PDA

View Full Version : Side quests ?



general kane
28th Nov 2008, 09:21
what side quests should thy put ?:??

GmanPro
28th Nov 2008, 09:27
I'm not a big fan of side quests in a DX game. DX1 sorta had side quests, but usually they were very small and somehow tied in to the main mission in some way. I just don't want any FedEx errand jobs. Instead, I'm thinking just give us optional objectives that we may choose to complete or not, and there would be some sort of reward received directly or indirectly.

rynn taylor
28th Nov 2008, 10:32
Side quests can help flesh out a world and make it more believable. Rather than there simply being another generic NPC you might find out something interesting about that NPC and possibly rewarded. After all, there may be situations where NPCs in a given area might not be solely interested directly or even at all in Adam's objectives.

As long as the side missions are well written and help to give the player a deeper insight into the gameworld it can only be a good thing. An example that springs to mind is the sewer mission to save Ford Schick for Smuggler.

Red
28th Nov 2008, 12:21
I'm sure we will see "You want my merchandise cheeper? Do this and I might consider a discount." or "This information will cost you... Or maybe you could do something for me and I'll think about it" missions. I'm fine with that. As long as they really are side quests and completely optional.

Blade_hunter
28th Nov 2008, 13:47
When we go to the sewers for Ford Schick, help the rentons, save the NSF hostages in battery park, help the mole people, etc... there is a lot of side quests, but they are well integrated in the scenario.

Side quests are a good thing since it's well integrated in the story, sometimes we can made something or not.
We have many "secondary objectives" in the game, and those make some freedom, because we aren't forced to accomplish them.

Sometimes a side quest is only speaking to a particular NPC...

Joseph Manderley's Corpse
28th Nov 2008, 18:47
The coffee wars in IW were RETARDED.

WTO SpecOp #1136
28th Nov 2008, 20:38
Side quests can help flesh out a world and make it more believable. Rather than there simply being another generic NPC you might find out something interesting about that NPC and possibly rewarded. After all, there may be situations where NPCs in a given area might not be solely interested directly or even at all in Adam's objectives.

As long as the side missions are well written and help to give the player a deeper insight into the gameworld it can only be a good thing. An example that springs to mind is the sewer mission to save Ford Schick for Smuggler.

I totally agree with you :D . With side missions, for example, you can find out how a certain group of people feel about a certain situation or event and if you want you can help them out. Then later you might discover something new about that group or the city/location.

rhalibus
28th Nov 2008, 21:07
The strength of Deus Ex was in the power of its story. It didn't have dozens of side quests like Mass Effect or Oblivion, but only a single powerful story that firmly controlled the narrative but gave the player great freedom in how they got through each chapter. The side quests were minimal and gave just enough of a sense that the world was going on without the player, but didn't distract from the drive to finish the main narrative.

I hope Eidos keeps this formula.

AdamJensen
29th Nov 2008, 15:32
I think apart from interesting pieces of info in emails and datacubes, side quests can also help flesh out the world a lot and in understanding how various technology is actually affecting the world.

Many of Asimov's robot short stories start off with an interesting and/or unexplainable behaviour of a robot and conclude by showing how the three laws can lead to interesting emergent behaviour in new situations.

The ultimate side-quests for DX3 would explore really interesting things happening with the new technology, but maybe that's asking for too much :D

Tracer Tong
30th Nov 2008, 09:44
The coffee wars in IW were RETARDED.

Oh my... That brings up memories..

rokstrombo
30th Nov 2008, 14:36
When I played through IW, I played through all the side quests before attempting any of the objectives related to the main plot (or so I thought!). I figured that by choosing sides too early, I would miss out on the opportunity to explore the world neutrally, and perhaps miss out on some smaller parts of the story. Unfortunately, virtually all of the side quests were directly related to the main plot (secondary objectives), so by the time I contacted my first major "employer", there was only one mission left before I was shipped out to a new city. This made the levels seem considerably shorter than they were in the first Deus Ex game. If you play through IW without exploring the maps first (presumably, as a "typical" player), your chosen faction will send you out on most of the side missions in a different sequence giving the impression of a longer plot. But if you break this somewhat linear sequence, the plot seems very rushed.

