Long quests are great and all, but.... they're not always what I (dare I say, 'some of us?') would like to play all the time.

In numerous threads on various message boards that I'm a member of, some things came up that I felt should be brought together to make a point. I tried several times to craft a response that was pertinent to the specific thread I was posting to originally, but it kept turning into, essentially, an open letter / rant to RPG Developers and/or anyone interested in RPGs. Feel free to agree, disagree, love it, hate it, skip it, or whatever. To make things easier, I suppose if I had to form a thesis statement for this whole point, it would be thus:

Long, open ended, epic style quests can certainly be a good thing for an RPG. As long as they are written well, and serve to draw the player into a compelling, deep, rich and satisfying game world. However, such long quests can also serve to alienate, bore, or otherwise 'put-off' some players, including the "casual gamer' crowd. Aside from including long, grand-sized quests, there needs to also be an alternative side to the game(play) which can be accessed quickly and easily, and also put aside quickly and easily for when there is limited time (or motivation) to play.

That, in a nutshell, is my overall point. From here forward, I'll explain why I feel that way, and provide an example or two as to how to accomplish that, so feel free to skip all the rest of this if you aren't interested, and just reply to, or discuss the point made above. I also apologize ahead of time for the less-than-English-major structure of this, as it inevitably kept turning into a rant.

I'd like to start off by saying that there are many, MANY RPGs - as well as other games in general - that I've started playing and lost interest in, or otherwise walked away from without playing them all the way through to completion. These have been both blockbuster, AAA titles, as well as lesser-known, independently produced affairs. Not multi-million dollar budgets, nor pure desire alone - no matter how earnestly it may be desired - create good, compelling games. What it can produce is an example of what could possibly be done given that amount of money, or the desire, or the talent at hand. I've been playing games all my life; that is to say longer than some and shorter than others, but I've been doing it long enough to form what I feel is an educated opinion about video games themselves - RPGs in particular. Every now and then, a brilliant game comes along that grabs me and wont let go until I've done every possible thing in it, two or three times, as well as tried many things I later found couldn't be done. In those types of games, even though I found things I couldn't do, I was never disappointed because there were so many things I *could* do. Now granted, those things appealed to me personally and wont necessarily appeal to everyone else. But I believe these things to be valid. I'd truly be surprised to hear that a significant portion of RPG players, whether MMO or single player, didn't feel the same way.

Now, make no mistake, I'm not talking about the majority here. What I am talking about is myself and other people like me, as I'm sure there are. I feel that RPG gaming has become hyper-focused, and as such, has pigeonholed itself into a glut of 'inbred' games and experiences. All too often, RPGs progress in an evolutionary manner, as opposed to revolutionary manner. For instance, Game A comes out with something interesting. Suddenly, Games B-F make sure they include The Big Thing(tm) that Game A has as it's major selling point. Games B-F have that same selling point, and some non-zero number (we'd hope) of other decent ideas and concepts going for them as well. Then Game G comes along, which has the same major selling point as previous Games A-F, (which has now been demanded as 'industry standard' by players) as well as another neat selling point or two. So Game G becomes the new hot thing on the market, and now Games H-N have the same original selling point that Game A had, as well as the new thing that Game G had. This is the way that games, in a general sense, evolve. Certainly, there are games that break this mold, and do provide truly revolutionary gameplay experiences. These games however, are few and far between and often wind up becoming a sensation for awhile. These games either spawn new clones of themselves or fizzle out. Then like some sort of ridiculous taboo, the gaming industry is notorious for never touching a concept again, if it was poorly implemented once. Sure pitfalls and patterns exist, but if you simply bounce off every wall you encounter just to spin around and go in an opposite direction, then barriers just don't get broken down.

