447 réponses à ce sujet

[outlaw1109]

 

You listed literally the only side quest in the game that you get to complete in an alternative manner.

 

Well, I'm not sure if there are more...I'm only working on my second play through.  But I'm sure in the future I'll remember/find other examples...

 

I think the dragon fights are pretty much the same as they were in Origins.  The dragons are just more pretty in Inquisition.  I mean really, the only difference is that in Inquisition, sometimes they get up and fly around to shoot fireballs or lightning down at you.  They could have done something great with the dragons in this game, like make the fights take place in multiple locations, or use the environment.  Lol, I think I made this same point in this same thread earlier.  

 

 

My point about dragons was that I'd rather fight a dragon in Inquisition than engage in that ruck non-sense.  And, there are at least 2 that I can think of that *KIND* of use their environment.  

*sighs*  Statements such as this are just plain stupid.  Everyone here likes the Dragon Age series, most, including myself, will agree that Inquisition has good in it.  But there is also a lot of bad.  And you don't get the bad changed by just sitting back and taking it.  You get it changed by being vocal about the things you don't like.  At least that is how it should work.  I am sure EA and Bioware are ignoring most of what goes on in the forums.

You took his statement out of context.  The previous poster had said something about, "If you don't like the game, don't complain about it."  

Assuming that everyone here likes all games Dragon Age is stupid.  Plenty of other posts in the forums to illustrate my point, but I hate DA2.  Nothing good to say about it.  Didn't cry about it and they STILL changed the things I didn't like.

 

[Wolven_Soul]

 

 

 

Well, I'm not sure if there are more...I'm only working on my second play through.  But I'm sure in the future I'll remember/find other examples...

 

 

 

My point about dragons was that I'd rather fight a dragon in Inquisition than engage in that ruck non-sense.  And, there are at least 2 that I can think of that *KIND* of use their environment.  

You took his statement out of context.  The previous poster had said something about, "If you don't like the game, don't complain about it."  

Assuming that everyone here likes all games Dragon Age is stupid.  Plenty of other posts in the forums to illustrate my point, but I hate DA2.  Nothing good to say about it.  Didn't cry about it and they STILL changed the things I didn't like.

 

 

No, I don't really think I did take their statement out of context.  He was whining about people coming on here and whining.  And I didn't say that everyone here likes all DA games.  I said that everyone here likes the DA series.  And great, they changed the things you didn't like about DA2, clearly a lot of people here feel that they didn't change all of the things that they didn't like.  I guess your the only one that matters though.  

[Fantazm1978]

*sighs*  Statements such as this are just plain stupid.  Everyone here likes the Dragon Age series, most, including myself, will agree that Inquisition has good in it.  But there is also a lot of bad.  And you don't get the bad changed by just sitting back and taking it.  You get it changed by being vocal about the things you don't like.  At least that is how it should work.  I am sure EA and Bioware are ignoring most of what goes on in the forums.

 

Also, I hate coming in at the end of a conversation and seeing nothing but a wall of my own posts, lol.

 

It's more a general statement about gaming forums. Pick any one you like, it seems like a lot of them are full of people who don't play the game in question or haven't played it at all slagging it off and slagging off anyone who does like it.

 

Personally I think it's barmy behaviour. If you don't like something go and do something you do like and talk about that instead.

[bluonblu]

OP, I see your point, but this remains a personal preference. 

 

I love DAO and have played it again and again, but it has its flaws (including side quests such as trying to collect X number of love letters... sure, it's funny, but someone please explain how that makes sense???)

The same with DAI. The reason I don't consider the DAI side quests mere fillers is that they help flesh out the world of Thedas. I probably won't be tracking down the Templar to recover the ring taken from the mistakenly killed farmer, but I'm now aware of incidents like this happening as a consequence of the Mage-Templar war. True, I'm not able to "reject" a quest as such, but I'm not punished for failing to complete it.     

 

Is it perfect? No. I think including a cap on the number of quests or a time limit (aka Fallout) would make things more realistic. How often does the villain give the hero of the story enough time to get every little thing sorted out, before the big confrontation? 

[WillieStyle]

I disagree about the dragons.  I think the dragon fights are pretty much the same as they were in Origins.  The dragons are just more pretty in Inquisition.  I mean really, the only difference is that in Inquisition, sometimes they get up and fly around to shoot fireballs or lightning down at you.  They could have done something great with the dragons in this game, like make the fights take place in multiple locations, or use the environment.  Lol, I think I made this same point in this same thread earlier.  

