No.
The semi-open world was the best part. It made you actually feel like there is a WORLD that you are saving. Not just some person telling you there is one to save, you actually go out and experience it.
You see the people and places that are counting on you to succeed.
I don't mind the large areas with their many quests. What I would have liked is much more "tangible" attachment to the plot. The spoiler below is to avoid upsetting those yet to complete their playthrough.
@Phaonica you know that the companion fetch quests aren't the actual companion quests, don't you? Triggering Blackwall's 'proper' quest does require you to gather a particular GW artifact, but that isn't the meat of his companion quest. And that isn't Cass's actual companion quest either.
What difference does it make? I'm pretty sure my companions gave me those quests. I only mentioned them because, like the Skyrim guild quests they aren't part of the main story but since they are directly given to you by your companions, they might be considered high enough priority quests to convince one to visit new zones, if they're weren't just another collection quest.
I don't mind the large areas with their many quests. What I would have liked is much more "tangible" attachment to the plot. The spoiler below is to avoid upsetting those yet to complete their playthrough.
Spoiler
I would kind of call this a pretty shallow (no offense intended) complaint though - what Bioware game have we played, hell what RPG in general has been made where side content was heavily or even briefly referenced much in the end-game credits or even major plot points? Why would it be done anyway? There's more than enough back patting given in the average Bioware game as you move forward and the side objectives yield their own rewards without necessarily needing them to be parroted in at some random point or in the epilogue.
"Commander Shepard defeated the Reapers - and also managed to evacuate a handful of citizens on Benning!"
"The Inquisitor defeated the Elder One and built 3 Keeps for the Inquisition in various areas too!"
"The Bhaalspawn helped Drizzt and crew before going on to whoop Sarevok!"
Side quests are side quests for a reason - DAI has plenty of them that have relevance to the plot in some form, even as simple as helping refugees with various needs - but they are side objectives for a reason - they are not necessary to achieve victory. They exist because they stand as goals your Inquisitor should consider achieving in the name of protecting and stabilizing the land, which contributes to the OVERALL goal of helping you defeat the big bad and their relevance should be pretty apparent. Establishing a Keep, using it to help protect the area and accomplish additional goals like quelling a sudden upsurge in Darkspawn, sending your troops via the war room to help with various things and earning tangible rewards like gear and resources.
Edit: I realize it sounds like I'm just saying no no, you're wrong there's no room for improvement at all! I think there are areas they could have really done some additional to work to tie some of these disparate zones and quests in with the central plot but overall I think most zones have a good personal flavor while standing out in what you need to do there, even if there's a smattering of fetch/kill type quests wrapped up in them.
I would kind of call this a pretty shallow (no offense intended) complaint though - what Bioware game have we played, hell what RPG in general has been made where side content was heavily or even briefly referenced much in the end-game credits or even major plot points? Why would it be done anyway?
Side quests are side quests for a reason - DAI has plenty of them that have relevance to the plot in some form, even as simple as helping refugees with various needs - but they are side objectives for a reason - they are not necessary to achieve victory. They exist because they stand as goals your Inquisitor should consider achieving in the name of protecting and stabilizing the land, which contributes to the OVERALL goal of helping you defeat the big bad and their relevance should be pretty apparent. Establishing a Keep, using it to help protect the area and accomplish additional goals like quelling a sudden upsurge in Darkspawn, sending your troops via the war room to help with various things and earning tangible rewards like gear and resources.
To me, it feels like there is far, far too much content that, as you say, is not necessary to narratively achieve victory. Maybe they are necessary mechanically, if you like playing on higher difficulties, but narratively they are unnecessary.
I would much rather have had an expanded main storyline that incorporated some of these side areas, because, as it is, it feels the main story could have been much bigger, much more involved, and much longer if it had incorporated more of the resources that were clearly available.
I would kind of call this a pretty shallow (no offense intended) complaint though - what Bioware game have we played, hell what RPG in general has been made where side content was heavily or even briefly referenced much in the end-game credits or even major plot points? Why would it be done anyway? There's more than enough back patting given in the average Bioware game as you move forward and the side objectives yield their own rewards without necessarily needing them to be parroted in at some random point or in the epilogue.
