447 réponses à ce sujet

[Superluccix]

No. Just absolutely no. After browsing through this forum for quite awhile and reading people defending these MMO fetch quests using such terrible arguments, I just couldnt take it anymore and had to make an account and post my thoughts on it.

 

Im going to go over all the arguments defending this and attempt to refute them. However before I do so, let me just add that I only have 80 hours of gameplay in DA:I so far. Im on Act 2 and have done The Hinterlands, The Exalted Plains, The Western Approach, The Oasis (Havent opened the door yet though, so dont know if I should actually count this), (However I havent done the operation to open up more of the Exalted Plains and Western Approach map, just to throw that in there) and am just now on the Grey Warden area (Dont remember the name). So I already know you guys are going to try to auto disqualify what I say by saying I havent seen all of it yet, but frankly I dont think I need to play the game more to figure out what the jist of this has been. Especially when I hear other posters saying the other areas arent much different.

 

 

 

1. The side quests are optional. - This has got to be the most used argument I have seen. And it completely misses the point. No **** they are optional. We arent complaining about that. What we have a problem with is that these optional side quests are of such low quality. The side quests in DA:O were optional as well, but we wanted to do them all. Why? Because they were of such high quality. Some of these even rivaled the quality of the main quest. This has been completely absent in DA:I for my playthrough so far.

 

And besides, why in the hell would you tell a gamer to not do the content thats within the game? Thats stupid. If I see a fork in the road and the main quest points me left, then I will go right. Why? Because I want to explore everything that has to offer. We should be WANTING to do all the content that is possible within the game. To say "Dont worry! Just ignore it and go do something else!" is basically admitting you know its **** and cant defend it on the meaningfulness of the content itself.

 

Also you are ignoring opportunity cost. If you put resources into A, that means those resources cannot be put into B-Z. If they took half of these bloated zones and reduced them or cut them in order to make meaningful content, this would be less of an issue.

 

 

 

2. Both DA:O and DA:I have MMO fetch quests, therefore you cannot complain about DA:I side quests without also complaining about DA:O side quests

 

- This has to be the most dishonest attempt at defending this games side quests I have seen. First off, yes, origins does have *some* fetch quests. However those quests took place in areas where you were already doing the main quest or were doing a far more interesting side quest. So since you were there, you might as well complete the *fetch* quest. You didnt have anything like a gigantic map area that was specifically dedicated to completing a whole bunch of worthless MMO style fetch quests like Inquisition has.

 

Second. And this is by far the most obvious example of dishonesty when making this argument, is that you are COMPLETELY IGNORING all of the Origins side quests which involved multiple dialogue options and multiple ways to end a quest. In Inquisition however, 99% of all of these side quests involve "Accept or dont accept" and "Turn in or dont turn in" dialogue options. And there arent really multiple ways to end these quests. (There was that one in Exalted Plains about returning that amulet or w/e it was to the Dalish elf sister and having a choice and what to tell her, but that was it, and it still wasnt really good at all)

 

I mean seriously, how can you so blatantly lie and say that because Origins side quests involved you going from point A to point B to either retrieve something or kill something, while ignoring all of the multiple dialogue choices and ways to end the quest, is somehow comparable to Inquisition where there are neither of these things?

 

This is like saying a T bone steak is the same thing as a T bone because when you boil both of them down, they are just T bones. Its like yeah no ****, but you had to first strip all of the meat away from the first one to say they are the same thing.

 

And third. Even if I was to give this claim validity, which I dont. Surely you can see the obvious difference in QUANTITY of these filler quests? In Inquisition the ratio to a worthless MMO filler quest to a somewhat meaningful side quest(which I havent even ****** seen yet) would be like a 100 to 1 ratio, while in Origins its much less, (In fact I think the meaningful content might have been more than the filler, but Im not going to wiki this)

 

3. Having large maps means we have to expect diluted content in order to fill up the map with stuff to do. -

 

Now I agree with this in a sense. I believe there is a correlation between Open World games and meaningless fluff content. Take Kingdom of Amalur for example, it was littered with a bunch of MMO side quests, probably to a worse extent than Inquisition had. It was terrible then and its still terrible now.