Now, it may be argued that I'm doing myself a disservice by missing out on some truly great gameplay and interactive storytelling by not playing the game. To some degree, I'm sure that's true, but the bottom line is the gameplay itself wasn't interesting enough to have me hooked from the get-go. I'm sorry, but thats just the way it is. Any game developer will (ideally) want their players to spend as much time as possible in the gameworld they so lovingly crafted, and like a good book, sometimes it just takes awhile to get introduced to the world, the characters the plot, etc. Rarely does a good book come along that has you hooked from the very first page, but the ones that do, you remember for a lifetime. You'll go back and re-read them every now and then, just because they were such great stories. An interactive story is no different. Sometimes, it just takes awhile to get the story moving. Thats just the way it is, and I concede that that is the very nature of these types of games.

However, since video games are an interactive story-telling medium, they have an ace up their sleeve that books can't quite access. Books can't quite deviate much from the overall story, lest it become disjointed and fragmented, and overall, difficult to follow or get into. Video games don't necessarily have to suffer from that. In fact, many games take it for granted that the player isn't going to be introduced to the major plotline right away. There's typically a tutorial and some sort of introductory phase where the player gets familiar with the world. Since the player is able to control their own interaction level with the game, they can run around stomping bunnies in the tutorial area for the first two hours of gameplay if it's fun to do. They can do this even if the developers only expected the bunny-stomping to take place for the first 5 minutes or until the player got used to the commands that make them stomp said bunny. So right from the get go, the opportunity exists to create "distractions" from the main story line without the main story line suffering. The game can clearly state "Go speak with NPCJoe when you're done stomping bunnies, and he'll tell you what to do," in which case, no continuity is lost. Players can stomp bunnies until they're bored to tears, and then once they execute the required action for advancement, the story picks up right where it was intended to be. Books simply do not have this luxury.

So, let's say all the time you had to devote to a particular gameplay session is 10 minutes. How easy would it be to pick up your controller, or your wrap your hand around your mouse, and stomp bunnies for 10 minutes, and then shut the game down because you had to go do whatever real life demanded? Common sense dictates that it should not be very hard at all. The trick here is actually making the bunny stomping *fun*, and in some way, allow it to progress the player indirectly toward the overall goal of participating in the main story line of the game.

But wait... Isn't that the whole point between logging in, squishing a few zombies or skeletons or Grues, in order to gain experience so you can gain levels, which make you stronger, which then make it possible to participate in the overall story line? Short answer - Yes. The problem with that though, is that so much Grue-squishing needs to take place as to make it more akin to work; it's more of a "grind" than it is play.

I'm going to invoke a game here that many people may not consider an RPG, but in my opinion, had collected some of the best elements of an RPG, and combined them in a less-than-traditional RPG manner. I'm talking about Grand Theft Auto III. Personally, I put WAY more than 100 hours into that game. Yet, I put less than 17 hours into Bethesda's Oblivion before I completely lost interest. Why? What did GTA3 have that kept me coming back, while something as in-depth and engrossing as Oblivion couldn't? Simple. It had in-game distractions.

Forgive me a moment as I expand on this example. GTA3 provided such a wealth of alternatives to the main story line than just about any so-called "open ended, epic-scaled" RPG provided. If I only had 10 minutes to play before I had to be out the door for work, I could load up the game and within literally *SECONDS* be playing. Whether I grabbed an Ambulance and ran around town ferrying injured people back to the hospital, or grabbed a fire truck and ran around town putting out fires, or grabbed a police car to *ahem* "apprehend" criminals, or grabbing a sports car and trying to accomplish stunts that would make Colt Seavers pee himself, it didn't matter. It meant that I was jumping into that world, and *playing the game*. I was acquiring money, I was opening up new quests, I was seeking that elusive "100% completion" rating. It didn't matter. I was IN THE GAME WORLD, having fun and enjoying myself, even if it was for 10 minutes at a time. What this did was maintain my interest in that game for (and here's a startling point) *over a year*. Sure, Rockstar may have only intended the game to have 20 hours (or insert random number of hours here) of gameplay, but I played that game for far longer than they probably ever intended. Meanwhile, Bethesda's Oblivion (to use a current example) was created with the intention of keeping my interest for 100+ hours. I barely spent 1/5th of that time in game before I got completely bored with it.

