Make a small donation to Ye Olde Inn!
Every cent received goes toward Ye Olde Inn's maintenance and allows us to continue providing the best resources for HeroQuest and Fantasy Gaming fans.
Make a small donation to Ye Olde Inn!
Every cent received goes toward Ye Olde Inn's maintenance and allows us to continue providing the best resources for HeroQuest and Fantasy Gaming fans.
Zenithfleet wrote:Bareheaded Warrior wrote:
A quest with an alternative route, a short dead end path, a little ‘maze’ like setup for the first 2-3 rooms, a shortcut perhaps hidden behind a secret door, a couple of side room with a bonus, for example is sufficient to make it feel exploratory, open and non-linear without introducing the problems associated with very non-linear quests.
I can certainly think of some versions of 'non-linearity' that would become tedious. For instance, suppose everyone starts in the middle room and the objective is in one of the four corners, with four separate pathways going directly to the corners in an X shape. That would be a recipe for discontent. Either players stick together and try each of the corners in turn, with lots of dull backtracking if they pick the wrong one (and they probably will) ... or they split up and only one finds the objective, with the others too far away to rush back and join in the fun.
However, a good non-linear HQ quest tends to provide enough interconnections and loops that you can 'go around the block' to reach the objective if you need to, rather than backtracking.Bareheaded Warrior wrote:For a family game to work it has to be relatively short, probably 60-90 minutes max, towards the lower end for younger players, towards the upper end for the bigger kids (including myself in that, generously), 6 hour marathon games might be great for university students but not so great for family games. There are physiological reasons why films for example are typically around the 90 minute mark and even sport, football (soccer) is probably the most popular game on earth, also lasts 90 minutes and if you design a quest with 6 paths, only 1 being the one that leads to the objective then depending on luck the player may choose the 1 path the first time and result in a much shorter game than intended, maybe 45 minutes plus a little longer wandering around aimless to pad the game out post-objective, or their luck could go the other way and they could try all 5 other paths before they hit the objective room and end up with a 3-hour slog (with parents glancing at watches through and muttering comments about being tired in the morning…). As a kid playing with family, we generally only played the one Quest in a session, but a couple of years later playing with a group of teenagers we generally had 3-hour sessions and covered a couple of Quest back to back. Again, I’m not saying that you can’t make a longer Quest, or a double quest, especially as a grand finale, but that is the exception to the rule and needs to be billed as such, so the time can be planned in.
Fair point. The issue of widely 'swingy' timing is an important one for a family game.
However I think that, again, good HQ non-linear maps don't involve too much of this, because those '5 or so paths' will loop around and join up again at some point--generally at the objective room or exit door. An O shape rather than an X shape.Bareheaded Warrior wrote:And problems like back-tracking or retracing your steps
Again a little of this is fine and to be encouraged, but having to sweep the whole dungeon again, search and researching the whole length to find a key that you need to open the final door or a secret door that you missed and can’t achieve the objective without it, makes for a long drawn out session, less punchy, less fun.
I have to admit that this can be a problem. The original Doom (on the PC), for instance, had nonlinear mazelike maps. Great fun while you were running around blasting demons with your shotgun. But in practice, many Doom levels had a boring fourth act, when you'd wiped the map clear of monsters but still had no idea where the exit was. You'd have to spend another half hour scouring the empty level for switches you missed to open the way to the end.
This sort of thing may be another reason why first-person shooter games moved more toward a 'cinematic corridor' of set-pieces rather than non-linear mazes. It's easier to control and curate the player's experience that way, just as with a fairground ride.
But the trade-off is that players can often sense when they're being theatrically played to, instead of being allowed to genuinely go off and do their own thing. The freedom to miss something, and spend an annoying extra while looking for it, is one of the things that comes with player freedom to explore. At the very least they'll remember to search more diligently next time. It's one of the things that a game can do that a movie or book generally can't.
(Interestingly, HQ generally avoided requirements to find keys for exit doors, and that sort of thing. I wonder if the designers were worried about the precise problem you point out. Another reason could be that because the game was designed to be played competitively if necessary, giving only one player the ability to 'get to the end' with a key would have been a problem.)
Similarly, as video games have become more widely played by the general public they've tended to become easier. If a game is too frustrating, then some players will give up. But without frustration and challenge, you don't get the real satisfaction of finally overcoming an obstacle or tough boss. You end up with the cliche of 'every participant gets a medal'. It's risk versus reward, but for the game programmers!The designers have to decide whether to risk some players getting fed up, in order to provide the rewards to players who persevere and succeed.
I want to reiterate, though, that 'mostly linear but well disguised' generally works fine as a way to make quests for HQ.
One reservation I have about using Zelda as an example (and indeed the other games I mentioned) is that they're solo experiences. Only one player does all the exploring, fighting, etc. A multiplayer game like HQ may need other design choices. Otherwise you risk only one player taking the lead and exploring while the others tag along. That's why I admire the non-linear, O-shaped layout of many EU base game quests and the lower density/difficulty of monsters. It lets each player wander off on their own if they want to, as if playing their own mini-Zelda dungeon--but eventually loop around back to where they need to be, instead of getting stuck kilometres away down a dead end.
Zenithfleet wrote:One reservation I have about using Zelda as an example (and indeed the other games I mentioned) is that they're solo experiences. Only one player does all the exploring, fighting, etc. A multiplayer game like HQ may need other design choices. Otherwise you risk only one player taking the lead and exploring while the others tag along. That's why I admire the non-linear, O-shaped layout of many EU base game quests and the lower density/difficulty of monsters. It lets each player wander off on their own if they want to, as if playing their own mini-Zelda dungeon--but eventually loop around back to where they need to be, instead of getting stuck kilometres away down a dead end.
Return to Quests and Quest Packs
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests