Why Completing All Objectives And Finding All Secrets Are Meaningless

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Why Completing All Objectives And Finding All Secrets Are Meaningless

Yahtzee laments the need to fulfill all secondary objectives and find all the secrets in the game for some meaningless achievement or reward.

Read Full Article

Meaningless points? Hmm, indeed you should try playing Forza Horizon 2. I kid you not, it rewards you straight away, for just accelerating and turning. God forbid that you drift with some use of the actual handbrake, it'll blow its yearly load! All while saying things like "Awesome!" and "Rad!" Or whatever it thinks my language is these days. It's trying to please me too much. Suspicious, if you ask me. Which you won't, but i'm bloody well telling you anyway!
It reminded me of a friend i had once that complimented me on almost everything, in a manner that a low self-esteeming person would find incredibly distrustful.
What sweeties are they after? Are they planning my demise? I shan't take my eyes off them for one second!

So if you feel incapable of anything, and just want some effortless praise; Forza Horizon 2, people!
(Perhaps an off-topic rant)

i personally like the extras if you want to think there meaningless meh

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Around 2002 a joke game was released called Progress Quest. It was described as a 'zero player game'. All that happened was that an RPG character sheet would be created and the experience points would increment by themselves, randomly selecting upgrades as milestones were passed. It was intended as a parody of EverQuest, which just goes to show how dated my frames of reference are, but I think it's been proved remarkably prophetic by the state of triple-A games today. Where rewards are handed out for actions equally as meaningless as leaving the computer turned on for long periods of time. It speaks to a trend in mainstream culture generally, that a work actually engaging the audience seems to be a lesser priority than just being able to distract them for the allotted runtime.

I might as well go full-hipster on this one: I have been using that same example to describe the growing trend of of busywork in popular games for YEARS now. It's stunning how many people seem to claim to PREFER the busywork approach, to the point where I've questioned if gaming has just left me behind.

Anyway, I get this and agree completely.

Finding all of the Hidden Packages in GTA3 might be tedious for future playthroughs, but I still prefer how it was handled there compared to something like Saints Row 4.
Why? GTA3's packages provided the player with powerful replenishing bonuses.
Most of which you normally wouldn't get until much later in the main story if you got all the packages available.

Contrast that to, say, Saints Row 4, where if you want 100% completion you have to engage in collecting all sorts of stuff.
The burden is lessened by the inclusion of super powers, and trivialized by the inclusion of an upgrade available roughly 40% into the game that just reveals all the stuff you're missing on the map.

But with the challenge of locating these things eliminated, the process is less fun and more of a chore.
The game almost seems aware of this, with the character shouting "WHOO!" and "YEAH!" for every 3-4 blue data fragments you pick up (adding to the tedium so much that I just muted my game outright while doing my collect-a-thons).

This is connected to achievement whoring.

Making achievement 100% completion the same as collecting all the knick-knacks in the game (which basically every single game does now) just turns the achievements into the same checklist, not actual challenges.

However, going by your Three-C's analysis, getting 100% in a game and the game basically telling you "You've done everything" is Cathartic. This is why DLC is such garbage. You're literally told - "You can't get 100% in this game unless you pay more" and that is enraging to the completionist.

It all depends on what is hidden for example dust: an elysian tail had completely worthless, unrewarding secret chests that contain things like redundant healing items which all, well, do the same thing that is healing you for different ammounts of health or crafting materials that have been dropped all over the place tenfold from the enemies you fought trying to get to the chest so you will either keep hunting for secrets out of principle because they're there and you're determined/obsessive compulsive or just stop bothering which is probably what most people do.
Secrets in this game don't really add anything other than busywork to it and you don't lose much by ignoring them.

Now binding of isaac on the other hand makes you want to get all the secret items not only out of principle because they're there so you can "100%" the game, but as a necessity if only to have the maximum ammount of options available, to get the most out of your limited resources so that the randomness has less room to screw you over.
Also almost all items will vastly alter your playstyle and look keeping the game fresh for a long while.
That is a game that has done secrets well. Meaningful ones that add to the game. Define it even.

I think secondary objectives are only worthwhile if they give you meaningful options that enrich the gameplay like in starcraft 2 where you can collect bonus objective in almost every mission and you really want to have all of them because they unlock game changing upgrades for your units and buildings.
If it's just 10 coins in a box that you can spend on items you already have and every standard enemy which you can farm because they spawn endlessly anyway drops 5 coins when defeated, that's not enticing, not worthwhile, not good game design.