Why?

Because Bethesda failed to provide *ACCESSIBLE* "distractions" to me within the first 17 hours I spent playing that game. There was no mechanic in place to attract the casual gamer, and keep the casual gamer interested. Now, I don't exactly consider myself a "casual gamer", and I want to make clear that I mean no disrespect to anyone that would otherwise consider themselves "hardcore" or whatever, but I've got to be honest, I just plain got bored with the game. Bethesda lauded the game as "open ended", which, I'm sure it probably is to some degree, but I'll never know. It just got boring. Why? I mean, I was counting the *hours* until the game was released. I couldn't wait. I refused to pre-order the Collector's Edition because I didn't want to wait for 2nd day shipping. I wanted to take the day off work, go out the morning of release, buy the game, and then not see another living human being for a month. I was fully prepared for that. I cleared my schedule, I refused to make plans. Then, within the space of two days - only two extended gameplay sessions - I got bored with it, and the DVD hasn't gone back into my drive since. To say I was disappointed is an understatement.

But I digress. What could Bethesda, or any other developer for that matter, have done to keep my interest level high, and keep me logging in to their world, immersing myself in their content? Again, I stress, the answer is simple. Provide distractions. Provide simple little things that would keep me coming back day after day, night after night, even if I only had 10 minutes to spare. Heck, some "hardcore" gamers might even consider these types of things worthless and meaningless at first glance. But lately, one of the current industry-wide objectives is to find a way to capture and engross the "casual gamer" and turn them onto playing video games. Oblivion failed to do that on every account. But Oblivion (and Bethesda) are not the only ones who are failing at this. Apparently, it's an industry-wide "epidemic." All I have to do is look at the game icons on my desktop that go unclicked for more examples. Even beyond those, I've got the stack of games literally sitting within arms reach from me on my desk, that remain uninstalled. If you seriously want examples, I'll give them to you, just ask. But I don't think it needs to be done. I'd rather you all ask yourself which games failed you, and then we can all discuss that.

But okay, great. I think I've probably over-communicated what the problem is here. The question remains, what do we, as developers, do about it? Well, we could get into the whole "innovation" discussion, but that could go round and round indefinitely. Instead, let's look at some examples that already exist. There are games that center around so many "casual" aspects. Now, when I say casual, here's what I'm referring to:

1.) Concepts that are easily understood by gamers and non-gamers alike
2.) Gameplay that is easy to pick up and only takes seconds to start up and begin actually *playing* the game
3.) Gameplay that can very easily be put down when other demands are made, yet can still easily be picked back up again at a later time.

Many of these concepts have been explored previously by other developers and have, in fact, had entire games centered specifically around these relatively simple concepts. Concepts like caring for and raising an animal or creature (Nintendogs, Creatures, Seaman, for example). Concepts like breeding said animal or creature (Jade Cocoon series, Monster Rancher series). Concepts like simply seeking out, collecting and using items (Pokemon, M:tG, Yu-Gi-Oh). Concepts like keeping a home, or a garden (Animal Crossing, Harvest Moon). While it's true that these games have all taken the stated concepts and expanded on them enough to create a complete game, and in some cases, an entire world, that level of extensiveness isn't necessarily required. Several of the games I mentioned are huge sellers, if not record-breaking sellers. Others were critically acclaimed up and down the street. So why then, do the "open ended, epic-scaled" games not even attempt to incorporate even *some* of those concepts to even the slightest degree? Surely, even if these concepts are watered down and overly simplified, it can't be so difficult as to not be worthwhile to implement.

For instance, I'm able to ride a horse in Oblivion. I can't do much else with them though. I can't fight while I'm on one. The horse can't carry any additional inventory for me. All it is, is a slightly faster, yet far less maneuverable version of walking, and a ridiculously slower version of teleporting from one known destination to another. Given the fact that in the short time I played with them, the horse always tried to wander off any time I got off of it, it's not like I was able to explore with it, then tie it up to a tree once I found a cave or ruin that I wanted to go into. Maybe I missed something with the horse, but still, Bethesda failed to make it accessible, or even make it understood that any of that could even be done.

