32 réponses à ce sujet

[Shannara13]

My biggest complaint about this game is that there are almost no sidequests. There are a bunch of sidetasks but no sidequests. One of my favorite things about BG2 was the number of huge sidequests that could take hours to complete but that is completely lacking in this game. All the sidetasks in this game are either things you just do while doing the main quest or delivery/single encounter tasks. I mean I am 40+ hours into the game and I don't think I have encountered anything I would actually be willing to call a sidequest.

[eichohrkatze]

yes I have also complains about the sidequest architecture.. first you save some bloodmages in denerim from the inquisations stake and then a minute later in the same city but in another quest - you have to kill bloodmages! which quest is good, which is bad!? I dont get it!

Modifié par eichohrkatze, 27 novembre 2009 - 08:13 .

[Kimberly Shaw]

I agree, the depth of the sidequests as they are is lacking to delivery or hunt-this-npc style, which are in every RPG I think I've ever played.



HOWEVER---I think the DLC will provide this niche nicely with Shale and Warden's Keep being the first examples of side quests that are involved and more time consuming and intricate than simply go kill this Blood Mage.



What was your favourite non-main quest so far? Sad to say I don't really have one yet...They all rated as "meh" or bad.

[Mnemnosyne]

I don't really agree here. Story-wise, you don't exactly have time to wander around and do all sorts of random things that do not directly help your goal. There's really already a lot of unrelated nonsense in-game from a story perspective, but at least it's mostly a minimum of unrelated nonsense.

I had the same issue with BG2 especially. Great game, but once you had the money to pay for passage to Spellhold (which was easy to get and you could get really fast), it really didn't make sense to keep going and do all those other random quests, unless you didn't give a damn about either Imoen OR taking revenge (in which case why would you even go to Spellhold at all?).

Modifié par Koyasha, 27 novembre 2009 - 08:20 .

[gsmithcat]

I agree. You don't even have to try to complete the side quests. You can just accept them all (from chanters board, Blackstone, Mages) and then wander around the world accidentally completing them.

[orpheus333]

I want a watcher's keep or durlags tower and if i don't get one i'm not buying Mass Effect 2.

No really bioware you have been warned. Or Wardend, Whatever.

[attackfighter]

Koyasha wrote...

I don't really agree here. Story-wise, you don't exactly have time to wander around and do all sorts of random things that do not directly help your goal. There's really already a lot of unrelated nonsense in-game from a story perspective, but at least it's mostly a minimum of unrelated nonsense.

I had the same issue with BG2 especially. Great game, but once you had the money to pay for passage to Spellhold (which was easy to get and you could get really fast), it really didn't make sense to keep going and do all those other random quests, unless you didn't give a damn about either Imoen OR taking revenge (in which case why would you even go to Spellhold at all?).

Your character could be doing it out of a compassion for others or a lust for power. Personally if I were an RPG character, I'd certainly want to acquire as many powerful items as possible, especially if I was to face off against a powerful mage like Irenicus - I try to play play these types of games keeping that in mind.

Modifié par attackfighter, 27 novembre 2009 - 08:39 .

[MarloMarlo]

Ogrhen's little side quest was really shallow but also really awesome just because of the dialogue and situation.

[adam_nox]

fallout 3 is prob the best rpg at sidequests, because almost everything is a sidequest. However the main questline was quite bland by comparison. Can't wait for the next elder scrolls.

[Kevin Lynch]

I see exactly what you are saying, but I think the design fits with the story, as mentioned earlier. By keeping everything a coherent whole and allowing branches within the body of the story, you can't get too side-tracked from your main goal. Even in BG2, I had to roleplay a reason for doing all those side-quests (I needed to gather my strength, money, power, etc) because it otherwise wouldn't make any sense to be doing them. I like this alternative of keeping you on track but offering something more.

[udgnim]

eichohrkatze wrote...

yes I have also complains about the sidequest architecture.. first you save some bloodmages in denerim from the inquisations stake and then a minute later in the same city but in another quest - you have to kill bloodmages! which quest is good, which is bad!? I dont get it!

this is where the RP part of RPG comes into play

pretty sure the "Save Bloodmage" quest is from the Mage Collective and the "Kill Bloodmage" quest is from the Chantry Board.

Modifié par udgnim, 27 novembre 2009 - 10:12 .

[LunSei Sleidee]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

I see exactly what you are saying, but I think the design fits with the story, as mentioned earlier. By keeping everything a coherent whole and allowing branches within the body of the story, you can't get too side-tracked from your main goal. Even in BG2, I had to roleplay a reason for doing all those side-quests (I needed to gather my strength, money, power, etc) because it otherwise wouldn't make any sense to be doing them. I like this alternative of keeping you on track but offering something more.