 

 

It's hard to take a certain kind of complainer seriously when they make statements that are so patently false.  The Dragon Fights in Inquisition are far more complex - and dare I say "tactical" - than the ones in Origins.  Focusing on specific limbs to limit the dragon's mobility; keeping your ranged within wing buffer range to limit damage taken; spreading out or clumping up depending on the dragon type; using fade step / combat roll / evade to stay underneath the dragon where it has a harder time hitting you; timing your dps cooldowns for the wing buffet and breath phases especially when you're melee (otherwise the dragon leaps out of melee range and kills your burst.  

 

One can make the argument that there are really only 3 Dragon fights in Inquisition as Dragons of the same type use the same tactics.  What one cannot claim, however, is that the Dragon fights in Inquisition aren't more complex than the ones in Origins. I mean one can make that claim, if one wants to be dismissed as a dishonest hyperbolic troll.  But I assume one wouldn't want that.

[lazysuperstar]

The Ruck and Danyla are basically the same right? 1) you are told someone is missing 2) you get to know the truth 3) you can lie or tell the truth. Quite a few sidequests in DAI let you make a choice :

- Suledin's keep - Not only is this a fun misssion, you have a real choice in the end.

- Ellandra's Phylactery - You can return it and have her join the inquisition but only as mage. My second playthrough as a rogue, she refused to join. Surprised me. Really cool

- I like the fact the widow doesn't ask you to fetch the ring. She just informs. Then it is upto you to sell it or return. It felt good returning

- Still Waters is probably the best sidequest in all DA games

- Wearing Mercy's crest and fighting only the leader or go on a rampage and kill everyone

- Probably more that I missed in my short first playthrough. Will find out more in the second

 

About cinematic dialogues after quests, compared to DAO, DAI has a voiced main character and much much more beautiful environments.. so the whole thing is a cinematic experience than just some thanks in the end

[Lianaar]

And you don't get the bad changed by just sitting back and taking it.  You get it changed by being vocal about the things you don't like.  At least that is how it should work.  I am sure EA and Bioware are ignoring most of what goes on in the forums.

 

Also, I hate coming in at the end of a conversation and seeing nothing but a wall of my own posts, lol.

The forums are there to have your opinion voiced. It needs to be a constructive expression of opinion to be useful. I am not aiming at you here, but if you read back, there is a lot of general statement of dislike without being explicit. Which is also totally normal, since knowing what would achieve the effect we seek is not an easy question and hard to answer for people generally. However you also must understand that most people who are content don't come to forums. They have no reason to. They enjoy playing the game etc. So if you only take the forum into consideration, you change the things the forum is vocal about, and you might change something that was actually liked by the silent people. It is just like the news, the news are rarely or ever contain descriptions about people happily enjoying themselves in peace and quiet. That is not worth a news slot. So something like 'I am happily playing at home because I love the game' is not really something most people post. And if you do, instantly you get bashed by the 'Oh, a fanboy' argument.

 

Inquisition has things I love, it has flaws, it has things I utterly dislike. I accept however that more then likely some things I utterly hate will be sought after by others (I am not happy with open worlds, I much prefer DA:2 style story telling, but that is not something I'll ever see I came to terms with it.) But I don't find it fair that the side quests are bashed this way, because many of them are quite excellent. I also don't like the statement that DA:I is swallow, because in my eyes that is evidently false and over exeggaration. It discredits the statement in my eyes. If you say however that the ratio of quests that have strong motivation factors toward ones that can be done without any emotional engagement should be improved, that is something I can start to think about and we can come to some sort of positive agreement on which direction we'd like to go.

 

I for one don't need cut scenes. I grew up on table top, my imagination will always have better graphics then any video game But I understand that many people are not as engaged in rpgs, and might prefer to see someone else's interpretation of facial expressions instead.

 

If someone says, they want more diversity, you must understand that each game has limitations, for it is a game, and not a limited amount of players with a DM that can adapt to the player's style. There must be a skeleton of code you can string up the story to. There will be points matching, no matter what. And if you prefer to have a more branched out story, you must also give up something --- for one the general storyline arching over games. It just won't work if you have 200 outcomes and you need to tie it back to a single game. Too much to ask for. So while we want to have our old characters, we also want to have more outcomes and more companions with more content and more cutscenes and more plot stories and more... everything basically.

