Tell GR: Main Campaign or Side Quests?

Main till i get something good then side side side side side.

Really it depends on the game. In Oblivion the side quests out weigh the main campaign in shear number, and amount of “goodies” you get, so I prefer the side quests. Yet in The Witcher the side quests are mostly good for grinding and getting cash, so I prefer the main campaign. I guess I prefer the one that gives me the most story and game play, but I always try to complete them all even if I have to replay to do it.

I'm with tiny, it depends on the game. In most that I've played, the main storyline outshines everything else (Mass Effect). But then there's games like Oblivion where the main campaign has me returning over-and-over-again to the same bland copper-tinged netherworld while the sidequests have me defeating liches, becoming the head of an assassin guild, and leading the tower of mages. I think I prefer the games with the better main campaign though; they have a much more cinematic feel to them. Here's hoping Skyrim can pull it off in both respects though where Oblivion did not.

I'm kind of a cheap ass about things so when I buy a game I try to get the most out of it and try to do all the side quests if the game is any good. Of course if it's a shitty game I might not do either.

The vast majority of games I play, I attempt to juggle both until one is more compelling than the other. I recently went through inFAMOUS 2 and I was doing just fine on the side quests up to the last few hours or so, when I would purposefully ignore people needing help just to find out what happens next to Cole MacGrath. Some games don't have much of a sidequest, like Uncharted's many trinkets that can be found. i try to look for them without sweating over it too much along the way. If there's a conspicuously looking area just off the beaten path, I'll investigate. I don't frantically search for them until the main runthrough is done and I've got an item checklist by my side for my second runthrough on a harder difficulty. The Assassin's Creed Series is a strictly "Main story first, Sidequests off my direct line of sight to my objective are ignored UNLESS it relates to Subject 16".

In short: If it's got story potential, I'll pay attention to sidequests over the main campaign.

I always start doing the side quests because once I beat the main mission, I feel like doing the side quests are worthless. Now I will say, if the side quests are terribly repetitive and annoying (kind of like GTA IV) then I end up not beating the game. Basically, I side quest because I'm a completionist.

It depends on the game, if I plan on going back for a New Game+ or whatever sometimes I'm not worried about it and I'll run all the sidequests on my second run through but if not I try and get everything done, I've started wanting to become a completionist for those damn trophies now though...

I usually complete any and all side quests that I find before the main quests. Because there is nothing worse than finding out that you can't do a side quest because you already completed this main quest.

Nominating Bret. Took the words clean out of my mouth. The second a side quest is available, I'm on it. Once I've wrapped up every side quest that can be wrapped up, I'm back into the main campaign.

It really depends on the game. If the main quest is interesting and/or story based, I'll be more interested in seeing what developers have in store for me. Conversely, if the main quest is only there to guide me from place to place, with side quests to broaden and liven up the world and my companions, I'm all for them.

That said, here's the thing: sidequests are generally much more interesting because in my experience most developers got lazy with the main quest, and wanted to pad out time (I'm looking at you, Borderlands), while in a good game, the sidequests bolster the experience of the main quest. Also I think we can all agree that semi-mandatory sidequests are the worst thing possible, few would enjoy going drinking with Roman in GTA IV or the exploration to find missiles in Super Metroid if it were absolutely mandatory for finishing things.

If you've played Final Fantasy and Morrowind, you know how important side-quests are.

I'm a sidequest kind of guy. The first time I played Fallout 3, I was level capped before I even bothered to start the main quest. Dad was not happy about be blowing up Megaton...

Anyway, I suppose it really depends on the game. As long they tell more of the overall story of the game world I'm all for it. However if they're just tacked on minigames to stretch low content titles, I tend to ignore them.

Side quests; the situation may be critical and the world needs saving from a nigh unstoppable evil that only a band of assorted adventurers can stop, but that guy needs to get a bushel of apples to that gal a few cities over.

I tend to do every possible side quest possible. When I run out, I do the main story line until more pop up. In oblivion, I was able to do every single side quest in the game before I delivered that dragon amulet. I mark that up as a win.

I do the main story, but I get distracted by the side quests.

If you're talking about the two most recent Batman games? Side quests.

With the type of games I play....the only thing available is the campaign.

It depends on the variation and overall quality. I hate fetch quests. & Fetch and Build. Those need to die.

...I don't really have a solid answer. So....Campaign.

I find if I can get too heavy into side quests, then get bored of the storyline. lol.

Side quests can be a great way to add length and depth to the game without necessarily interrupting the pacing, but I always find myself obsessing over them. I've found myself prioritizing side quests that make me feel like I have a tangible reason for completing them, be it some cool new feature to unlock or some compelling plot thread to resolve.

Still, when in Arkham City I hear, "Protocol 10 will commence in 5 hours" I'm not going to break the illusion of urgency by hunting for green question marks for three hours.

I really think there's a place for both, but my favorite is when the side quests tie into the main quest. Like in Oblivion, while the Oblivion gates were kind of poorly implemented in that they felt like a chore, it was cool to have a side activity that was caused by events in the main story. Just secondary objectives are cool in general, because they tend to have side effects later on, like in FarCry 2 each mission has a side mission associated with it that makes the main mission easier in some way.

I, sadly almost always play the main story, and can't really bother to even check most of the side quests...Although there are some exceptions...But, I'd say the campaign is more important.

I prefer side quests since it's a nice distraction from the main one but not when the side quests involved "getting X of something for Y". I remembered the side quests from Baldur's Gate II. Man, they were quite an undertaking.

Side quests? What are these 'side quests' you speak of? I know not of what you speak! I know only "I play the game"! Which means in all seriousness I do both, I don't really make a distinction between the two, they are all part of the game, which means for the full experience, I do them both.

I prefer the Main Quest, side missions are usually boring and stupid

I do all the sidequests I can until I get bored of them, then I advance the main story a bit, do more sidequest, more main story, until it's game over, I mean, until the game is over!

the majority of the time I complete side quests while on the path to completing the main campaign. Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Fable, etc... I will beat all side quests that are available at that time in the main campaign. The only exception I have to this rule is Oblivion, I never actually beat the main quest and I have no regrets cuz I did everything else.