Another case is to be made for dark souls in which finding all of its secrets is a community driven metagame in itself so I guess what I'm trying to say is secrets done well aren't meaningless and can rejuvenate games replayability and elevate them far beyond the sum of their parts.

To me the only games that I really care about secondary objectives are RTS/Strategy games and RPGs. A good RTS or RPG developer will use them appropriately to convey additional story elements or to give unique rewards but outside of those genres they are usually just used to give an achievement or for just filler.

Atmos Duality:

Finding all of the Hidden Packages in GTA3 might be tedious for future playthroughs, but I still prefer how it was handled there compared to something like Saints Row 4.
Why? GTA3's packages provided the player with powerful replenishing bonuses.
Most of which you normally wouldn't get until much later in the main story if you got all the packages available.

Contrast that to, say, Saints Row 4, where if you want 100% completion you have to engage in collecting all sorts of stuff.
The burden is lessened by the inclusion of super powers, and trivialized by the inclusion of an upgrade available roughly 40% into the game that just reveals all the stuff you're missing on the map.

But with the challenge of locating these things eliminated, the process is less fun and more of a chore.
The game almost seems aware of this, with the character shouting "WHOO!" and "YEAH!" for every 3-4 blue data fragments you pick up (adding to the tedium so much that I just muted my game outright while doing my collect-a-thons).

They weren't meaningless though, since they served as the currency for the super power upgrades. I'd find that roughly as useful as the hidden package bonuses from GTA 3.

It's the shit that has absolutely zero benefit to the player that I really dislike, which is the case with a lot of the collectibles in AC games. The animus fragments in Black Flag for instance, there was literally NOTHING to be gained from them, ugh.

So yeah, pretty much completely agree with this article.

Zjarcal:

They weren't meaningless though, since they served as the currency for the super power upgrades. I'd find that roughly as useful as the hidden package bonuses from GTA 3.

Well, I'll put it this way: I'd rather collect 100 packages with some thought and care placed into their positions to get my bonuses, rather than bounce around the damn city for hours collecting 1000 pieces of "blue shit", most of which are just sitting out in the open and mindlessly strewn about.

I agree, seeing as I've just come from Saints Row IV's audio log collection. The audio logs themselves are fine, but the abundance of clusters just makes it absurd that the game asks you to collect as many as you can. You don't even need that many to get a whole bunch of upgrades as well, which is simply odd. The Zinyak statues are even more odd, given the mediocre XP gain you get from them.

Gosh that monster looks a lot like a Lost Planet 3 monster.

I have disagreed with dear Yahtzee on this point since his Mass Effect 1 review, where he said he didn't do any of the side missions because it was meaningless, but then complained that everything felt empty and there wasn't a lot to do. I think his quip was about a "Make the Game better" planet in the next system over. And I thought it just missed the entire point altogether. Was there one specific this is the single best side quest ever quest?

No, but all of the quests combined allowed for great immersion. Just as you can't have a well defined character after a single line of dialogue, you can't have a well defined, immersive game just by playing through the main story as fast as possible.

Truly Yahtzee, you have no right to complain about side quests being a whole load of just stuff to do if you're also going to complain about a perceived shallowness in characters and lack of immersion in the story.

I've always resented collect-a-thons but hey if people like them more power to them. For me, the additional "padding" content would be something like a challenge that's already present in the game (a platforming/parkour section, an enemy, a stealth run, etc.) but made extremely hard and challenging, eschewing the accessibility concerns that developers rightfully consider for the remainder of the game. These challenges would be completely optional and wouldn't even need to give you additional insight into the plot or anything (although it'd be nice). The reward could indeed be just feathers or some other inane item but they'd mean something to you. They'd mean that you spent your time with the game, yes, but you did it trying to hone your skills in order to master its mechanics to such an extent that you won the very tough optional challenges the game presented to you. It wouldn't be just a feather, it'd be a feather in your cap.

All in all, in the grand scheme of things, both are equally pointless, I guess, but at least you'd be spending your time practicing to master the game's core gameplay to a higher level instead of just mindlessly following directions towards the next X in your map. That seems much more appealing to me. In the end, I think the ease of implementing collect-a-thons will see them being a common fixture for a long, long time though.