In the original Deus Ex game however, the player is rewarded for this additional exploration with alternative objectives and more information about the world. The primary objectives for a particular area were often independent of the various "quests" available on the side. The main story line was much longer than in Invisible War, so the side quests were not necessary for a satisfying experience. They helped to make the world seem bigger than it actually was. Also, minor NPCs often offered different information depending on whether you spoke with them before, during, or after the completion of your primary objectives. In Invisible War, minor NPCs for the most part were less reactive to changes in the main plot, and their side missions were completely interchangeable regardless of what faction you chose to work for. People who played through IW a second time would have been very disappointed to discover that not only was their experience almost exactly the same regardless of choice, but that they had already discovered every mission in the entire game in their first play though.

I think one of the biggest factors that contributed to these issues in Invisible War is that the concept of freedom of choice (in major plot elements) was too extravagant for a media-rich video game. Either the choices must be almost completely arbitrary (as they were), allowing for sharing of both settings and time-lines, or you must create several complete games that allow for significant variations of each (which is very expensive). IMHO, it is not necessary to give the player choice in such major decisions, throughout the entire game. The original Deus Ex game placed stricter constraints on how much the player could alter the plot, and I think this is one of the major reasons why it was more appreciated than Invisible War.

Lazarus Ledd
30th Nov 2008, 16:38
I'm for side quests. Normally there'll be sq in DX3, but they should serve to enhance the main story as we progress

FrankCSIS
1st Dec 2008, 05:01
Like others have said, DX had a better understanding of the purpose of side quests than the kind we usually get. You could almost always decide to either head back to HQ/move on to something else, or stick around and further investigate and explore the world, which made it a whole lot richer and deeper than the primary objectives would have you believe. For instance, the simple but amusing possibility of reading your brother's emails would prepare you for your trip to Japan you'd do much later. It made the world more compelling, and the experience infinitely more rewarding for the player who did the extra mile. It also significantly improved the immersion, giving you the illusion that the story was evolving with you, directly related to your actions and investigations, while in reality you never had choices.

The generic formula of side quests tends to be disorganised and thrown in if not for humour, for action or a simple diversion, or worse yet, to boost your stats. Fallout 2 handled it well because they were all releated to the world and to one another, every city living in a certain symbioses with the others. But games like this are few and far between. In comparison, Fallout 3 is a big mess as far as objectives and quests are concerned.

Icky6
1st Dec 2008, 05:20
For instance, the simple but amusing possibility of reading your brother's emails would prepare you for your trip to Japan you'd do much later. It made the world more compelling, and the experience infinitely more rewarding for the player who did the extra mile. It also significantly improved the immersion, giving you the illusion that the story was evolving with you, directly related to your actions and investigations, while in reality you never had choices.

Good point, I thought the persistent placement of emails and newspapers that, like you said, gave you the impression that the story was shaping with your actions... it just really connected you to the world.





I think one of the biggest factors that contributed to these issues in Invisible War is that the concept of freedom of choice (in major plot elements) was too extravagant for a media-rich video game. Either the choices must be almost completely arbitrary (as they were), allowing for sharing of both settings and time-lines, or you must create several complete games that allow for significant variations of each (which is very expensive). IMHO, it is not necessary to give the player choice in such major decisions, throughout the entire game. The original Deus Ex game placed stricter constraints on how much the player could alter the plot, and I think this is one of the major reasons why it was more appreciated than Invisible War.

Exactly. It's funny, because initially when I think about it, Deus Ex seems to be a game about choice... but it's not. In fact, as many have pointed out before, Deus Ex was so good in part because of its interesting and involving story, which was actually quite linear. It reminds me of the Thief series in that way... the story of a game is an extremely big hook for me. Thief's universe was so well fleshed out in books and overheard conversations that it was hard not to get drawn in... not to mention the completely unique universe and Garrett's charm as a character. Of course, I love BF2 and all, but when a story is very unique and engaging, it's... I don't know, magical is the best word I can think of.