I so agree with this.

I HAVE ALWAYS HATED SIDEQUESTS. <_<

If anything, it is a very, very good thing that Dragon Age never wastes my time with those. "The world is about to be destroyed by a plague and I'm the only one who can save it.... but hey, first just let me find this lost medallion, help this kid, help this peasant, bring this item to this certain individual..... the world can wait!"

No, I love Dragon Age precisely because it doesn't try to make the game seem longer by adding those sidequests; and I really like that in the rare occasions in which such thing happens, some characters often make sarcastic remarks about how illogical it is to lose time so.

[Brimleydower]

I mostly agree with the op here. The only worthwhile "side-quest," I would say, is the Urn of Sacred Ashes. And it *IS* a side-quest, in essence. It is integrated into the main plot, however, so that it becomes necessary. Such things could have been incorporated elsewhere, although I will point out that the game is clocking in at ~70 hours per play through for me, at least, so I can certainly understand from the developing side of the company how spending so much time on every side-quest could be a bit much.



As to whoever mentioned DLC, I was hoping that DLC would remedy this, but it really didn't. As I'm sure has been stated many times before, Warden's Keep was a prime opportunity for a quest of a similar scope to the De'Arnise keep of BG2. It was a tremendous let down, however. While I feel like the introduction of Shale was marvelously incorporated into the game, the fact that it supposedly justifies $15 is extremely alarming.

[Darthain]

adam_nox wrote...

fallout 3 is prob the best rpg at sidequests, because almost everything is a sidequest. However the main questline was quite bland by comparison. Can't wait for the next elder scrolls.

Ironically it is a terrible RPG though.  Hopefully the next TES will be more along the pre oblivion ones in scope and intrigue.  

Side quests do seem a little tacked on and minimal, would have preferred some grand adventures, but given the scope of the game to begin with, and the urgency of the blight attack, your character does indeed have trouble justifying jaunts through the woods for no immediate effect. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

I see exactly what you are saying, but I think the design fits with the story, as mentioned earlier. By keeping everything a coherent whole and allowing branches within the body of the story, you can't get too side-tracked from your main goal. Even in BG2, I had to roleplay a reason for doing all those side-quests (I needed to gather my strength, money, power, etc) because it otherwise wouldn't make any sense to be doing them. I like this alternative of keeping you on track but offering something more.

That was a problem with BG2.  BG handled it a lot better, I think, in that for much of that game you didn't actually know all the details of your main objective, so almost all of the side quests could have been relevant.  That they ultimately weren't is what made them side-quests, but I think the best side quests aren't obviously side quests when you get them.

[04WigmoreB]

With the Side quests, I definately agree with the fact that you shouldn't just go off and do them because of the whole world ending thing, but I would then like it to open up with some sidequests after the Main Game is finished to give you extra things to do. That's what I do in other games now. (Which is kind of what the DLC is now doing in Dragon Age, so that's a good thing.)

[Mnemnosyne]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Kevin Lynch wrote...

I see exactly what you are saying, but I think the design fits with the story, as mentioned earlier. By keeping everything a coherent whole and allowing branches within the body of the story, you can't get too side-tracked from your main goal. Even in BG2, I had to roleplay a reason for doing all those side-quests (I needed to gather my strength, money, power, etc) because it otherwise wouldn't make any sense to be doing them. I like this alternative of keeping you on track but offering something more.

That was a problem with BG2.  BG handled it a lot better, I think, in that for much of that game you didn't actually know all the details of your main objective, so almost all of the side quests could have been relevant.  That they ultimately weren't is what made them side-quests, but I think the best side quests aren't obviously side quests when you get them.

Yes, this is why I specifically say BG2 when I say that.  In Baldur's Gate, you really don't have a major goal during the earlier parts of the game other than 'stay alive' so sidequests there are very reasonable.  Furthermore, even once you start to get on the story track, you don't feel great urgency for quite some time.  It's not until later you really start to feel pressed for time.  And nicely, by the time you do start feeling pressed for time, there's few new sidequests appearing.  You could still go back and do the older ones, sure, but if you do them all when you get them, the entire game feels very natural because you're never delaying your Mission of Great Importance in order to do random stuff for townsfolk.

In Baldur's Gate II, you spend the entire game with a sense of great urgency, because at first Imoen is missing and you want to get her back, then later your divine spark or whatever is missing (I forget the exact terms they used) and you will supposedly die without getting it back.  So there's never really a point when it feels appropriate to, say, wander off and find out what's wrong in the Umar Hills.  Only the gold you need to pay the Shadow Thieves/Bodhi gives you any incentive, and that is easily obtained.  It's actually even worse in Throne of Bhaal, where you've got the armies of the Five laying siege to Saradush and everything else going on, and wait, what?  Why are you wandering off to some unrelated keep on the coast?  You're looking for treasure?  The entire sword coast is burning down around you, and you're off playing dungeon explorer?  The only logical way of picturing that is if you look at it as having gone to Watcher's Keep after defeating Irenicus, but before the Five come after you.

