Can't believe this hasn't been discussed further......

[Konspiracie]

Disclaimer: I have searched and searched only to find on thread that mentions this topic very lightly; so, I hope this is alright.

We have all heard about the addition of "side quests", but what I have trouble grasping is "what kind of side quests could they possibly have?" We all know it's possible for this to include Murphy playing a part in other people's stories, but it can't be JUST that, right?

So, tell me, how do you think they could implement these quests? And what kind of quests would you like to see, personally?

Speculation Mode [On] Off

[jdnation]

We're guessing it'll be similar to the Maria scenario in SH2: Restless Dreams. Or similarily I'm expecting they'd play out much like the various puzzles elements we've been encountering in the games for awhile now, like for example Stanley Coleman in SH3, where puzzles and stories of other people etc are intertwined. Except this time Downpour will include many that are not directly related to the game's progression, but that are hidden away or optional.

Additionally one could see it as being similar to the Kaufmann side mission in SH1. Where you might get items or info that could affect the ending or other parts of the game where you could either save or kill side/characters. Like for example the case with Cybil in SH1 depending on if you did the Laufmann side mission based on whether you had the right items available.

So I expect that such side missions will unlock other stories about Silent Hill residents, Silent Hill's history, and also having to do with certain characters you encounter. Completing these missions will either give you access to better weapons or items that will alter your ending/progression or response to other characters.

[Xev]

^and in doing so not damage what we know already regarding character fluidity...

I think since they have appeared to regard the town itself more that it will have to be involved in at least one of the side quests.

[Konspiracie]

God, I just hope there are no fetch quests...... But that seems like a good thing to add to the series, along with the open world.

[Xev]

Yes true that would cheapen it. I think this is a good step as well - being able to explore and do/not do the quests if you want.

[Konspiracie]

Yes, it is a great change from the super-linear Homecoming. The thing I hated most about that game was that it had no "useless" rooms. There was not one room that wasn't part of the story. I remember playing the older games and always letting out a sigh of relief when the door's lock was broken lol. But open-world exploration is great, and I hope the quests are more subtle than "choose A or B"

[SilentWren]

If the side quests unlock useful things in-game, I'll fetch like a fucking dog.
If not, I'll just fetch with less enthusiasm. Not exactly what you'd expect from a SH, but meh.

[Fevered Dream]

As long as it doesn't turn into a wannabe RPG game with tons of useless quests with little or no meaning to the plot, town, etc. then I think it will work out. I like the idea of getting special bonuses like, perhaps, items that permanently boost health (kind of like serums in Homecoming), make you more resistant to damage, and even if it's just interesting cutscenes and character interactions or unlocking new monsters to fight. The idea of the side-quests does make me curious.

[SilverWolfPet]

As long as you don't get XP or coins, I'm good with side quests.

To be able to roam through the town...man, that's awesome! you can actually explore it more, without following "blood trails" or one-way corridors.

What if these side-quests are more like riddles? For example, not people asking you to do stuff, instead you have a locked door with a puzzle. You brings three something-shiny-object-thingy to it (which you find randomly around town) and it opens a new area you can explore, to get a better gun!

[Konspiracie]

^ That is a great idea! I had never thought of that.

[alone in the town]

I don't really want sidequests. If I did, I'd play a Rockstar game or an RPG. I know that the term 'linear' is almost always pejorative when it comes to videogames, but it's difficult to have a tight narrative when you're distracted by superfluous bullshit.

[NanayaShiki]

I don't really want sidequests. If I did, I'd play a Rockstar game or an RPG. I know that the term 'linear' is almost always pejorative when it comes to videogames, but it's difficult to have a tight narrative when you're distracted by superfluous bullshit.

I don't see how a few side-quests would make the game any less tight narrative-wise. I don't think we are talking Fallout 3 style here. But if there are one or two optional quests or locations you can discover by exploring on the way to the next major locations I don't see how it would harm the flow of the main game any. Would giving you the option to stop at a motel between the Apartments and the Hospital and solve some optional stuff really have made SH2 any less good? Not that it'd need it, but it can't hurt so long as it isn't done poorly.