"Commander Shepard defeated the Reapers - and also managed to evacuate a handful of citizens on Benning!"
"The Inquisitor defeated the Elder One and built 3 Keeps for the Inquisition in various areas too!"
"The Bhaalspawn helped Drizzt and crew before going on to whoop Sarevok!"
Side quests are side quests for a reason - DAI has plenty of them that have relevance to the plot in some form, even as simple as helping refugees with various needs - but they are side objectives for a reason - they are not necessary to achieve victory. They exist because they stand as goals your Inquisitor should consider achieving in the name of protecting and stabilizing the land, which contributes to the OVERALL goal of helping you defeat the big bad and their relevance should be pretty apparent. Establishing a Keep, using it to help protect the area and accomplish additional goals like quelling a sudden upsurge in Darkspawn, sending your troops via the war room to help with various things and earning tangible rewards like gear and resources.
Oh I don't mean every little fetch quest referred to by title, that would be asinine. I'm talking the major elements (the main area quest) or the stand-out side quests and relate it to what the Inquisition was all about. I'd like to know, or see, not in enormously lavish detail, how those areas were affected by the Inquisitions presence and passage. Perhaps more appropriately, what lasting effect(s) the Inquisition may have had upon those areas in relation to the Inquisition, what, if any, ramifications were felt by the area's parent nation, etc.
I'm not particularly butt-hurt about it all, but it was disappointing, to say the least.
To me, it feels like there is far, far too much content that, as you say, is not necessary to narratively achieve victory. Maybe they are necessary mechanically, if you like playing on higher difficulties, but narratively they are unnecessary.
I would much rather have had an expanded main storyline that incorporated some of these side areas, because, as it is, it feels the main story could have been much bigger, much more involved, and much longer if it had incorporated more of the resources that were clearly available.
I can understand this but I have to ask again what RPG has ever established this for us - IF we got a game where it was pretty much main plot only, it would either be 1) very short by our standards 2) pretty much a largely linear experience.
I think we can and should, as we are doing here, raise concerns and discuss where Bioware failed and succeeded in terms of DAI's side content but I would rather have the experience of DAI with a good amount of optional content than a game that was main plot wham bam thank you ma'am.
Tying more side quests into the greater narrative should always be a goal - and again, we probably see it differently so I respect that, but I found plenty of side quests as I trekked along that felt to me as my Inquisitor handling lesser concerns in the name of stabilizing a region and showing people the good of the Inquisition.
There were certainly a number I can think of right off the top of my head that were barely there quests - but I can think of a good number of those in DA2, DAO, BG1, BG2 and so on too and at least with DAI, some of these simple quests lead to some changes in the zones or acquiring an agent for use on war table missions.
@ZeshinX - Noted! I wanted to more respond and further discuss it - you didn't sound upset at all, but raised a good point of discussion IMO 
I can understand this but I have to ask again what RPG has ever established this for us - IF we got a game where it was pretty much main plot only, it would either be 1) very short by our standards 2) pretty much a largely linear experience.
I think we can and should, as we are doing here, raise concerns and discuss where Bioware failed and succeeded in terms of DAI's side content but I would rather have the experience of DAI with a good amount of optional content than a game that was main plot wham bam thank you ma'am.
Tying more side quests into the greater narrative should always be a goal - and again, we probably see it differently so I respect that, but I found plenty of side quests as I trekked along that felt to me as my Inquisitor handling lesser concerns in the name of stabilizing a region and showing people the good of the Inquisition.
There were certainly a number I can think of right off the top of my head that were barely there quests - but I can think of a good number of those in DA2, DAO, BG1, BG2 and so on too and at least with DAI, some of these simple quests lead to some changes in the zones or acquiring an agent for use on war table missions.
@ZeshinX - Noted! I wanted to more respond and further discuss it - you didn't sound upset at all, but raised a good point of discussion IMO
What RPG has ever established this for us? You mean content that is narratively necessary to achieve victory? What game doesn't do that? That's pretty much what a main storyline is.
Are you asking which games I think the main story more effectively leads us to discover the side content? There are lots of them. The single player Elder Scrolls games, the Witcher games, DAO and DA2, Fallout 3, and Farcry 3 comes to mind. The side quests don't have to be earth-shatteringly important, they just should mostly discoverable a reasonable distance from areas that I would find myself in anyway when following the main quest.
@DragonAgeLegend, if I could share your feedback a thousand times over with Bioware I would do it! I really like the game but everything you stated is what I feel needs to be improved for the next game if there even ends up being one. However, I still wouldn't mind areas to explore that are somewhat bigger than what we had in DAO.
I found this article about "open world" and "sandbox" game design that I thought was really interesting, and figured I would share it here.
http://criticalmissi...at-matters.html
What difference does it make? I'm pretty sure my companions gave me those quests. I only mentioned them because, like the Skyrim guild quests they aren't part of the main story but since they are directly given to you by your companions, they might be considered high enough priority quests to convince one to visit new zones, if they're weren't just another collection quest.
Side content doesn't have to connect to the main plot, but should make sense within the setting. The game should establish why the sidequest is necessary and give some consequence or connection to the characters. Look at Bella or the heirloom sword in Redcliffe. The ability to actually talk to those characters establishes a connection. You can help them simply to be altruistic and you know why they want your help..
I don't mind the large areas with their many quests. What I would have liked is much more "tangible" attachment to the plot. The spoiler below is to avoid upsetting those yet to complete their playthrough.
Spoiler
What RPG has ever established this for us? You mean content that is narratively necessary to achieve victory? What game doesn't do that? That's pretty much what a main storyline is.
Are you asking which games I think the main story more effectively leads us to discover the side content? There are lots of them. The single player Elder Scrolls games, the Witcher games, DAO and DA2, Fallout 3, and Farcry 3 comes to mind. The side quests don't have to be earth-shatteringly important, they just should mostly discoverable a reasonable distance from areas that I would find myself in anyway when following the main quest.
Right, not the first part - I was more asking what RPGs in general have basically made all side quests extensions of the main plot - none exist that I know of though I'd probably argue of any I've played, Mass Effect 3 came damn close. As much as I love all the listed games aside from Elder Scrolls and Far Cry being a shooter, the majority of RPG games contain a wealth of side plots and quests that have 0 to do with the main arc and are often out of the way - that's sort of the point in my eyes. It encourages discovery, exploration and simple "I wonder what's over here..." thinking.
Consider BG2's absurdly difficult secret boss Kangaxx the Lich - you'd never find him without going off the beaten path on a merry side quest entourage that had 0 to do with the plot. Why would you do it? To take on a powerful, unique enemy and get fat loots of course!
Why do I traipse about in DAI grabbing shards as I do secondary quests WITH relevance to the main plot (You know, like purging a keep of Red Templars, eradicating army deserters attacking civilians, etc.) - because it's a side diversion that can add an extra realm of power to my character and fat loots. And because from an RP perspective, my Inquisitor would be MOST intrigued as to what the heck the Venatori want with these shards and the temple they go to...
I really wanted to adore this game, and I DO like it very much...but yeah. There was just too much "extras". In my second playthrough, I did every "extra" quest and sometimes there would 30 hrs before I would pick up the main story again. As the extra quests (besides Inner Circle quests...but even then) didn't seem to add anything at all to the main story, I was a fair bit disappointed.
I was hoping for a ME3 type deal where you would build up points for your army or "readiness", not just getting points to "buy" the next quest (I always had WAY over what was required anyway).
There was no "end game" reward for all that stuff and the hours and hours it took to complete them only served to distract and take something away from the main quest for me and even the characters and companions. Big time bummer.
I can understand the length of time it can take completing all these side zones before diving back on a main path feeling a bit long in the tooth/strange - by the time I did Wicked Eyes, I was 3 levels over the high end cap due to having cleaned out 3 side zones completely and downing 4 dragons.
But as to the side missions generally not being related to the main thread and overall arc, there's very LITTLE of that. Mass Effect 3, despite the arguments about auto-dialogue, etc managed to maintain a pretty tight correlation between it's side quests and main arc, but then again if they had us running around exploring worlds, launching probes and mining minerals while the Reapers were kicking our doors down, we might have all yelled Bioware into a coma xD
But there's generally never really an end-game reward for side quests outside of, you know - that feeling of completion. Whether it was Fallout 2 (acquiring Skynet as a companion - great side quest. NO relevance to main plot), Baldur's Gate (Dat Basilisk dude!), Witcher (Killing or hunting down some of the out of the way enemies in the swamp) or any Bethesda game (The king of "wander around and find interesting crap" RPG territory) - side quests aren't really supposed to "affect" your ending. That's why it's a side quest - it's at best, got a tertiary/secondary relevance to what's happening and exists as a vehicle to either entice you to explore/step away from the main goal for a time OR just flat out challenge you with something that may be unique.
You make some good points. I will say, however, that I have a hard time comparing games like FO and ES to DA or ME. I play the games for two totally different reasons. Yes, I would agree that the side quests in Bethesda aren't necessarily supposed to 'add' much to the main quest, but I definitely do not play Bethesda games because of the main quest. I spent hours upon hours in FO, but I don't actually recall what the main story line was...and that's fine, again, I wasn't playing for the main story.
With Bioware games- for me at least- the main quest (and its characters) is exactly why I'm playing. I'll use ME3 as an example because (until the last 5 minutes) I felt like this was an incredibly epic game with an awesome cast where we were all working toward this one main goal. Most of the side quests felt like they added something to that main goal. Save a turian colony here, suddenly you've got more war assets to work with toward you main goal. It was...satisfying in that regard.
DAI was set up in kind of the same way. We're the Inquisition, we're all working toward this one main goal...but why exactly did I bring that draffalo home? What did that add? Maybe if, idk, that farmer was happy to share some of his surplus crops with my fledgling Inquisition, then yeah, that seems worth it because the point of this game is to work toward that 'main goal'.
Does any of this make sense? I'm not that great at trying to narrow down the important points of my opinions. 
You make some good points. I will say, however, that I have a hard time comparing games like FO and ES to DA or ME. I play the games for two totally different reasons. Yes, I would agree that the side quests in Bethesda aren't necessarily supposed to 'add' much to the main quest, but I definitely do not play Bethesda games because of the main quest. I spent hours upon hours in FO, but I don't actually recall what the main story line was...and that's fine, again, I wasn't playing for the main story.
With Bioware games- for me at least- the main quest (and its characters) is exactly why I'm playing. I'll use ME3 as an example because (until the last 5 minutes) I felt like this was an incredibly epic game with an awesome cast where we were all working toward this one main goal. Most of the side quests felt like they added something to that main goal. Save a turian colony here, suddenly you've got more war assets to work with toward you main goal. It was...satisfying in that regard.
DAI was set up in kind of the same way. We're the Inquisition, we're all working toward this one main goal...but why exactly did I bring that draffalo home? What did that add? Maybe if, idk, that farmer was happy to share some of his surplus crops with my fledgling Inquisition, then yeah, that seems worth it because the point of this game is to work toward that 'main goal'.
Does any of this make sense? I'm not that great at trying to narrow down the important points of my opinions.
Your points are great I'm in no way expecting that my viewpoint is the "correct" one here - different strokes for different folks and I do agree with you that of any RPG developer, Bioware's razor focus on story and amazing companions is the big draw, so having too much "Why am I doing this?" filler is totally a legitimate downer.
I think it comes down to your own personal perspective as you play the game - Mass Effect 3 accomplished a pretty awesome job of making 90% of it's side quest content directly tied to the war effort. With DAI, I don't think it should be as cut and dry.