Gahh... it all makes me so nostalgic.

jordan_a
1st Dec 2008, 06:14
it all makes me so nostalgic.Man I've been deep in it since I started Banjo-Kazooie N&B ---> strait to the N64, and I love it.

About the side quests I recon they're often artificial in video games. Badly implemented, not interesting, their purpose is just to lenghten the game.

GmanPro
1st Dec 2008, 06:34
But sometimes lengthening the game can be a good thing. Morrowind was all about side quests. One of the best video games evar. :cool: (and the main quest wasn't hurt by it at all imo)

Yargo
1st Dec 2008, 06:44
But sometimes lengthening the game can be a good thing. Morrowind was all about side quests. One of the best video games evar. :cool: (and the main quest wasn't hurt by it at all imo)

Fallout 3 is basically made of side quests. IMO The main quest suffered because of this. If you planned on finishing any % of the game you have to do the side quests. As a result the main quest is dwarfed because it can't even compete with the length of the side quests or even with the sand boxing needed to find them. You end up completing the game and wondering whats next but theres nothing!

GmanPro
1st Dec 2008, 07:02
Morrowind had hundreds more side quests than Fallout 3 did. Maybe that's one of Fallout 3's problems right there. If you're gonna make a free-form game, then you'll need a ton of side quests to keep you entertained. I think I've done pretty much everything I can in FO3, but I still haven't done anywhere near all of the stuff in Morrowind.

Yargo
1st Dec 2008, 07:16
Morrowind had hundreds more side quests than Fallout 3 did. Maybe that's one of Fallout 3's problems right there. If you're gonna make a free-form game, then you'll need a ton of side quests to keep you entertained. I think I've done pretty much everything I can in FO3, but I still haven't done anywhere near all of the stuff in Morrowind.

But the main quest! the main storyline! is lost in fallout 3. Its like you forget your dad completely and roam the wasteland nonchalantly. It makes no sense! Not saying I didn't enjoy Fallout 3, just that the story was weak.

GmanPro
1st Dec 2008, 07:33
Yeah, I agree. They could have made it work out but the writing just wasn't good enough. It's like they want you to forget about story and good writing as soon as you see their pretty graphics and seemingly endless wastes.

spm1138
1st Dec 2008, 09:34
Fallout 3 is basically made of side quests. IMO The main quest suffered because of this. If you planned on finishing any % of the game you have to do the side quests. As a result the main quest is dwarfed because it can't even compete with the length of the side quests or even with the sand boxing needed to find them. You end up completing the game and wondering whats next but theres nothing!

I've heard this from a few people now.

I guess it's an inevitable consequence of making a sandbox game.

I think that side quests need to be integrated into a strong ongoing narrative for the game not to feel a little aimless.

K^2
1st Dec 2008, 10:13
But the main quest! the main storyline! is lost in fallout 3. Its like you forget your dad completely and roam the wasteland nonchalantly. It makes no sense! Not saying I didn't enjoy Fallout 3, just that the story was weak.
With the FO3 format, I think I'd like to see a game where the story is told via side-quests. You shouldn't start the game with a big flashing objective, like "Find Dad!" It should throw you into the world saying, here, figure it out. You should encounter random people, and some of them might want something from you. And while you are getting it, you should encounter some people who tell you stuff. Little pieces of the puzzle. You shouldn't be just following the predefined chain of arbitrary persons who keep telling you "I don't know where your quest objective is, but I know someone who does!" It always reminds me of Mario and the endless castles with no princess. It works for games where gameplay is purely for its own reward, but not for ones where it is a mechanism for story telling.