[alone in the town]

My problem is that the emphasis on sidequests is clearly in response to fans wanting them, and some of the worst features in this series have come as a result of acquiescence to fan wants. That's why we got the 'realistic inventory' of Silent Hill 4, the 'realistic' breakable weapons of Silent Hill: Origins, and I'm willing to bet that the absence of combat in Shattered Memories, while not an issue for me, was in some part due to fans bitching about how much combat was in Origins and, especially, Homecoming. This leads me to wonder just how many sidequests there will be, and how much of the total gameplay is spent on them, and a suspicion that there will be more than is necessary. Which will make fans bitch because they got the sandbox game so many wanted for so long, because you can count on death, taxes, and Silent Hill fans shitting their collective pants about basically everything. Even if, in this case, I might be one of them. ;D

[Yuki]

I don't really want sidequests. If I did, I'd play a Rockstar game or an RPG. I know that the term 'linear' is almost always pejorative when it comes to videogames, but it's difficult to have a tight narrative when you're distracted by superfluous bullshit.

I don't see how a few side-quests would make the game any less tight narrative-wise. I don't think we are talking Fallout 3 style here. But if there are one or two optional quests or locations you can discover by exploring on the way to the next major locations I don't see how it would harm the flow of the main game any. Would giving you the option to stop at a motel between the Apartments and the Hospital and solve some optional stuff really have made SH2 any less good? Not that it'd need it, but it can't hurt so long as it isn't done poorly.

To help Nanaya's response: couldn't the entire Kaufmann thing in Silent Hill 1 essentially be a sidequest?

[Tillerman]

I think I agree with Alone in the Town. I'm not sure if "sidequests" are a good idea.

I mean, if they are like the Kaufmann thing from SH1, that's fine. But that "sidequest" worked because it was part of the main narrative of the game and opened up an ending. It also contained a lot of important information and if you don't do it, the game ends up making less sense.

The problem is, if Downpour is going to have a lot of sidequests, they either have to be important to the main narrative, or superfluous. If a lot of them are important to the narrative, then they aren't really so optional, which sort of defeats the purpose of having sidequests. But if they are mostly superfluous stuff, then they end up just being distractions from the main narrative. Either way is not a good thing.

I do like the idea of making the game less linear, and opening up the town for more exploration. And having a few sidequests would be totally fine, or if by "sidequests" they simply mean optional stuff to do, no problem. But if they mean "sidequests" in the typical sense, as in fetch quests or optional story stuff that has no bearing on the game's main narrative, I think that can only be bad. A game like Silent Hill should have a tight, linear narrative, with as little "filler" stuff as possible. Unfortunately, I think this might be another case of Vatra sticking something in the game because it's trendy, just like they apparently are doing with QTE's. But we'll have to see... it's too early to tell yet.

[alone in the town]

I don't really look at it as such, since it has such a large effect on deciding the ultimate outcome (and, it is necessary to achieve the canon ending). Of course, it's still a boring scavenger hunt and mostly a waste of time. There's not even a decent payoff other than what effects it has on the ending.

[Tillerman]

I think the best way to handle "sidequests" in a game like Silent Hill is by not making them sidequests. In other words, don't present them as tasks. If there is optional stuff you can do, like optional rooms and out of the way places to explore, that's great. But if they are presented as tasks where you have to do such and such in order to get some reward, it feels like a drag, and only serves to distract from the narrative of the game.

[NanayaShiki]

only serves to distract from the narrative of the game.

They are optional for a reason. You don't HAVE to do them. And in many ways they can also be used to help the narrative by adding depth to the world or themes, even if they are not directly having an effect on the plot. The forefront plot and characters are not all that is required to make a narrative work. Since when has a potential way to add depth been a bad thing? Of course "if they do it wrong" then it could be annoying, but that's a weak argument that can be made for every single aspect of every single thing that has yet to be released.

[Tillerman]

It doesn't matter if they're optional. If these sidequests don't improve the game, then they're subtracting from it by virtue of the fact that they've robbed development time from other areas that could have been improved. Point being, if they don't enhance the game, they have no business being in it.

And although they can potentially add depth, that's not really a good argument for them as the same depth can be achieved with a linear narrative, and usually in a more coherent fashion as the developer has more control over how the player experiences it.

They also have the potential drawback of more involvement with NPCs, which would hurt the feeling of isolation which can be so good for this type of game. Although it depends on how they are implemented, but that's why the choice of the word "sidequest" is kind of troubling, because usually quests involve NPC's. But I guess we'll have to wait for the details.

[Pyramid Head15]

The way I see it, they are their to allowed the player to see how much they want to get involved into the story. By finding theses "sidequests" you might get more backstory to whats going on, or you could just ignore them and focus on the main thing. If anything, it sounds like the sidequests come up as a reward for exploration rather than a traditional rpg sidequest.