 

All in all, I don't think they are ignoring what is going on here. But I think they have more sources of information then this forum alone. There is no point in giving resources to a forum only to ignore it. None has the obligatoin to maintain a forum at all. It is offered and we use it. However just like I am not the only source of information (thank God), none of us is, not the forum itself. It is a very diverse publicum here with different ideas.

 

And one last thing: it is so easy to pinpoint problems. Finding a solution is way more difficult. While I dislike some changes DA:I took and I so much preferred a DA:2 next episod, I do love that they try to evolve. Even if at times it means less fun for me.

(There, a text of wall from me this time)

[pinkjellybeans]

Does trying to classify quests as "main quests" or "side quests " actually accomplish anything useful here?

 

Also, shouldn't we be talking about gameplay hours rather than the raw number of quests?

 

No, because gameplay hours depends a lot from player to player. I finished my first playthrough in 80 hours and I did everything, there was only one bottle left and a few mosaic pieces. And I've read people saying they had playthroughs with 150+ hours. I will never understand how in the world you can take so long to complete this game, so again, different people, different ways to play the game, different gameplay hours. Also, the game is longer than the previous ones mostly because of the open worlds. You spend more than half of the game exploring, so length doesn't necessarily mean quality here. And the OP started this thread because some people don't understand why other people think the sidequests in Inquisition are bad and why they are better in DAO, so it's only natural that we're talking about sidequests only and not the main quest. It's fine to disagree and say why you disagree but the fact that some people feel the need to bring up other things in DAI (like the main quest or the dragons) to defend the sidequests just shows that they don't have that many good arguments in the first place. 

 

 

 

I will say that dao had different experiences for side quests.  Those two Dalish you could either hook up or break up.  BUT, at the same time I can remember having to go through a dialogue cutscene just bring that guy his wife's scarf.  Sure, you can RP it and tell him the "truth" or "lie" but his reaction is pretty much the same:  she is dead, he cries about it, and leaves.  

 

Well at least you didn't find the scarf lying around on the ground or on his wife's dead corpse. At least you got there and actually talk to her and witness her pain and you actually have a choice to put her out of her misery. Most of the times it's the little things that make these small sidequests stand out from the rest. Compare that quest to bring back a wedding ring for that elf in DAI. You find the templars, kill them, pick up the ring, go back to the elf, "here's your ring." There's no dialogue (apart from "here's your ring" lol), nothing interesting going on, no choices, nothing. That is the true meaning of a fetch quest.

 

 

I did like the singing oak tree.  I think I played it every single time I played DAO.  But...it itself, was a fetch quest too.  Granted it was a branched (hehe, no pun intended) quest, it was overall pointless to the game.  It was fluff too.

 

Just the fact that the tree could rhyme (not sing) was already more interesting than any other fetch quest in Inquisition. ("It's a poet tree! A poet tree, don't you get it?") And again, choices. You can either kill the tree and side with the hermit or the other way around.  And maybe you haven't played DAO in some time, but despite that being a sidequest, you need to complete it in order to know how to go through the magical barrier to confront the werewolves, so yeah, not pointless, actually pretty important to the main quest!

[outlaw1109]

 

No, because gameplay hours depends a lot from player to player. I finished my first playthrough in 80 hours and I did everything, there was only one bottle left and a few mosaic pieces. And I've read people saying they had playthroughs with 150+ hours. I will never understand how in the world you can take so long to complete this game, so again, different people, different ways to play the game, different gameplay hours. Also, the game is longer than the previous ones mostly because of the open worlds. You spend more than half of the game exploring, so length doesn't necessarily mean quality here. And the OP started this thread because some people don't understand why other people think the sidequests in Inquisition are bad and why they are better in DAO, so it's only natural that we're talking about sidequests only and not the main quest. It's fine to disagree and say why you disagree but the fact that some people feel the need to bring up other things in DAI (like the main quest or the dragons) to defend the sidequests just shows that they don't have that many good arguments in the first place. 

 

 

 

Well at least you didn't find the scarf lying around on the ground or on his wife's dead corpse. At least you got there and actually talk to her and witness her pain and you actually have a choice to put her out of her misery. Most of the times it's the little things that make these small sidequests stand out from the rest. Compare that quest to bring back a wedding ring for that elf in DAI. You find the templars, kill them, pick up the ring, go back to the elf, "here's your ring." There's no dialogue (apart from "here's your ring" lol), nothing interesting going on, no choices, nothing. That is the true meaning of a fetch quest.