Of course, the nature of a quest-driven game, is that there should be the quest. The Holy Grail upon retrieval of which you are declared the ruler of all galaxy or whatnot. But it shouldn't be a climax of inevitability. Let there be a quest giver, or better yet several, which can give you one of the quests. Their location or identity should not be revealed as a result of any one particular quest. There should never be an arrow pointing a way. You should be able to tell from the story you piece together from various quests who the main players are and where to look for them. And if they deem you worthy enough, and if they find you credible, they will bestow upon you the quest. Perhaps, these quests will be competing, depending on the quest giver. Perhaps, the giver will chose not to trust you, because you might betray him and use the information/items given to serve another master. All of that should depend on choices made in other quests. Which ones were completed, which abandoned, which turned down.

That's what I think a sandbox quest-driven game should work like. Anything else, and you might as well drop the sandbox, and go for level 1, level 2, level 3, boss fight, level 4...

InGroove2
1st Dec 2008, 20:40
It seems pretty obvious to me that there's a difference between a side quest and a sub quest... or what DX1 called a secondary objective.

The Coffee Wars was almost totally arbitrary and the tie-is with NG resonance was just irritating... to infultrate the game world with a teeny bopper and blatant starbucks/corporate take-over refferences... was just boring and time consuming and not useful.

The secondary objectives in DX1 almost always gave the player an advantage in the larger quest of the game, in the larger story. The basic premise of which seemed to me to be "if you want a fuller story, you have to put more effort into it, if you want to get through the game, only do what you MUST do". it wasn't quite that meaningful in IW.

also, that the coffee wars went on THROUGH the whole game was... ludicrous.

I agree with poster who said IW was too focussed on choice. The quantity of choice is not that important. for example, it wasn't the least bit interesting to me that i was able to side with Luminon Saman who was so obviously the bad guy, from his tone of voice to his intentions.

i liked in DX1 how all three endings had virtue and merit on their own... i was legitimately torn between them. It wasn't about WHO i was siding with, as i felt in IW, it was WHAT my feelings were on the issue. The sidequests in IW put you TOO clearly on one side... DX1 had too great a story line to put you one one side or the other too strongly.. you basically had to work for everybody and play everyone at the same time to get to the big mamu at the end where you could finally come out and make the choice to end all choices...

GmanPro
1st Dec 2008, 20:44
Except that Fallout 1 didn't have these problems. Your job was to find a water chip for Vault 13 and you only have 150 days to do it. If that time runs out, then the vault dies of thirst and you lose. But they cant put real consequences in a video game these days now can they? 90% of the players just wouldn't "get it". :mad2:

redfordd
1st Dec 2008, 22:57
If I am not mistaken the coffee wars in IW were an echo of two factions from the main plot. Here you had two coffee companies seemingly at odds but were really the same company. The WTO and the Order were two factions seemingly at odds but really the same organization, the Illuminati. Although I do admit that coffee chain wars was a bit silly but the did have a beverage that whitens your teeth while preventing stomach ulcers.

I like side quests that are relevant to what is going on in the main plot; providing additional information that while is not integral to the plot fills in details, gives perhaps a bonus of some sort, things like that. At this point I have done enough meaningless fetch-it side quest to last me a lifetime, several in fact.

FrankCSIS
2nd Dec 2008, 00:19
You shouldn't be just following the predefined chain of arbitrary persons who keep telling you "I don't know where your quest objective is, but I know someone who does!"

The worse part of it is that this quest is very obviously a ploy to get you started, the spark, the introduction into the bigger world, and yet it is also the main quest, the big achievement, which makes absolutely no sense. It falls flat the very minute you walk out of the vault, because the world out there is infinitely more vast and interesting than your father's quest, who, by the way, you don't get attached to because we see so very little of him before he vanishes.

The only reason I cared about finding him was to hear more of Liam Neeson's voice.

After a while you also realise no one is as interesting as you initially believed, and the whole deconstructed world becomes empty and shallow. This is pretty cliché to say, but the game simply has no soul, and the side quests made it all the more obvious. You can tell they could've never come up with an ending like Fallout 1.

But now I'm drifting a bit too much.