100%ing has a point when it isn't just doing the same copy-pasted content a billion times. Like in the PS2-era Ratchet & Clank games (haven't played the later ones), there were only a handful of secret collectibles and achievements, but they were actually challenges you had to actually work hard to get. They generally asked for a demonstration of mastery over the game (Difficult jumps, trick shots, a keen eye for secret areas, beating a boss without taking damage, etc.), rather than just a massive time investment. And they rewarded you with a bunch of really cool behind-the-scenes commentary and content that didn't quite make the cut.

In my opinion, that's what 100%ing a game should be about, not asking you fulfill a billionty MMORPG fetch quests to get a pat on the head as thanks for proving that you have more time and patience than god.

I fully agree with the article. The problem is finding which type of collect-a-thons your game is. I'm pretty compulsive when it comes to completion, so I will probably try to do it either way. I wish I didn't try so hard in games like Jak and Daxter, because I really wasted a lot of time in it.

On the flip side, Majora's Mask basically was about doing the collections, so I missed a TON of content the first time I played through the game.

Silentpony:
No, but all of the quests combined allowed for great immersion.

Not sure what leads you to that conclusion. It's been a long time since I played Mass Effect but I don't recall anything particularly useful or interesting coming out of its side quests. It really did just feel like a whole bunch of go here, kill them, collect these nonsense to me.

Then again, I don't think Mass Effect was particularly well written or interesting to begin with. It had it's moments, but the thing was by and large just a game about hitting all the marks on a cliched sci-fi checklist.

But the thing is, the vast majority of games aren't any better these days. Is there any challenge in collecting all of the feathers in Assassin's Creed 2? Only if not shooting yourself in the head to escape the tedium constitutes a challenge. But that sort of fetch questing nonsense with no challenge or tangible benefit to it is what 99% of AAA games consider a good sidequest these days and they're absolutely 100% wrong.

Let me breed gold chocobo's so I can explore new parts of the world, discover powerful abilities, and kill really tough bosses instead thanks.

Yep, Ubisoft's way of handling collectables pisses me off too. Here, gather a bunch of crap. Here, I'll tell you exactly where they are. Now go fetch.

Ah, good ol' Progress Quest. I fire up the smartphone version every now and then for a chuckle. Gotta love some of those randomized enemy names ("Executing a passing Enchanted Motorcycle Voodoo Monk").

It's pretty sad that the parody is even more pertinent now than it was back then.

This is nothing new. Remember the classic id Software FPS's? Wolfenstein 3D, DOOM, and Quake? Those levels were loaded with hidden rooms, with weapons and health and treasure, and at the end of each level, the game told you how much of the enemies you killed and secrets you found, making you feel like a big thicky bo-bo for not finding them all.

I love games like Majora's Mask that offers a fantastic reward for acquiring all of the masks (no easy feat) as you get the awesome Fierce Deity Mask which destroys Majora in seconds! Sure, getting all heart pieces, items and stray fairies are also required for 100% completion but masks are t he most important. You haven't finished Majora's Mask until you get the Fierce Deity Mask in my opinion!

Tony2077:
i personally like the extras if you want to think there meaningless meh

Liking them has no bearing on whether or not they are meaningless. If you like them, fine, go ahead, but considering that many of the 100% achievement related stuff is basically just filler, with no real impact on the game at all, they are, by definition, meaningless.

If the achievement doesn't change the outcome of the game in some way, it has no meaning, and is just there for you to do.

Which again, that's fine. Plenty of people enjoy that stuff, I'm not one of them personally, but I don't have a problem if people do enjoy that completionist style of play. Some people like to collect things, like cards for games, or comic books, or any number of other achivement/collection-esque activities. To me this is just game aspects designed for that type of player.

I've never bothered with 100% achievements, and I probably never will, simply because I'm not playing the game to try and go through some list of challenges. I play games for the fun of the story and the game mechanics. That's all. But, again, many other gamers want more than that in their games.

I wouldn't shed a tear if the meaningless achievement stuff was forever purged from gaming, but I also don't lose any sleep over the fact that it's likely here to stay. I just stop playing the game at that point. xD

Darth_Payn:
This is nothing new. Remember the classic id Software FPS's? Wolfenstein 3D, DOOM, and Quake? Those levels were loaded with hidden rooms, with weapons and health and treasure, and at the end of each level, the game told you how much of the enemies you killed and secrets you found, making you feel like a big thicky bo-bo for not finding them all.