 

 

 

Just the fact that the tree could rhyme (not sing) was already more interesting than any other fetch quest in Inquisition. ("It's a poet tree! A poet tree, don't you get it?") And again, choices. You can either kill the tree and side with the hermit or the other way around.  And maybe you haven't played DAO in some time, but despite that being a sidequest, you need to complete it in order to know how to go through the magical barrier to confront the werewolves, so yeah, not pointless, actually pretty important to the main quest!

 

The scarf thing:  I find it much more...believable that the grieving widow dismisses whomever brought back her husband's ring.  A polite thank you and then it's time to cry about losing her husband.  Not have a conversation about how much you appreciate the act.  In Origins, it seems like you (the PC) needs validation in order to do mundane tasks.  Whereas in Inquisition, the mundane tasks are just that:  mundane.  I don't feel like I need to return the ring for a sense of closure and I don't do it because it's cluttering my journal.  I do it because it gets me coin and exp.

Before Inquisition came out, I gave Origins another go, but since I know most of the dialogue (almost from memory) I found myself skipping a lot of it and it was actually kind of irritating to play.

Something that literally just happened to me:  Second play through on Inquisition, there was a person I needed to check on in a large zone (trying not to spoil).  I remembered the quest from the first time I played it and went to the quest destination.  The thing is, in my first play through, the person was dead when I got there.  This time, she was fighting templars and I actually saved her.


I felt it (the tree)was pointless fluff because of this:  Witherfang is the spirit of the forest.  Why would she need to construct some magical barrier to prevent the Warden from getting near her?

It would have made more sense for her to have the "poet-tree" attack the warden or some such.  Instead, there is a Barrier that is easily dispelled by a Branch.  It was an unnecessary plot contrivance.  

[pinkjellybeans]

The scarf thing:  I find it much more...believable that the grieving widow dismisses whomever brought back her husband's ring.  A polite thank you and then it's time to cry about losing her husband.  Not have a conversation about how much you appreciate the act.  In Origins, it seems like you (the PC) needs validation in order to do mundane tasks.  Whereas in Inquisition, the mundane tasks are just that:  mundane.  I don't feel like I need to return the ring for a sense of closure and I don't do it because it's cluttering my journal.  I do it because it gets me coin and exp.

Before Inquisition came out, I gave Origins another go, but since I know most of the dialogue (almost from memory) I found myself skipping a lot of it and it was actually kind of irritating to play.

Something that literally just happened to me:  Second play through on Inquisition, there was a person I needed to check on in a large zone (trying not to spoil).  I remembered the quest from the first time I played it and went to the quest destination.  The thing is, in my first play through, the person was dead when I got there.  This time, she was fighting templars and I actually saved her.


I felt it (the tree)was pointless fluff because of this:  Witherfang is the spirit of the forest.  Why would she need to construct some magical barrier to prevent the Warden from getting near her?

It would have made more sense for her to have the "poet-tree" attack the warden or some such.  Instead, there is a Barrier that is easily dispelled by a Branch.  It was an unnecessary plot contrivance.  

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You obviously don't play these games mainly for its stories otherwise you wouldn't be skipping it while playing Origins. And I honestly don't know what you mean by the warden needing validation to do mundane tasks. To me it's not validation, to me it's actual interaction with the NPCs. If someone comes up to me and says "hey, can you do me this favor?" I want to know what the favor is and why should I care, instead of going "yeah sure, whatever you need, NPC #502." and that's where the dialogue comes in, you can ask them about the quest and know more about the NPC. In Origins you can actually reject a quest, where in Inquisition most of the times the quests are just forced on you and you don't have a say. Sure you can do them or not, it's your choice, but once they show up in my journal I don't like having them there pending forever.

 

The poet tree was not affected maybe because it's an elder tree that lives in the forest way before than Witherfang? I honestly don't remember all the dialogue so I'm not sure, but it's obvious it's not a normal tree like the others. To you it's an unnecessary plot contrivance, to me it's a well thought and interesting sidequest. *shrug*

[outlaw1109]

You obviously don't play these games mainly for its stories otherwise you wouldn't be skipping it while playing Origins. 

The point I was making about skipping dialogue in DA:O is that a lot of those little quests lose their luster after you've completed them a few times.  There's no impact on the game.  In fact, in Origins, there was *rarely* a reason to return to any area after the main quest was completed.

I do, in fact, play games for their stories.  I didn't make 10 different Wardens because I like shuffling around in tactical view.  

But I suppose having a view that's different than yours lumps me in with the somehow "lesser" group of players that play for action.