 

I have yet to play an RPG that has big maps and wasnt diluting its side content. (If you know of one please tell me, I would love to play it, I mean seriously no joke, please)

 

However this is missing the point. We are saying if the only way you have can have these big map areas is to dilute all the side content, THEN DONT BOTHER MAKING BIG MAP AREAS TO BEGIN WITH!

 

Look believe me, as soon as I finished DA:O I was so sad that the game wasnt longer. You know why? Because I loved the quality content of the game. However if the only way to do that was to dilute the side content (Hell maybe even the main content) then no I would never do that. Quality > Quantity any day of the week. I love exploring every nook and cranny as much as the next guy, however if you arent going to populate these areas with meaningful content, then just dont bother.

 

If they could somehow have taken the big maps of Inquisition and filled all of it up with meaningful content like Origins did, we would have had the greatest rpg ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sadly these are the only 3 of I can think of at the moment, and Im pretty sure there are more. So to anybody who disagrees with this assessment, please explain why. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I like Inquisition, and its a good game on its own, but by it being a sequel to Dragon Age, and especially since its from Bioware, I expect better

 

I know this is my first post, and it comes off a little aggressive. So sorry about that, I know it make me seem like a douche but I just had to say this. 

[NoForgiveness]

Ya I'm not gonna read all that but from what I did read I'd say I probably agree.

[hong]

This is true. A DAI quest is not like a DAO quest unless you have to talk to a door.

[Lianaar]

I enjoy DA:I side quests more then I enjoyed DA:O side quests, for I can connect them more to the story line. Some side quests actually feel like main quests, to me. The ones that don't, I ignore and skip.

 

My opinion is accordingly, that side quests are way better in this game, then the old one. This is why I compmlete way more of them in this game, then I used to in my old play troughs. So I guess it comes down to preference.

[Fantazm1978]

I've not read it.

 

Opinions. Great aren't they?

[ioannisdenton]

Finish the game. Play the stroy quests. Then we ll sprak at how much da:i blows da:o out of the water.

[Superluccix]

I've not read it.

 

Opinions. Great aren't they?

 

Not ones that arent backed by any valid evidence. Like yours. 

 

Finish the game. Play the stroy quests. Then we ll sprak at how much da:i blows da:o out of the water.

 

I like how in my opening post I literally said that somebody was going to auto disqualify me simply because I havent beaten the game. What do you know.

 

And also, when you say *story* quests, do you mean main quests? If so, then what does that have to do with this topic in any way shape or form?

[Fantazm1978]

calm down lad, it's christmas and all that.

[Superluccix]

I enjoy DA:I side quests more then I enjoyed DA:O side quests, for I can connect them more to the story line. Some side quests actually feel like main quests, to me. The ones that don't, I ignore and skip.

 

My opinion is accordingly, that side quests are way better in this game, then the old one. This is why I compmlete way more of them in this game, then I used to in my old play troughs. So I guess it comes down to preference.

 

I put in bold what I wish to challenge.

 

1st bold. How exactly do you connect to these side quests that involve lighting bonfires, collecting 10 of w/e, delivering a letter to wherever, to a higher degree than compared to Origins which actually had fleshed out dialogue, and multiple ways to end a quest?

 

2nd bold. Which side quests were these exactly? Want to see if I have already played them or not.

 

3rd bold. So you skip side content, because it doesnt interest you, which is exactly my point.. No disagreement here. And I think Im going to do just that when i continue my playthrough.

 

4th bold. Ill never understand how somebody can do the side content in Origins, and then somehow feel more detached from the game, when compared doing these MMO type quests in Inquisition. But maybe you're right, to each his own

[Superluccix]

calm down lad, it's christmas and all that.

 

Merry christmas to you too. 