The Druffalo quest you mention - probably my LEAST favorite quest in the game on account of the annoying mechanic of "Move, wait for stupid thing to catch up...move, crap, wolves...dammit Druffalo RUN" that came with it. And more so, should my Inquisitor BE wasting time escorting the stupid thing home? I frame it as - I need to stabilize and kill off a rift here...oh, there's the lost animal. I will walk it home while I return to my camp in the area. The reward? +1 power. While it's kind of a OOC mechanic, I can easily read the gain of "power" as reputation, renown and perhaps the farmer contributing to the cause in his own way. While maybe it would have been nice to get a blurb about "I will send some food to the refugee camp!" along with his thanks, I established my own correlation between the power gain and what was done.
But I accept that while it works for me, the sheer number of quests - especially Hinterlands, which I think IS the most guilty of that grindy side-quest feel - can certainly be awkward or even detract from one's experience.
Perhaps people expected a world like Skyrim's (since BioWare said they were looking at it) and while Skyrim's main plot and lack of companions may be bad, they did a great job with the world. There are some fetch quests but there is a huge number of long and interesting quests as well as whole quest lines like the Dark Brotherhood and the thieves guild. Crafting, alchemy, and enchanting was better in Skyrim IMO and gear was more varied in look. You also have several towns with quests, shops, npcs to talk to, homes to buy, etc...I loved Skyrim's world and though FO:NV was even better so to me, this kind of game was what I expected of an open world, not a cheap MMO world where your goal in most quests is gathering 50 rat tails or killing some bandits. It's especially surprising since SWtOR isn't like that.
Interesting. Personally I think Skyrim has as many, if not more, fetch quests as DA:I. But DA:I definitely beats them on story. Skyrim nails it on gameplay, but since DA:I and Skyrim have uniquely different gameplay, it's hard to compare the two.
The only thing I didn't like was that I was always worried about overlevelling beyond the recommended level of the main quest because I wanted to do too many side quests.... which then detracts from challenge of main quest 
The Druffalo quest you mention - probably my LEAST favorite quest in the game on account of the annoying mechanic of "Move, wait for stupid thing to catch up...move, crap, wolves...dammit Druffalo RUN" that came with it. And more so, should my Inquisitor BE wasting time escorting the stupid thing home?
I'm not sure the Druffalo quest is supposed to be taken that seriously. I think it's firmly tongue in cheek (especially seeing that Druffy is practically invulnerable while most escort quests suck doubly hard because your charge usually is killed so easily in addition to irritating behaviour).
You do it once and skip it on future playthroughs (or not). It's a bit like saying the pull-up challenge in ME3 has an annoying mechanic :-)
The only thing I didn't like was that I was always worried about overlevelling beyond the recommended level of the main quest because I wanted to do too many side quests.... which then detracts from challenge of main quest
Yes, this is now a bigger complaint for me - I understand why they didn't want enemies auto-scalling everywhere. Having dragons are various power levels is awesome.
But the main plot opponents NEED to scale IMO. If you're clearing the side zones alongside the main plot, you're easily ahead of the main plot recommended levels by at least 2-3.
@Sondermann - I can totally buy into that, but again - if you're going OCD/completionist, it'll need to be done and while I appreciate that Druffy is the stuff of legends, his pathing and movement speed are the stuff of table-flipping rage xD
Your points are great
I think it comes down to your own personal perspective as you play the game - Mass Effect 3 accomplished a pretty awesome job of making 90% of it's side quest content directly tied to the war effort. With DAI, I don't think it should be as cut and dry.
The Druffalo quest you mention - probably my LEAST favorite quest in the game on account of the annoying mechanic of "Move, wait for stupid thing to catch up...move, crap, wolves...dammit Druffalo RUN" that came with it. And more so, should my Inquisitor BE wasting time escorting the stupid thing home? I frame it as - I need to stabilize and kill off a rift here...oh, there's the lost animal. I will walk it home while I return to my camp in the area. The reward? +1 power. While it's kind of a OOC mechanic, I can easily read the gain of "power" as reputation, renown and perhaps the farmer contributing to the cause in his own way. While maybe it would have been nice to get a blurb about "I will send some food to the refugee camp!" along with his thanks, I established my own correlation between the power gain and what was done.