GmanPro
2nd Dec 2008, 02:21
The best game for handling side quests was Planescape: Torment. Nothing felt like it was rushed in that game. Every quest was thoroughly polished and of high quality.

rhalibus
2nd Dec 2008, 03:13
It seems that the best side quests are the ones that simply flesh out the world more, and reward exploration...like the side quests in Paris in which you can break into a shop or an apartment building: it's the actual exploration that is the reward as well as the money or found ammo/health.

Wow--it would seem that the essential element of a proper side quest is the exploration and discovery of a new place or location, and not simply traversing over familiar territory once again to give a message or collect a package.

APostLife
2nd Dec 2008, 07:18
Have side quest that are of variety. Makes it realistic, but a bit stuffy. The mission goal screen in the inventory in DX:IW was very poor and stuffy. You had to keep scrolling down to read the goals. DX was extremely good. The goals and mission objectives were all on one panel, and you see them at a glance.

Anyway, side quest for normal civilians would great, but not silly e.g. the coffee store fight in DX:IW. And some side quest directly relating to the plot purely.

XD Thanks

InGroove2
2nd Dec 2008, 15:08
Wow--it would seem that the essential element of a proper side quest is the exploration and discovery of a new place or location, and not simply traversing over familiar territory once again to give a message or collect a package.


Agreed. side quests have to offer new areas to explore. it IS super boring to have to simple shlep across a city and wait for a new map to load to tell some one something and then go back etc etc....

Yargo
2nd Dec 2008, 18:42
I say there should be very little side quests if any! Have optional objectives that offer insight into the plot. There could even be multiple optional objectives for one mission and you have to pick an choose which you do (for lack of a better example something like the super hero choosing to save the side kick or the dame). Where each one offers you a different opinion and effects your good/bad level. :cool:

rockyrr
17th Dec 2008, 19:06
The coffee wars in IW were RETARDED.


you are so right :)

Digitaldruid
17th Dec 2008, 20:54
If I am not mistaken the coffee wars in IW were an echo of two factions from the main plot. Here you had two coffee companies seemingly at odds but were really the same company. The WTO and the Order were two factions seemingly at odds but really the same organization, the Illuminati. Although I do admit that coffee chain wars was a bit silly but the did have a beverage that whitens your teeth while preventing stomach ulcers.

I like side quests that are relevant to what is going on in the main plot; providing additional information that while is not integral to the plot fills in details, gives perhaps a bonus of some sort, things like that. At this point I have done enough meaningless fetch-it side quest to last me a lifetime, several in fact.

it would have been interesting if the coffee wars quest had led the played to know the truth about the order and WTO. i know this sorta sounds silly but imo it would have been better than getting a confession from her holiness. i mean this could have been a amazing plot twist if it was worked out properly.

NK007
19th Dec 2008, 13:33
If I am not mistaken the coffee wars in IW were an echo of two factions from the main plot. Here you had two coffee companies seemingly at odds but were really the same company. The WTO and the Order were two factions seemingly at odds but really the same organization, the Illuminati. Although I do admit that coffee chain wars was a bit silly but the did have a beverage that whitens your teeth while preventing stomach ulcers.

I like side quests that are relevant to what is going on in the main plot; providing additional information that while is not integral to the plot fills in details, gives perhaps a bonus of some sort, things like that. At this point I have done enough meaningless fetch-it side quest to last me a lifetime, several in fact.

I have no idea why people hated the Coffee Wars sidequests, I really liked how the "war" went on in different branches the world over.

Also, don't forget the sq's are used to enhance not only the main plot, but also the world of DX.

GmanPro
19th Dec 2008, 16:47
It would have been better if they weren't coffee stores. The Triad wars in Hong Kong were basically the cool version of coffee wars.

Jerion
19th Dec 2008, 17:13
^^

So coffee wars with swords and nightclubs. Got it! :thumbsup:

NK007
19th Dec 2008, 17:52
It would have been better if they weren't coffee stores. The Triad wars in Hong Kong were basically the cool version of coffee wars.

I felt a bit more at home with delinquent coffeeshop owners trying to ruin other's business than dangerous triad types getting a gaijin to do what they should be doing.