[Casuist]

Copying and pasting from a previous post of mine:

 

 

Still Waters (Crestwood)

Carta Lyrium Smugglers in the Hinterlands (culminating in Valammar)

Chateau d'Onterre (haunted mansion in Emerald Graves)

The Knight's Tomb (Emerald Graves)

Temple of Dirthamen

Take Back the Lion / Capturing Suledin Keep (Emprise du Lion)

Citadelle du Corbeau (Exalted Plains)

Lost Souls (Fallow Mire)

Cleaning House (Storm Coast - Blades of Hessarian)

Still Ruins (Western Approach)

A Corrupt General and the ancillary quests surrounding it (Emerald Graves)

 

There are a lot of good, deep side quests in DA:I which bear no resemblance whatsoever to "fetch" quests. That's not to suggest there are not filler quests on the side... but those are primarily designed to fill in the map and reward exploration (and to be completely optional aspects of that exploration). Given the size of the maps, I'm not sure how some filler quests could have been avoided without making the game absurdly large (filling in the quests with more substantial content) or making the maps fairly empty (no reward but the scenery and random combat).

[Lianaar]

I don't light bone fires - I make the path safe for people I wish to save, for I am doing all this Inquisition organisation FOR the people. My goal is to make life livable for them. Killing Cory is one thing, but it is only one thing. Not the sole thing that moves my inquisitor. -- on that note- how do you challenge how I feel? That is kind of humorous. You can not challenge how I personally feel, for only I know how I connect or don't connect to something. Sorry, but your challenge on my own feelings is just silly. 

 

All the red lyrium side quests were extremely important for my inquisitor. And there were many of them. The quests relating to learning more about the rifts (or they were not quests, not sure, I have been following people and finding their note on rifts and eventually their corpse). Just to list some.

 

No, I skip content because that particular character of mine is not interested. It is against her personality. When I play a different character, I'll skip different events and chose other quests. It comes down on what the character I play wants and thinks. It has nothing to do with me in this sense, it is about the character.

 

You can not understand, because you have a different preference, so yes, it comes down to preference. You prefer something else then me So? It is not an issue really. You asked a question and I answered. I expressed an opinion, so did you.

[wolfsite]

Well, that's just like, your opinion man.

[Maverick827]

I agree with you entirely.  Your tone was a bit harsh, but I can understand your frustration in the sheer dishonesty and mental gymnastics a lot of people go through to claim that DAO's side quests were "just as much" of fetch quests as DAI's.

 

I couldn't finish my first play through, so I started a new one to see if a different voice actor/class/character would make things better.  For all of the side quests (aside from random tutorial things like talking to all of the people in Haven and whatnot), I'm going to jot down every choice my character gets to make, either:

 

1.  An action that I get to perform

2.  An idea that I get to express

3.  A tone I get to use

 

#1 and #2 are very important.  I value #3 less, because there's not that much of a difference between turning in a quest by saying:

 

1.  Here are those ten ram hides you asked for

2.  (Snarky) Here are those ten ram hides you asked for  

3.  Here are those ten ram hides you asked for, *******

 

But I'll record #3 anyway.

 

Based on my memory of just playing the game, I believe #1 and #2 will be in the 0 - 5 range.  But I hope I'm wrong.  I hope I just blocked out all of these awesome choices in sides quests, so I can end up playing this game ten times like I did Origins.

[In Exile]

DAOs quest design is identical. DAI is missing cut scenes, which is not quest design. It's not something that makes it more or less of a fetch quest. If you want a term of quest entirely devoid of dialogue, you need a name unrelated to the design of the quest.

What's lamentable is your inability to separate quest design - which is largely trash in every Bioware game since BG2 - with the RP contents, which is missing in DAI.

In DAO, not only are the side quests fetch quests, but so are the main quests. The difference is that DAO (and DA2) had plentiful dialogue choices and an endgame choice at the end of the quest. This is all pure RP content because there was 0 follow up to the quest and it had nothing to do with the design of the quest.

It was equatable to the "What do you think about the Maker?" questions in DAI.

The side quests are garbage compared to DAO. But they're not garbage because of the design. They're garbage because of the lack of dialogue.

In the end, it's your post that's intellectually dishonest. This is because it defends the use of a pejorative term used to cover up a legitimate grievance in obsfucatory language.