I think secrets and kill statistics are different to these types of busy work that inhabits a lot of games these days. When it's hidden, then fair enough, but when they tell you the exact location of all the items then it becomes a chore.

Speaking of chores, I would say the worst example of this type of things would be Just Cause 2 (never played the first one, so it could be worse). Seriously, finding all the shit in that game is a job for a mad man. It's not particularly hard, since it tells you where most of it is, but the map is huge and absolutely littered with collectables. If anyone tells me they achieved 100% completion, then you are either going to hell for lying, or have crippling OCD and too much time.

I don't mind finding things when the add to the story, or give me a special weapon or something. Final Fantasy games did this very well, giving you side quests that you could completely ignore (and in some cases, characters even), but if you took the time, they paid off.
I also liked tracking down the Dead Space audio and text logs, because they gave insight into what was going on.

But yeah, running around collecting flags just to collect them? Or minerals? Or other junk? Bores the snot out of me. I used to try to get them all because I did want that platinum trophy, but now I just go, "Hm...that's a lot of work. And I can't seem to get this other trophy so...nope."

Thanatos2k:
... This is why DLC is such garbage. You're literally told - "You can't get 100% in this game unless you pay more" and that is enraging to the completionist.

With all due respect, who the fuck cares? There are plenty of things wrong with DLC; the fact that people have to buy the DLC in order to get 100% is so far down the list I wouldn't even include it.

Y'know that joke game concept you're using as an example? It turned into its own genre: idle games.

FirstNameLastName:

Thanatos2k:
... This is why DLC is such garbage. You're literally told - "You can't get 100% in this game unless you pay more" and that is enraging to the completionist.

With all due respect, who the fuck cares? There are plenty of things wrong with DLC; the fact that people have to buy the DLC in order to get 100% is so far down the list I wouldn't even include it.

Ya, you'd also have to count the multiplayer-only achievements as well, many of which are unavailable shortly after release, or require such stupid amounts of luck or hours invested that you had better get over your lack of 100%'s for games almost instantly.

Funny he mentions Asscreed, that was also the first game that made me seriously question the "fun" of 100% completion... and maybe Mass Effect, of course... I figured I was just getting old.

I did enjoy exploring levels in Mario 64 and Banjo-kazooie, trying to get all the stars, notes, jiggies, and miscellanies. I guess in those games you were doing the collecting anyway to open more levels, and since you needed most of the STUFF to actually end the game, it didn't feel like much of a chore to just go ahead and finish them all off.

So I'm willing to give collect-a-thons another chance, maybe it can still be fun, I'd rather have a mostly pointless reason for exploration over an empty level. At best you find some interesting/funny characters, or some weird unique thing, at worst, you are just filling a bar, but I play very little of Ubisoft-the-game, I can't think of any other examples that I disliked.

Really all these collectibles do is "reward" players who WANT to pad things out and not just go and get the last boss.

FirstNameLastName:

Thanatos2k:
... This is why DLC is such garbage. You're literally told - "You can't get 100% in this game unless you pay more" and that is enraging to the completionist.

With all due respect, who the fuck cares? There are plenty of things wrong with DLC; the fact that people have to buy the DLC in order to get 100% is so far down the list I wouldn't even include it.

I know. Is seeing two zeros behind one one that important? Just tally up how much of the non-dlc content you did and count that as the 100%, but I guess we're missing the point since we're not that anal about things.

Holythirteen:

FirstNameLastName:

Thanatos2k:
... This is why DLC is such garbage. You're literally told - "You can't get 100% in this game unless you pay more" and that is enraging to the completionist.

With all due respect, who the fuck cares? There are plenty of things wrong with DLC; the fact that people have to buy the DLC in order to get 100% is so far down the list I wouldn't even include it.

Ya, you'd also have to count the multiplayer-only achievements as well, many of which are unavailable shortly after release, or require such stupid amounts of luck or hours invested that you had better get over your lack of 100%'s for games almost instantly.

Funny he mentions Asscreed, that was also the first game that made me seriously question the "fun" of 100% completion... and maybe Mass Effect, of course... I figured I was just getting old.

I did enjoy exploring levels in Mario 64 and Banjo-kazooie, trying to get all the stars, notes, jiggies, and miscellanies. I guess in those games you were doing the collecting anyway to open more levels, and since you needed most of the STUFF to actually end the game, it didn't feel like much of a chore to just go ahead and finish them all off.

So I'm willing to give collect-a-thons another chance, maybe it can still be fun, I'd rather have a mostly pointless reason for exploration over an empty level. At best you find some interesting/funny characters, or some weird unique thing, at worst, you are just filling a bar, but I play very little of Ubisoft-the-game, I can't think of any other examples that I disliked.

Really all these collectibles do is "reward" players who WANT to pad things out and not just go and get the last boss.

I think the real difference is that there is fun collecting, and busywork collecting. Of course, this is an argument in itself since different people find different things fun.

The various stars in the Mario games are what I would consider an example of fun collecting, since they are central to the game mechanics and there is a certain amount of challenge to collecting each one. My main problem is with the Ubisoft model where they seem to create the game first then stick an arbitrary number of collectables all over the map. Sure, some of them might require a bit of climbing, but most of them are just sitting out in the open. Far Cry 4 springs to mind, with it's posters, Mani wheels ... and virtually every other collectable. There's no challenge to the posters. They all appear on the map, so finding them isn't hard, and once you do find them it is a simple matter of walking up to them and holding a button. It's just a chore to wander from building to building.

Here you go. Achievement unlocked.

http://armorgames.com/play/2893/achievement-unlocked

A game like progress quest.

I remember playing... erm... watching progress quest. Was quite zen-like.

There are two points I think need to be made here. One is simply that a lot of the games (mostly by Ubisoft) that give you collectibles and tell you where they are do tend to mix it up a bit. For example in Ubisoft games where some of the collectibles are obvious, in other cases simply moving to the area where the icon is doesn't mean you can get it, indeed the area where the collectible is might not be obviously approachable at all. Granted in the scope of each game there are only so many tricks they can use (such as needing to find a cave to get under where your standing if you just go to the icon), but I wouldn't say it's 100% a matter of just grabbing the stuff. The problem is mostly when they add so many collectibles that finding that cave becomes old hat. For example in Far Cry 3 I don't think they really needed to put 120 bloody tribal relics into the game.

The other thing I'd point out is that right now games are made for "filthy casuals" to use a popular term. Indeed one of the reasons why gamers get so offensive about it is because it was predicted what was going to happen if casuals were not kept out of the hobby, or given a greatly reduced role in it. Simply put in the interest of making games enjoyable to all they really can't make much about them truly complicated, or introduce much in the way of true failure states. To do these things drives away casual gamers who will say "well, we have lives and can't put in the time to actually master a game, but we feel we're entitled to succeed at them and see all the content as well". Sort of like the old MMO argument that arguably started with Everquest where the rank and file players became upset that so much content was put into the game that could only ever be seen by a dedicated few players. The idea being that casuals pay the same money so should be entitled to everything the game offers. Some MMOs then decided "hey let's make a game with all levels of content accessible to everyone", "Theme Park" games were then arguably born, they made lots of money, and so they became the default ways of doing MMOs. Since they made so much money by catering to the casuals it became anathema to do it any other way and pretty much every "hardcore" MMO development eventually wound up selling out due to publishers wanting the biggest pile of money available, not a dedicated audience of serious gamers. The same applies to single player games, at the end of the day Ubisoft realizes that making serious games for serious gamers simply won't make them the same kind of money as churning out a predictable EZ mode theme park that can give people the illusion of being good at a game with a bit of persistence (which doesn't require dedicated persistence as you can take breaks as long as you want, unlike say an MMO where you need to keep up and work constantly). As I have pointed out for a long time a lot of the current games, like most shooters, are fundamentally just as casual as "Farmville" and other "clicker" games, they are just created with higher budgets and aimed at a different audience. Something like "Farmville" is aimed at people who don't seriously think of themselves as gamers and actually feel relieved to be so obviously casual in such a "weird" hobby, on the other hand a lot of AAA gaming right now including most Ubisoft titles is just as casual but created in such a way that it's supposed to convince the people playing it that they are "hardcore".