InGroove2
19th Dec 2008, 18:45
as much as i disliked the coffe war... i think the voice acting really ruined it for me... they were totally plastic and to "up". think of the cool-dude bar tenders in deus ex... they were sly and had something to say.

these guys were like puppets and basically innocent pawns... it was just weak. very poorly written and executed. obviously a starbucks/flavor on the month thing. it could have been any product.
that aspect of it was lame too.

LatwPIAT
19th Dec 2008, 18:47
Fallout (and, I hope, FO2) did quests right. Find the water chip. That's an exellent plot hook. It doesn't require sympathy for a specific character. We need a water chip or people die. Then you pick up various clues to it's location, some of them misleading, or indirectly leading to the next clue. Nobody wanted anything in return for the information, so quests never felt forced. You could deny any quests except finding the water chip.

FrankCSIS
19th Dec 2008, 23:38
Nobody wanted anything in return for the information, so quests never felt forced

Funny thing about Fallout 2 is I remember two specific incidents where I was the one almost begging to help a NPC and kept getting denied. That's very far from the ridiculous, in your face side quests from F3.

Radox Redux
20th Dec 2008, 00:54
I think you guys are being a bit harsh on the Coffee Wars. It's all about context really. It was easy to tie Side-Quests into DX1's plot, becuase you were (for the most part) an agent working towards a specific goal and/or mission. In IW, your just a guy in a world, who's Tarsus bridge has burnt behind him, and is being pulled in multiple directions by multiple factions. No specific overall mission to speak of, just playing in accordance with your own will.

If anything the only distinguishability between Side-Quests and main story quests in IW was the story ones would occasionally move you to a new locale. Other than that... the line was drawn pretty thin. Personally, I think that side-quests should be tailered to fit the context of the game, and although I personally didn't have a problem with the Coffee Wars, I did miss the feeling of significance (and by extention, discovery) that you get with DX1's.

gamer0004
21st Dec 2008, 10:55
I think you guys are being a bit harsh on the Coffee Wars. It's all about context really. It was easy to tie Side-Quests into DX1's plot, becuase you were (for the most part) an agent working towards a specific goal and/or mission. In IW, your just a guy in a world, who's Tarsus bridge has burnt behind him, and is being pulled in multiple directions by multiple factions. No specific overall mission to speak of, just playing in accordance with your own will.

If anything the only distinguishability between Side-Quests and main story quests in IW was the story ones would occasionally move you to a new locale. Other than that... the line was drawn pretty thin. Personally, I think that side-quests should be tailered to fit the context of the game, and although I personally didn't have a problem with the Coffee Wars, I did miss the feeling of significance (and by extention, discovery) that you get with DX1's.

First of all, you found out that Pequods and QueeQueggs, two opposing factions, were in fact the same company 15 minutes after (or before) you found out that the WTO and the Order, two opposing factions, were in fact the same organisation. That kind of ruined the whole concept.
Secondly, if Pequods and QueeQeggs were the same company they wouldn't have waged such a coffee "war". There were no other coffee shops besides them, so it was a monopoly, so it's better to keep raising the prices instead of lowering them and destroying each others stocks.
Using your monopoly is way more lucarative then trying to create a non-existant oligopoly (duopoly).

Spiffmeister
21st Dec 2008, 12:49
Side quests would be good provided they give more depth the the world the dev's are trying to develop.

Example; DX1's side quests were all tied into the story for the most part, objectives that were optional, but might reveal some information about a specific faction or something like that. I found most of

DX:IW's side quests to revolve around some form of corruption, giving the idea
that the post-collapse world was lacking any real law and everyone had some sort of ulterior motive, mostly to do with money :P.

jamhaw
4th Jan 2009, 04:04
First of all, you found out that Pequods and QueeQueggs, two opposing factions, were in fact the same company 15 minutes after (or before) you found out that the WTO and the Order, two opposing factions, were in fact the same organisation. That kind of ruined the whole concept.
Secondly, if Pequods and QueeQeggs were the same company they wouldn't have waged such a coffee "war". There were no other coffee shops besides them, so it was a monopoly, so it's better to keep raising the prices instead of lowering them and destroying each others stocks.
Using your monopoly is way more lucarative then trying to create a non-existant oligopoly (duopoly).

Where do you find that out? I was watching throughout the game for a big reveal but I don't think I found that.

Radius86
4th Jan 2009, 10:01
We're discussing the fundamental reasons IW failed for a lot of original DX fans. I think the very presence of a choice situation between two rival coffee companies is what left me the most baffled when I played it. I mean seriously, that's just poor writing.

I'm not a critical person (well I try not to be) but you have to admit that putting coffee wars in the midst of a sequel to a game that's known for conspiracy at a governmental level, based in a cyberpunk environment, is NOT the way to go!

We're supposed to be living in a world of Collapse right, so how is it that there's SUCH attention of debate towards which company of coffee tastes better? Who gives a rat's ass (excuse my french) about coffee? Man, by the looks of the first game, people were LUCKY to afford a cup of anything at all. Survival was more important. And IW is supposed to be a world of collapse. So we should be seeing more chaos than the first game. The sort that does not get wiped out in just twenty years or so.
And the worst scenario is coffee wars? Substitute coffee for say weapons dealers, or manufacturers and then maybe you have something. Or if you're a pacifist, maybe healthcare. There you at least have a moral twinge about two factions fighting over who treats people. So you see, for me it is not the choice and premise of the coffee wars that bothered me, it's that it was about COFFEE, of all things. :(


Sorry if I've offended fans or anything, it's just that this kind of thing to me looks like lack of effort. There was some good stuff (like the presence of the Omar and transhumanism) in DX2 that could have been tweaked to a VERY good and dare I say lengthy script, had the side quests been refined a bit. This is vital for the new game.

Dazza
4th Jan 2009, 12:16
We're discussing the fundamental reasons IW failed for a lot of original DX fans. I think the very presence of a choice situation between two rival coffee companies is what left me the most baffled when I played it. I mean seriously, that's just poor writing.

I'm not a critical person (well I try not to be) but you have to admit that putting coffee wars in the midst of a sequel to a game that's known for conspiracy at a governmental level, based in a cyberpunk environment, is NOT the way to go!

I couldn't agree more. Coffee wars was just simply too random in the story for me. I didn't even bother with the coffee wars and thanks to Radius86 I don't have to explain why. No offence. But otherwise I love (story-related) side-quests. Gives so much more depth to the world that you're trying to immerse yourself in. Great thing is that if you don't like side quests then you can just ignore them. Plus it makes for some great replayability (provided you didn't attempt every side quest on the first play).

Side quests plz. k thx :D

spm1138
4th Jan 2009, 20:44
To be fair, bringing coffee into it was obviously a nod to Starbucks and the whole globalisation debate.

Radius86
5th Jan 2009, 12:59
To be REALLY fair, there are way bigger global corporate entities existing today that give me the willies with current globalisation trends than Starbucks.

spm1138
5th Jan 2009, 13:56
Yeah, but they were the poster children for it at the time (along with Maccy D's and Nike).

Radius86
5th Jan 2009, 17:08
Perhaps, but still not reason enough for me to include it in this game, man. I mean it's cute and all but again...coffee in dystopia? :rolleyes:

GmanPro
5th Jan 2009, 17:11
The game would have been just that much better without stupid coffee wars. At first I thought it was a code name or a front for some sort of illegal drug running war lol. That would have been so much better...

Radius86
5th Jan 2009, 17:40
Yeah, Queequegs certainly SOUNDS drug related :rasp:

Tommy98000
8th Jan 2009, 23:47
I liked the side quest in Deus Ex one where you could find out abit about mj12 when you had to rescue that friend of smugglers from the sewer 'base' in Hells kitchen. Even though smugglers merchandise was useless most of the time it was a fun side objective lol :D

AaronJ
9th Jan 2009, 00:20
what side quests should thy put ?:??

SO SO MANY. Incredible amounts.