective, too. (That being said, they play by the same rules; you can resource-jack pirates! Muahahahaha!)

(In hindsight, this means I've actually solved the "mining is the odd mechanic out" problem, since now it meaningfully contributes to space combat. Or, rather, you solved it for me, in a way. Yay!)

 

A battle for limited resources, sounds like a good start to me.

What about jobs for hire, too?

 

I think jobs for hire/contract work/whatever is something that could safely be added in...later. It's a good thought, and would lend itself to feeling like there's a semi-realistic interstellar economy.

For prototyping the game, I probably need to focus on the core conceits of the game: space discovery, crafting better systems, and space combat, in that order. I think crafting and combat are now taken care of to a large degree, all that's left is to not make the discovery aspect awful.

 

For me, I'm just thinking about that "ooh, a piece of candy... ooh, a piece of candy... ooh, a piece of candy" loop all the time. I have played many a game that killed me off too fast, or the controls weren't refined, or there were no compelling narrative elements, or no challenge... and I lost interest rather quickly.

WoW for example had lots of exploration, but there was lots of stuff to explore on the way. New towns, new enemies, new dungeons. You just kept finding new stuff. And because of the leveling system, it became scarier as you explored further. Because of death penalties, player death "never lost its sting".

Surely, its more than just sticking someone in a space and having stuff for them to discover.

 

That's the thing - I'm going for the 'Ooh, a piece of candy!' approach. As a result, space won't be astrometrically correct in the game. It pretty much can't be; I don't think taking four months to get to another planet is a good idea.

Instead, from the get-go I think major planets and super-asteroids should be easily discoverable to the player - they're the hook. Along the way, there are objectives that are optional (hey, that's a rogue planet, I bet there's some sweet stuff on that! What's this destroyed frigate doing out here? Oh crap, that's a lot of pirates...I think I found a cloaked station. Oo Asteroids with active mining modules! Free resources! Wait, why is the "vessel decloaking" notice going off...?) That being said, each solar system should have secrets.

 

I should really write up my piece on engagement cycles. It would actually be more about the structure the cycles take place in rather than the nature of the cycles themselves.

 

I'd read it

 

Please do, I'd be interested in that. Worldseeker is the first project I'm designing based on figuring out the game loop instead of "because I think I can improve on [insert other game here]." (Examples: Zelda 2 for The Hero's Journey, Warcraft III for Zombies vs. Knights, ??? for SHMUP: Orbital Combat)

So far, I'm liking where this design is heading - you guys are really helping me figure it out for myself. Thanks!

 

Joy, now I'll have to write this up. I'll probably post something once I get to the point where it's not just about seeing the patterns but making them. Consider it on "slightly better than valve time."

 

@Asvarduil - Are you over thinking this? With all these aspects, I'm still not sure what your core game play is. And, I'd be very concerned that you're getting lost in design-wonder - that space where the designer is having fun, and the player isn't.

If I may make a suggestion, consider starting with the CORE game mechanic that you expect players to do MOST OF THE TIME. In WoW, the core mechanic is the combat/quest cycle, so in your first 30 seconds, you are standing in front of a guy, and he says, "Go get 5 rabbit pelts." In angry birds, it's the fling-hit-pigs, so you're doing that in 5 seconds. In Journey, it's the explore-discover cycle. In Alien:Isolation, it is solving puzzles. For each of these games, the player is engaged in the CORE mechanic within 30 seconds.

Which leads me to two thoughts: 1) I can't tell what your core game mechanic is, and 2) I don't see that you're getting them to do it in the first 30 seconds.

Gigi

 

What about warping to speed up travel?