Edit:

Actually, the tone in your post is the most lamentable. This is because you're using words just plain incorrectly - lying and dishonestly in particular. Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

[In Exile]

I should add that you clearly don't understand opportunity cost. This isn't something assessed in a vacuum. The trade off between a zone is not more dialogue. Those are totally different zots. A zone needs level designer, artists, etc. A dialogue cutscene needs writers, VO budget and cinematics.

These are literally incomparable. Bioware would have to change their staff - more writing budget, less level budget. And that's assuming one level costs as much as one zone full of cinematic quests, which as even SWTOR shows is entirely untrue.

[Superluccix]

Copying and pasting from a previous post of mine:

 

 

Still Waters (Crestwood)

Carta Lyrium Smugglers in the Hinterlands (culminating in Valammar)

Chateau d'Onterre (haunted mansion in Emerald Graves)

The Knight's Tomb (Emerald Graves)

Temple of Dirthamen

Take Back the Lion / Capturing Suledin Keep (Emprise du Lion)

Citadelle du Corbeau (Exalted Plains)

Lost Souls (Fallow Mire)

Cleaning House (Storm Coast - Blades of Hessarian)

Still Ruins (Western Approach)

A Corrupt General and the ancillary quests surrounding it (Emerald Graves)

 

There are a lot of good, deep side quests in DA:I which bear no resemblance whatsoever to "fetch" quests. That's not to suggest there are not filler quests on the side... but those are primarily designed to fill in the map and reward exploration (and to be completely optional aspects of that exploration). Given the size of the maps, I'm not sure how some filler quests could have been avoided without making the game absurdly large (filling in the quests with more substantial content) or making the maps fairly empty (no reward but the scenery and random combat).

 

These are the ones I have done in your list.

 

Carta Lyrium Smugglers in the Hinterlands (culminating in Valammar) - No. This wasnt meaningful at all. Practically all the information you got about this was in a bunch of Codex entries, which is a cheap cop out instead of having meaningful content involving npcs. Also, when I first arrived at Valammar, I was thinking "Finally! A dwarven ruin! Surely they can put the meaningful content in here!" Well guess what? They didnt. It was just a gigantic kill them all siege. No cutscenes involving npc with multiple dialogue options, no multiple ways to complete the quest. 

 

So no, that example doesnt come close to the side quests in Origins.

 

Temple of Dirthamen - Once again no. The information about this was in a bunch of codex entries like usual, which is still a cop out. Im not going to bother reading all of these Codex entries because the game refuses to display that information in any meaningful way. It was also a giant kill everything siege fest. With once again, no npc interaction (I havent beaten the High One yet, so if there is, it must be after it) nor had multiple ways to complete the content. 

 

Once again, your example fails. It doesnt come close to what Origins had.

 

 

Still Ruins (Western Approach) - *sigh* Once again no. While I did like the idea behind it.  A time frozen area, it didnt capitalize on it at all. Because ONCE AGAIN its a area with no npc interaction and no multiple ways to end the quest. With a bunch of codex to try and explain away the area to make you feel immersed.

 

 

 

Do to your 3 examples completely and utterly failing to display how these quests are on the standards of Origins, I see no reason as to why I should expect the others to somehow not avoid this problem

[In Exile]

As your post just now exemplifies, you're not talking about quest design. You want story and NPC interaction via cutscene. You're right to want it. That's IMO the A-level content (most) of us want from Bioware.

But that's not something that changes what nature of quest we're dealing with as a classification. The Sacred Ashes quest is an awesome rendition (in theory anyway) of the hunt for the holy grail. But it's still design to be a fetch quest. It's a crazy linear fetch quest too. It's the RP content thats top notch. But that has nothing to do with the quest design.

[Superluccix]

DAOs quest design is identical. DAI is missing cut scenes, which is not quest design. It's not something that makes it more or less of a fetch quest. If you want a term of quest entirely devoid of dialogue, you need a name unrelated to the design of the quest.

What's lamentable is your inability to separate quest design - which is largely trash in every Bioware game since BG2 - with the RP contents, which is missing in DAI.

In DAO, not only are the side quests fetch quests, but so are the main quests. The difference is that DAO (and DA2) had plentiful dialogue choices and an endgame choice at the end of the quest. This is all pure RP content because there was 0 follow up to the quest and it had nothing to do with the design of the quest.

It was equatable to the "What do you think about the Maker?" questions in DAI.

The side quests are garbage compared to DAO. But they're not garbage because of the design. They're garbage because of the lack of dialogue.

In the end, it's your post that's intellectually dishonest. This is because it defends the use of a pejorative term used to cover up a legitimate grievance in obsfucatory language.

Edit:

Actually, the tone in your post is the most lamentable. This is because you're using words just plain incorrectly - lying and dishonestly in particular. Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

 

1st bold part -  obviously cut scenes being added or not added does not increase the meaningfulness of the actual content. The content itself does. Having everyone of these worthless filler quests which only contain "Accept or dont accept" and "Turn in or dont turn in"  be in cutscene form would not magically make it better. I agree. I never said it did. Its the actual content I have a problem with. Putting it in cinematic form wont make it better until the core is fixed.

 

2nd bold part - Once again, complete dishonesty. You are stripping down the meat of the meaningful side content in Origins in order to say "Look! Its the same thing in Inquisition!" when Inquisition never had the meat to begin with. 

 

Also yes, that is what makes Origins different from Inquisition, which makes it clearly superior. How in the world is doing a side quest with meaningful dialogue and ways to end a quest somehow on the same degree as one that does not? Its so obvious.

 

3rd bold part - Lol what? How in the world is answered how you felt about the Maker, which didnt influence how a quest went about itself, or even how it ended, somehow comparable to ones that did?

 

4th bold part - I feel like you're splitting hairs here. Obviously the problem I and others have are that the side content arent meaningful because it lacks multiple dialogue options and ways of completing the quest. Those make them interesting. 

 

Also, even if certain side quests had more dialogue. Like collecting 10 ram meat or w/e, its still going to be pretty dull. So Id argue its still more about the content itself. 

 

5th bold part - No my post isnt dishonest at all. You're just splitting hairs and trying very hard to ignore the obvious.

[Elhanan]

* In DAO, I did all the side-quests that fit that Warden; same for DAI. The difference I see is the latter game has more of them.

 

* If one does not like Fetch quests, then do not do them. Or if one does not believe they fit that Inquisitor, skip them until another campaign; this is my approach. And I like these quests more than those in DA2; about the same for DAO. See previous remark.

 

* For myself, it was not a case of large maps needing filler, but in preparing to better engage the known enemy (eg; Cory, Dragons, Great Bears, etc). Never had to grind, as I always had something to do.

 

Just coming in with a different perspective as a fan of solo SWTOR.

[In Exile]

1st bold part - obviously cut scenes being added or not added does not increase the meaningfulness of the actual content. The content itself does. Having everyone of these worthless filler quests which only contain "Accept or dont accept" and "Turn in or dont turn in" be in cutscene form would not magically make it better. I agree. I never said it did. Its the actual content I have a problem with. Putting it in cinematic form wont make it better until the core is fixed.

2nd bold part - Once again, complete dishonesty. You are stripping down the meat of the meaningful side content in Origins in order to say "Look! Its the same thing in Inquisition!" when Inquisition never had the meat to begin with.

Also yes, that is what makes Origins different from Inquisition, which makes it clearly superior. How in the world is doing a side quest with meaningful dialogue and ways to end a quest somehow on the same degree as one that does not? Its so obvious.

3rd bold part - Lol what? How in the world is answered how you felt about the Maker, which didnt influence how a quest went about itself, or even how it ended, somehow comparable to ones that did?

4th bold part - I feel like you're splitting hairs here. Obviously the problem I and others have are that the side content arent meaningful because it lacks multiple dialogue options and ways of completing the quest. Those make them interesting.

Also, even if certain side quests had more dialogue. Like collecting 10 ram meat or w/e, its still going to be pretty dull. So Id argue its still more about the content itself.

5th bold part - No my post isnt dishonest at all. You're just splitting hairs and trying very hard to ignore the obvious.

Your post is dishonest because, behind your hyperbolic rhetoric, you're twisting my words to feed into your rant.

I didn't say that we should have a cutscene about turning in ram meat. I said, generally, that a quest has two elements in a Bioware game. The gameplay side (what you do outside of dialogue) and the cutscene side (what options you get in dialogue, including RP content).

All Bioware quests are identical in content for the most part: they are either fetch quest (kill a bunch of stuff on your way to get X) or a kill quest (kill a bunch of looks on your way to kill a boss). Where they have always varied is in the cutscene. A "side" quest had a simple design: you had an initial conversation with investigate options receiving the quest, *maybe* a second or third conversation with an NPC to develop the plot, and a final conversation wrapping it all up that gave you a binary choice. A main quest had super involved and developed conversations with multiple characters in several areas on with possibility 3+ end quest choices.

Think about the Magistrate's Orders quest in DA2. Mechanically it's a fetch quest down a corridor: get Kelder. You do nothing other than kill a bunch of mooks and find someone at the end. DAI does the same thing.

The difference in DA2 is all of the cutscene content. That's what makes it meaningful. That's not quest design.

If you want to look at awesome variable quest design, look at Fallout New Vegas. There you have quests with multiple *gameplay* paths, lots of ways to resolve the quest (stealth, hacking, science) and often little to no dialogue (or less dialogue). The Vault with the experiment where an overseer has to be sacrificed each year has 0 dialogue but is an awesome quest.

The conversation about the maker is illustrative of what you really want: varied conversation with multiple choices.

[Superluccix]

I should add that you clearly don't understand opportunity cost. This isn't something assessed in a vacuum. The trade off between a zone is not more dialogue. Those are totally different zots. A zone needs level designer, artists, etc. A dialogue cutscene needs writers, VO budget and cinematics.

These are literally incomparable. Bioware would have to change their staff - more writing budget, less level budget. And that's assuming one level costs as much as one zone full of cinematic quests, which as even SWTOR shows is entirely untrue.

 

I understand opportunity cost perfectly well. Its a concept I learned in elementary school. Its about making choices using limited resources. If you devote resources to A you cant do it to B-Z. You're trying to complicate things which are simple. Simple not in terms in game design or anything, but simple in the sense that if Bioware devotes to doing X (Lets say X means having large map areas) that takes away resources from doing Y (Lets say Y means having quality content, however that is done, in their smaller zones)

 

I fail to see how this is something somebody could have a disagreement with

 

As your post just now exemplifies, you're not talking about quest design. You want story and NPC interaction via cutscene. You're right to want it. That's IMO the A-level content (most) of us want from Bioware.

But that's not something that changes what nature of quest we're dealing with as a classification. The Sacred Ashes quest is an awesome rendition (in theory anyway) of the hunt for the holy grail. But it's still design to be a fetch quest. It's a crazy linear fetch quest too. It's the RP content thats top notch. But that has nothing to do with the quest design.

 

1st bold part - Once again no. It doesnt have to be via cutscene. You could have exactly the same camera angle that is being done here, (Granted I would still say it does look better in cutscene, but thats not the bulk of the problem), but just adding more dialogue options, and multiple ways to end a quest, and then you would have taken care of 90% of the problem.

 

2nd bold part- How many times must I repeat myself? To compare something like the Sacred Ashes quest in DA:O, and boil it down to the same level of a fetch quest as any generic MMO side quest in DA:I is dishonesty at its finest. You have to purposefully cut out all of the meat that the Sacred Ashes quest had in order to do that. 

 

Actually, I feel like you are getting caught up too much on this distinction between quest design and RP. If by quest design you mean boiling something down to its barest components, then sure its similar, and if by RP you mean all of the meat in the fetch quest (The dialogue choices and the multiple ways to end the quest) then yes thats what Im talking about. Im complaining that the RP (Your words) are completely inferior to DA:O.

 

However they are still called quests, and I will say if one quest was better than another, if you want to call it quest design or RP or w/e, then go ahead.

[Medhia_Nox]

My mind was totally changed by such compelling arguments.

