I agree. I don't see any downside to offering this option, as long as the game provides some other explanation of where to go (e.g. a quest log saying "search the ruins to the east of town" or something) rather than assuming the player has an omniscient quest marker. It's strange to me that so few games include the option to disable the quest markers.

I read an interesting article tracing the history of the quest marker, and arguing against its inclusion in games ("it replaces exploration"):

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/FelipePepe/20160412/270100/The_history_of_the_Quest_Compass__its_dreadful_convenience.php

So much truth in this article, damn

I don't see where "I" had much exploration - everything was within fairly narrow tracks. To me, one goes on a mission and explration is in the areas off the beaten track. Yeah, you can go to different areas whenever but there's no real exploration in the modern sense like in, say, Gothic. I stopped playing "I" in the middle; got too boring for me. I've decided to skip the originals and go straight to the remakes (after I finish the games I'm currently playing).

I was just talking about the article in general. Personally i dont think its that bad to have a marker in avernum. It lets me know my quest is at X spot. Im going off the beaten path anyway and completing the quest is the last thing ill do. I own both games and ill stick with A1 because i like old school graphics. And EftP doesnt even fix the way you cant use the same key to open and close tabs (inventory, char, etc).

I haven't played Gothic yet, although it is on my list to play. But when I played Avernum 1 I definitely felt like I got to do a lot of exploring. Yes, there are tunnels and other limits to the explorable world, but I recall going "off the beaten track" a lot, and finding lots of cool stuff scattered around. I especially enjoyed searching for the upgrades to spells, which were often hidden in secret areas. I also recall a lot of mysterious items that ended up being useful in other parts of the world, which is cool.

This thread got really focused on quest markers. I'm not against them in principle, but I think over-reliance on them is annoying, and I enjoyed the fact that I often only had vague instructions of where to look in Avernum 1. But I haven't played the remake, so maybe I'd find I actually like the markers.

I don't like them either. I grew up playing games without quest markers, and I don't need them or want them. There's a fine line beyond which they become terribly damaging to a game's mimesis.

That said, they can be done well.

My favorite example is probably from Thief, if you've ever played that. You're given a quest (break into Lord Bafford's manor and steal item x), a rough sketch map of the area (only generally accurate), and sent on your way to figure out the best method to succeed.

Thief is a completely different kind of game from Avernum, however.

BTW, Gothic is excellent.

I have played Thief, in fact that series is my favorite game series ever (I slightly prefer the second game to the first but they're both excellent). I especially liked the way maps were handled, giving me a vague idea of where to head but still requiring careful exploration since I didn't know exactly what the place would look like.

But I'm not sure that Thief is the best example of quest markers... I guess sometimes Garrett had drawn an arrow pointing to his objective on the map, but not always, and it was certainly never as clear as modern quest markers are. Which is part of what made exploring those levels so enjoyable.

So I hear! I'll get to it... eventually.

I miss the six-character party and dual-wielding from Exile. Plus, the 2D graphics were, in many ways, better than the flat 3D graphics that came later in the remakes.

/grognard :p ;)

Yeah, sometimes some changes do suck. And it's good to be aware if a change is a deal-breaker for you. I just wanted to insert a bit of humorous historical snark. :)