But I accept that while it works for me, the sheer number of quests - especially Hinterlands, which I think IS the most guilty of that grindy side-quest feel - can certainly be awkward or even detract from one's experience.
I suppose it was a bit of an expectation vs reality thing for me. When they said we would have these quests to build the power of the Inquisition, I thought, "Cool, like ME3 'readiness'." That was, perhaps, my own mistake. The +1 'power' that we accrued by completing the quests felt essential like a point added toward 'buying' the next operation in the main quest.
So when I have enough points to unlock the next quest, there really wasn't much point- story wise- to continuing to do most of the side quests. I don't necessarily mind 'grinding', if I feel like there's a payoff. I would have been all too happy to grind away if I knew that it would help my chances of survival against the 'big bad' in the end. Or help my companions chance of survival, help save my keep, etc, etc.
I guess I just sort of expected it to be that way? ME2 with all the 'loyalty missions' and upgrades to the Normandy paid off in the end. DA:A had the same sort of thing going for it with upgrades to the keep and whatnot.
So, it was probably 'my bad' for expecting that sort of thing going in.
And btw, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. It's sort of helping me 'pin down' exactly what I felt was 'off' about DAI.
Yes, this is now a bigger complaint for me - I understand why they didn't want enemies auto-scalling everywhere. Having dragons are various power levels is awesome.
But the main plot opponents NEED to scale IMO. If you're clearing the side zones alongside the main plot, you're easily ahead of the main plot recommended levels by at least 2-3.
@Sondermann - I can totally buy into that, but again - if you're going OCD/completionist, it'll need to be done and while I appreciate that Druffy is the stuff of legends, his pathing and movement speed are the stuff of table-flipping rage xD
I'm not a fan of the level-zoning design as well since it's obvious that you cannot play all the content in one playthrough without breaking the game and the thought of - "If I do this I might be overlevelled for that" takes away some of the fun of exploring.
Now I might have been fine with the argument that they want to encourage multiple playthroughs but why then put the big gate of reaching Skyhold to unlock most of the content in the middle of the game and provide only two areas or so in which to level up your character to reach that point where you can go exploring further.
Not looking forward to grinding in the Hinterlands again (which was fine for the first time but...).
I'm not a fan of the level-zoning design as well since it's obvious that you cannot play all the content in one playthrough without breaking the game and the thought of - "If I do this I might be overlevelled for that" takes away some of the fun of exploring.
Now I might have been fine with the argument that they want to encourage multiple playthroughs but why then put the big gate of reaching Skyhold to unlock most of the content in the middle of the game and provide only two areas or so in which to level up your character to reach that point where you can go exploring further.
Not looking forward to grinding in the Hinterlands again (which was fine for the first time but...).
Definitely break the Hinterlands up - I made the correct call of only spending a few hours there the first time before moving on and basically revisited it about 5-6 times to do chunks of quests, especially as new areas like Valammar become accessible. I think Storm Coast was the other area that got a touch "blegh" to me for the same reason plus some of the annoying heights/pathing you needed to scale to reach things.
@Squeeze the Fish - thank you for the great discussion as well
Interesting. Personally I think Skyrim has as many, if not more, fetch quests as DA:I. But DA:I definitely beats them on story. Skyrim nails it on gameplay, but since DA:I and Skyrim have uniquely different gameplay, it's hard to compare the two.
Of course DA:I beats Skyrim on main plot as well as companions and companion quests, that was never in doubt. Skyrim just did a much better job of making a world that feels alive than DA:I did. Also, while Skyrim has plenty of fetch quests as well 1) they're not required to advance the story (in DA:I you have to farm these fetch quests to get power to continue the story) and 2)Skyrim also has a ton of interesting, long, and fun, often multipart questlines that actually have story while DA:I only has the fetch quest with the occasional small dungeon but you're never really given a reason to care about any of the quests and any "story" they might involve is given through journal pages and letters you find on the ground. Telling, not showing basically which is bad storytelling. It's hard not to compare the two when BioWare did say they were looking at Skyrim for inspiration.
Retour en haut