[Superluccix]

Your post is dishonest because, behind your hyperbolic rhetoric, you're twisting my words to feed into your rant.

I didn't say that we should have a cutscene about turning in ram meat. I said, generally, that a quest has two elements in a Bioware game. The gameplay side (what you do outside of dialogue) and the cutscene side (what options you get in dialogue, including RP content).

All Bioware quests are identical in content for the most part: they are either fetch quest (kill a bunch of stuff on your way to get X) or a kill quest (kill a bunch of looks on your way to kill a boss). Where they have always varied is in the cutscene. A "side" quest had a simple design: you had an initial conversation with investigate options receiving the quest, *maybe* a second or third conversation with an NPC to develop the plot, and a final conversation wrapping it all up that gave you a binary choice. A main quest had super involved and developed conversations with multiple characters in several areas on with possibility 3+ end quest choices.

Think about the Magistrate's Orders quest in DA2. Mechanically it's a fetch quest down a corridor: get Kelder. You do nothing other than kill a bunch of mooks and find someone at the end. DAI does the same thing.

The difference in DA2 is all of the cutscene content. That's what makes it meaningful. That's not quest design.

If you want to look at awesome variable quest design, look at Fallout New Vegas. There you have quests with multiple *gameplay* paths, lots of ways to resolve the quest (stealth, hacking, science) and often little to no dialogue (or less dialogue). The Vault with the experiment where an overseer has to be sacrificed each year has 0 dialogue but is an awesome quest.

The conversation about the maker is illustrative of what you really want: varied conversation with multiple choices.

 

1st bold part - Im pretty sure I dont disagree with this. Lets see if the next part has the point of contention.

 

2nd bold part - Dont remember the quest, but it doesnt matter, lets just say I agree with this too, not sure why this matters to my original point, but lets continue.

 

3rd bolt part - Are you really telling me this entire debate between us is because of me not using the words quest design? When I say I have a problem with the quest. I am saying that I have a problem with it because it is *designed* to not have these meaningful dialogue options and multiple ways to end the quest, even if you boil it down its still a fetch quest.

 

There. Does that make you happy? Because if thats what you were looking for me to say, it should have been pretty damn obvious in the first post I made that this was the case. I hope it wasnt however, otherwise both of our times have been wasted on such a non issue.

 

4th bold part - I like New Vegas, and the reasons you cited were certainly part of why I did. Now please tell me where these *multiple gameplay paths* exist in the side quests? We both agree that it doesnt have the *multiple dialogue paths* which Origin did, so I hope you're able to show me where these gameplay paths are.

 

And even if you did, are you telling me Origins does NOT have these gameplay paths as well?

 

(Also the one with the Overseer I believe had a bunch of terminals you used to find what happened, which is still better than these codexs) 

 

5h bold part - DUH! (And multiple endings to the quest.) I mean seriously, did I not already say this in my opening post? Do you realize that you have just spent this entire time explaining to me that what I wanted Inquisition to have......were the same things that I ALREADY SAID IN THE FIRST POST? 

 

(Except that part about the Maker, no thats not what I mean. Having an npc ask me a question about the maker, which does not end up meaning anything regardless of my answer, is not what im talking about in regards to multiple dialogue. I mean having different results, different endings, based on that dialogue, something which me answered about the Maker does not really have, but this is a moot point)

[Aulis Vaara]

Finish the game. Play the stroy quests. Then we ll sprak at how much da:i blows da:o out of the water.

DA:O didn't pull a Voldemort out of its ass.

DA:O also gave you all the allies you worked all game to collect in the final mission. DA:I straps on a subpar final boss as quickly as it can, just to get it over with. That is not satisfying or good at all.

And who are these people in the Orlesian civil war? I have no idea what any of these people stand for or why I should back any over the others. Not that it matters, because these people are forgotten as soon as the quest is over. And while the Warden's storyline was a bit better in that regard, it still had a forced choice between a Warden and Hawke that made no sense and no point whatsoever to banishing the Wardens or not.

DA:O storytelling: fantastic. It's the whole reason why I bought DA:I.

DA:I storytelling: why I probably won't buy another DA game.