Mass Effect was also pretty bad at this.  You're supposed to be on a high-priority mission to find Saren, you believe he's doing something that can end all life in the galaxy, and yet you're wandering off, traveling all over the bleeding galaxy, busting up criminal organizations, searching for people's missing brothers, and whatever else?  Don't you have something slightly more important to do?  On the other hand, although Bring Down the Sky was completely unrelated to your main mission, it didn't feel inappropriate.  That is exactly the kind of thing that would, in fact, be significant enough for you to delay even your mission to take care of, especially considering it's something that is over and done with in a matter of hours.  Breaking up crime rings, looking for people's missing relatives, tracking down escaped surgeons, finding people's family armor, checking out every random anomaly and distress signal, and even investigating a powerful shadowy organization, on the other hand, are the kind of thing that no sane person would do when they honestly believe that there is a threat to all organic life in the galaxy that they need to stop.

Dragon Age, I feel, does it relatively well in the old BG1 style.  Although you are always on an urgent mission, there's not a lot of times when you feel like you're going completely out of your way for some unimportant nonsense.  Sometimes you get unimportant things done, but usually that's because you happen to be in the right area, or happen to be passing through the right area.

[Rheterik]

Gotta agree with Koyasha. I went through the main mission first and foremost because it felt so urgent. Then, at the end of the game I'm like "Wait... I can't go back and help everyone?"

[Chragen]

Koyasha wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Kevin Lynch wrote...

I see exactly what you are saying, but I think the design fits with the story, as mentioned earlier. By keeping everything a coherent whole and allowing branches within the body of the story, you can't get too side-tracked from your main goal. Even in BG2, I had to roleplay a reason for doing all those side-quests (I needed to gather my strength, money, power, etc) because it otherwise wouldn't make any sense to be doing them. I like this alternative of keeping you on track but offering something more.

That was a problem with BG2.  BG handled it a lot better, I think, in that for much of that game you didn't actually know all the details of your main objective, so almost all of the side quests could have been relevant.  That they ultimately weren't is what made them side-quests, but I think the best side quests aren't obviously side quests when you get them.

Yes, this is why I specifically say BG2 when I say that.  In Baldur's Gate, you really don't have a major goal during the earlier parts of the game other than 'stay alive' so sidequests there are very reasonable.  Furthermore, even once you start to get on the story track, you don't feel great urgency for quite some time.  It's not until later you really start to feel pressed for time.  And nicely, by the time you do start feeling pressed for time, there's few new sidequests appearing.  You could still go back and do the older ones, sure, but if you do them all when you get them, the entire game feels very natural because you're never delaying your Mission of Great Importance in order to do random stuff for townsfolk.

In Baldur's Gate II, you spend the entire game with a sense of great urgency, because at first Imoen is missing and you want to get her back, then later your divine spark or whatever is missing (I forget the exact terms they used) and you will supposedly die without getting it back.  So there's never really a point when it feels appropriate to, say, wander off and find out what's wrong in the Umar Hills.  Only the gold you need to pay the Shadow Thieves/Bodhi gives you any incentive, and that is easily obtained.  It's actually even worse in Throne of Bhaal, where you've got the armies of the Five laying siege to Saradush and everything else going on, and wait, what?  Why are you wandering off to some unrelated keep on the coast?  You're looking for treasure?  The entire sword coast is burning down around you, and you're off playing dungeon explorer?  The only logical way of picturing that is if you look at it as having gone to Watcher's Keep after defeating Irenicus, but before the Five come after you.

Mass Effect was also pretty bad at this.  You're supposed to be on a high-priority mission to find Saren, you believe he's doing something that can end all life in the galaxy, and yet you're wandering off, traveling all over the bleeding galaxy, busting up criminal organizations, searching for people's missing brothers, and whatever else?  Don't you have something slightly more important to do?  On the other hand, although Bring Down the Sky was completely unrelated to your main mission, it didn't feel inappropriate.  That is exactly the kind of thing that would, in fact, be significant enough for you to delay even your mission to take care of, especially considering it's something that is over and done with in a matter of hours.  Breaking up crime rings, looking for people's missing relatives, tracking down escaped surgeons, finding people's family armor, checking out every random anomaly and distress signal, and even investigating a powerful shadowy organization, on the other hand, are the kind of thing that no sane person would do when they honestly believe that there is a threat to all organic life in the galaxy that they need to stop.