So I ask, why couldn't I do any of those things? Why couldn't I collect and corral other horses (Pokemon)? Why couldn't I breed different horses together in order to cultivate desirable traits (Jade Cocoon), even ignoring the fact that the horses had ZERO traits to begin with. Why couldn't I use my horse to plow a field outside of my house so I could grow my own Alchemical Resources (Harvest Moon). Why couldn't I cross breed my horse with another creature in the game (Monster Rancher). Seriously, educate me. Maybe I'm asking for the moon here, but I don't think so. These are all concepts that have already been devised and implemented in ENTIRE GAMES of their own. So clearly, there's some interest there. Is it that implementing these concepts are too time consuming for a normal development cycle? Is it that these things aren't marketable, or worth the effort for the intended audience? Because, correct me if I'm wrong here, I thought the current WoW-inspired Holy Grail of gaming is "breaking into the mainstream." My thinking is that, if you're trying to break into the mainstream, then you need to provide something easy, and approachable to the traditionally non-gamer. So ask yourself, what do non-gamers do? Do they breed horses? Do they cultivate gardens? Do they collect stamps? Coins? I'm thinking that yes, there are non-gamers that do some or all of these things.

Normally, non-gamers don't care one bit about saving some imaginary world, or becoming an imaginary king. If they did, they'd already be interested in gaming, wouldn't they? They'd already be spending money on your game to do that, right? Wouldn't they? Personally, I think so.

Argh! But wait! What about me! I'm a gamer, and your game can't even keep MY interest. And why is that? Because it takes too much effort on MY part to cultivate my own motivation, and my own interest to play your game. Sorry, but I don't have time for that. I'd much rather put down your game, and play one that compels me to play it. I'd much rather play one that forces me to ask myself "What kind of fun am I *MISSING OUT ON* by not playing this game?" as opposed to playing one that makes me think "Well, only another 100+ hours of this same tedium, and *then* I'll be having fun."

Sure, video games should be a fun experience to play the whole time. Thats why they're called games. How many articles, how many editorials, how many full books of the I-have-to-pay-for-this-knowledge type have been published and sold concerning "what it means to 'play' and 'have fun?'" Come on guys. You're missing the forest through all your erosion-model, seed-based, terrain-sculpted, SpeedTree-generated trees.

The answer is way simpler than that. Just put fun in an easy to open box, for crying out loud. That's what we're supposed to be doing. Quit looking at this like it's some sort of undiscovered science and get back to what makes things enjoyable.

And while I may want to end this on that last line, thinking that it might be profound and leaves a lasting impression, think about this. How many users and players do the (and I only use this term in a relative sense) "simple" games have? How many people play games by Popcap? By Reflexive Arcade? How many players do any number of web-based or mobile developers have playing their games? Why? It's not because people have 100+ hours of designed content in their phones. It's not because Bejeweled has sexy, pixel-shaded, next-gen graphics. It's because those games are simple, and accessible. Something that your "open ended, epic-scaled" game worlds are in direct conflict with. That's right. Your games are THE EXACT OPPOSITE of the types of gameplay that attracts the so dearly sought-after "mainstream, casual player." Sure, you may have sold 100,000, or 500,000, or 1 million units. That is no small feat, and by no means am I trying to belittle that. But think about how many more you could have sold if your game was even more accessible. Think of how many friends and family I alone would have pushed your game on if it was even capable of entertaining me, a legitimate gamer. All I ask is something simple - make me want to play your game when I'm supposed to have better things to do. Force me to make excuses as to why I don't want to mow the lawn, or clean the garage. If you're losing my Saturday to a filthy and cluttered garage with things hiding in it that may very well bite me for real, and cause me some real pain, then that's what I call 'Game Over'.

Please join our discussion of this article on our forums