Now, before people take this the wrong way, to be honest I'm not a "serious gamer" anymore, it was years ago that I was an uber-raider in WoW or did any MMOs very seriously. Due to RL issues related to medication, tendonitis, and slowly developing arthritis I simply cannot move and play games like I used to. I'm actually glad for serious, high-quality, casual games, especially since the industry has moved so far away from true RPGs which were largely an intellectual exercise. That said, when I play something like "Assassin's Creed" nowadays (even if I'm not a serious fan) it looks pretty awesome when I say have Edward Kenway cutting through the entire crew of a British Man O' War, but I've played enough games to say flat out that it's not in the least challenging, it's incredibly easy compared to a lot of the games that I used to play, I mean cripes, if I can do it even when my wrist and fingers are having a rough moment that says something.

The sad truth is that today the majority of people playing games are the kinds who will generally get stuck, or not receive immediate gratification, or not be made to feel like they are properly uber, and then claim the game blows chips because of their own failures as opposed to working through them to get better or find work arounds. If a quick trip to say Gamefaqs won't help, the reviews get bombed, and people will take it out on a bad game, probably claiming bugs and other assorted problems are responsible, even if it was just the game kicking their butt since they didn't want to practice.

To an extent I think it's still kind of fair to blame the casuals who caused this trend, since really the greedy corporate suits are just doing what greedy corporate suits do. We as gamers sort of failed to defend our turf, especially the gaming media which did the easy thing in pushing for casual acceptance. We went for "hey there will be enough games for everyone of all play styles" to the reality check some people saw coming of pretty, but easily winnable games, that largely just take a time investment and not even a dedicated one. Something defended constantly by story trumping gameplay (where a game should include both) which ironically reminds me of a parent telling a child a story, and in this case it's a lot of older folks regressing to childhood.

Cruel, and I guess I'm increasingly bashing myself, but that's how I feel, and the opinion I've come to over the years. It's literally like a theme park, spend enough time waiting in line, and then you'll get to see the awesome event/ride, at which point you go stand in line for the next one. Single player, MMO, it's all the same thing, as long as you put in the time to get through the line you'll get to the payoff... unless the ride breaks (which is in this metaphor a shoddy game with legitimate bugs).

dunam:
Here you go. Achievement unlocked.

http://armorgames.com/play/2893/achievement-unlocked

A game like progress quest.

I remember playing... erm... watching progress quest. Was quite zen-like.

I'd run it in the background and check in every now and then. It seems to satiate the same mental need to "see what's going on" that checking in on websites does.

Couldn't agree more, it's just lazy design IMO. Instead of creating enough actual content they just cram 100 "trophies" in the game so you spend another 40 hours replaying the same shit to find them all.

If you enjoy them, I don't hold it against you, but don't expect me to agree.

All of this reminds me of IdleRPG, a game where you don't actually play anything. You just make a character, then idle on IRC for as long as you can. Character movement, PvP, leveling, quests, and item obtainment is completely automated.

It's made even more pointless by the fact you can just set up a low-power computer, like a Raspberry Pi, as an IRC bouncer and just have that plugged into your router forever.

Haven't played new stuff with this problem, but I remember being a completionist for stuff like all the 2d Castlevanias.

I don't think I have ever 100% a game. I do look at what I can get from certain sidequests and maybe I do them or search for something if I want it, but generally I main quest and if it happens to be a sandbox game I can sometimes venture into exploration mode, but rarely. The games that, lately, kept me sidemissioning the most might be the Batman games, then the one game were I was searching for certain stuff in maps was Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, since I wanted a certain lightsaber handle or colour. Then again since Lotro was free to play to about level 40 (I saved all the value points and bought extra areas) after that the main missions got so hard that there I almost completely stopped main missioning after Mines of Moria and just explored MiddleEarth in stead.
But yeah, hunting achievements has never really been my thing, I play the story mode and pick up a little extra here and there but very seldom (never) search everything up.

"Collect all the things" was something I liked back when I used to play a lot of 3D platformers (mainly on the Nintendo 64). But it was because the gameplay was built around it. The sense of achievement from getting all of the music notes in Banjo Kazooie was very cathartic.

But finding all the collectibles in something like GTA or Saints Row. Ugh, what a bore. Who wants to be hunting around every nook and cranny for hidden packages when you can be engaged in high speed chases and airport shootouts?

As for Progress Quest, I sometimes like to leave it running in the background, inevitably forget about it, then days later (because I never turn my computer off) realise it's still going and check up on my character, a land squid voodoo princess named Dis.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here