Dragon Age, I feel, does it relatively well in the old BG1 style.  Although you are always on an urgent mission, there's not a lot of times when you feel like you're going completely out of your way for some unimportant nonsense.  Sometimes you get unimportant things done, but usually that's because you happen to be in the right area, or happen to be passing through the right area.

Even though it doesn't make much sense from a storyline perceptive in BG2 doing every single quest during chapter 2 it is in the end up to the player and it makes the game so much richer. I mean my best memories from Baldurs Gate is from the optional zones. 

But in Dragon Age there are no optional zones. All the zones tie in to the gathering of allies or the origin stories. If I had to guess I'd say the main reason for the lack of real side quests is time. It takes longer to develope assets today then it did 10 years ago. 

Though I am still optimistic that they will be able to reuse the Dragon Age engine for the squeal and there they will have more time to develop great content instead of just trying to make the game run. And hopefully the story will give the player more breathing room to actually explore the optional content.

BG2 did have a sense of urgency, but at least it was personal between you and the main NPCs. In Dragon Age you're shown this waste horde that destory you and you need to gather an army to fight it as soon as possible. It makes even less sense than in BG2 when you're running around doing random kill/loot/gather quests for unnamed NPCs.

Guess what I'm trying to say is. Make a sequel. Make it more like Baldurs Gate 2

[Cream_Poof]

Brimleydower wrote...

I mostly agree with the op here. The only worthwhile "side-quest," I would say, is the Urn of Sacred Ashes. And it *IS* a side-quest, in essence. It is integrated into the main plot, however, so that it becomes necessary.

If it's a necessary and integral part of the main story then how is it a side quest? That's like saying that all of the parts that lead up to the final battle are all side quests and if that's the case then I think the side quests are amazing!

[Mnemnosyne]

Chragen wrote...

Even though it doesn't make much sense from a storyline perceptive in BG2 doing every single quest during chapter 2 it is in the end up to the player and it makes the game so much richer. I mean my best memories from Baldurs Gate is from the optional zones. 

But in Dragon Age there are no optional zones. All the zones tie in to the gathering of allies or the origin stories. If I had to guess I'd say the main reason for the lack of real side quests is time. It takes longer to develope assets today then it did 10 years ago. 

Though I am still optimistic that they will be able to reuse the Dragon Age engine for the squeal and there they will have more time to develop great content instead of just trying to make the game run. And hopefully the story will give the player more breathing room to actually explore the optional content.

BG2 did have a sense of urgency, but at least it was personal between you and the main NPCs. In Dragon Age you're shown this waste horde that destory you and you need to gather an army to fight it as soon as possible. It makes even less sense than in BG2 when you're running around doing random kill/loot/gather quests for unnamed NPCs.

Guess what I'm trying to say is. Make a sequel. Make it more like Baldurs Gate 2

I should note that I loved the sidequests in BG2, in general, I just wish the game and its story had been structured in such a way as to not make them feel "wrong" in character to do.  There are few characters I would play that would, if behaving in character, go around and do all those sidequests.

While I would love to see more sidequests in Dragon Age, I'm not quite sure how they could have been worked into the story in a reasonable manner, as they were in BG1.  If there was a period of the game 'building up' to the Blight, where signs are showing but nothing big has happened and therefore you don't have an urgent mission to complete, then it would be great to have that part full of random, optional sidequests.  But with the story we have, I prefer that any sidequests be tied in pretty close to the main story, and definitely not require me to go to some out of the way optional area where I have no business going.

As for the time issue, I suspect that's a major concern these days.  It undoubtedly takes much much more time and more money to construct a 3D zone that looks good, doesn't have graphical glitches, etc, in a modern game than it does to paint a 2D background and define walkable areas.

[OgrynFlesh]

Maybe 2d should come back. Hell, if they somehow figured a story to follow BG2 and used the exact same engine for it then I'd sure play the **** out of it. Also modability.



I prefer the whole: rushes to the aid of an ambushed caravan on the road, helping is no big deal, on the same path. But then the caravan turns out to be the kings. And the ambushers where... uh, doppelgangers! Surely one is obligated to hunt down said doppelgangers. Hmm, maybe werewolves and a temple might be better.

[Oliver Sudden]

I don't think there's any question this game is "thinner" than earlier BioWare games. I hope it isn't because they have to add graphics and animations to keep the majority of game players happy.

[eichohrkatze]

I just finished The Stone Prisoner DLC and in my opinion that quest was actually quite interessting! You can play through it ..roughly estimated, perhaps in a half hour? I like The Stone Prisoner Quest! but would enjoy if the quest would take much longer!

Modifié par eichohrkatze, 28 novembre 2009 - 04:39 .