[lazysuperstar]

But I suppose having a view that's different than yours lumps me in with the somehow "lesser" group of players that play for action.

 

even if that is the case, I don't understand why those who prefer gameplay to other things are looked down upon. After all, an average book or a graphic novel has a much better story than any game and takes much less time.

[In Exile]

I've been thinking about this topic. Honestly, what were these phenomenal DAO side quests?

Helping Bella find her brother in Lothering?
Randomly encountering a trickster after reading some codices in the Circle tower?
Kicking some mercenaries out of a brothel?
Going around on a few kill quests with no dialogue for the crows?
Finding Ruck in the Deep Roads?

I'm honestly curious.

[lazysuperstar]

I've been thinking about this topic. Honestly, what were these phenomenal DAO side quests?

Helping Bella find her brother in Lothering?
Randomly encountering a trickster after reading some codices in the Circle tower?
Kicking some mercenaries out of a brothel?
Going around on a few kill quests with no dialogue for the crows?
Finding Ruck in the Deep Roads?

I'm honestly curious.

 

You probably got the same DAO copy as me and not the 'Enhanced Nostalgia Edition'

[Astylith]

I've been thinking about this topic. Honestly, what were these phenomenal DAO side quests?

Helping Bella find her brother in Lothering?
Randomly encountering a trickster after reading some codices in the Circle tower?
Kicking some mercenaries out of a brothel?
Going around on a few kill quests with no dialogue for the crows?
Finding Ruck in the Deep Roads?

I'm honestly curious.

 

Don't think they were that great. But I remember they were quality enough to keep me caring/playing. Just looking at the map in DA:I and seeing a thousand generic 'jobs' for me to do isn't quite up to par. In the hinterlands I found like 3 letters laying about 50 meters from eachother each asking me to bring this to that NPC, scout # locations and all that. They didn't even bother with dialogue anymore.

[In Exile]

Don't think they were that great. But I remember they were quality enough to keep me caring/playing. Just looking at the map in DA:I and seeing a thousand generic 'jobs' for me to do isn't quite up to par. In the hinterlands I found like 3 letters laying about 50 meters from eachother each asking me to bring this to that NPC, scout # locations and all that. They didn't even bother with dialogue anymore.

I've been pretty adamant more side quest dialogue and RP choice is good. But what I'm asking about is the actual quest. Those things I listed were all fetch quests.

In DAI you'd have no cinematics, an investigate tree, but no end quest flavour RP option. Or it would be a codex. I can see saying you think the lack of dialogue makes it less enjoyable.

[pinkjellybeans]

I've been thinking about this topic. Honestly, what were these phenomenal DAO side quests?

Helping Bella find her brother in Lothering?
Randomly encountering a trickster after reading some codices in the Circle tower?
Kicking some mercenaries out of a brothel?
Going around on a few kill quests with no dialogue for the crows?
Finding Ruck in the Deep Roads?

I'm honestly curious.

 

Honestly I feel like we're going around in circles now. For the 100th time, it's not just about the content of the quests. Even though I find the Ruck quest more interesting than any other sidequest we have in DAI but that's a matter of preference of course. But I can give you 3 reasons why most of DAO's quests can be better just by the way they are handled:

 

 

Differences between the side quests in DAI and DAO:

 

DAO: You can actually talk to the NPC giving you the quest.

DAI: "We need blankets!", "goodbye." "we need food!", "good luck"

 

DAO: The quests are fleshed out so you have multiple choices, which helps you shape your warden's personality.

DAI: Find ring, "here's your ring", done. Find dead person's body, "your lover is dead", done.

 

DAO: Cutscenes! Emotions! Unique reactions!

DAI: Tell NPC someone they care about is dead and they just stand there with the same expression on their face like we're talking about the weather.

 

 

Obviously there are sidequests like the Chanter's board which don't follow those points and are basically like the ones we have in DAI. 

[Lianaar]

I think what DA:I did bad is the rewards, be that items or closure to the quests. The prior being not so rewarding and unique, the later being easy to miss out, if you don't know what you are looking for.

 

The letters lying around for you asking you to do things, oh well, they can stay there.
Option =/= obligation.
There are quite a few times in Haven, when my character went: what? Leave me alone with that stupid request, find someone else. It didn't detoriate from the game experience. I find it pretty reasonable that heros are approached by people who can't do their things which is important only to them and ask the big strong hero to do it for them (light candle at the place my son died, for I can not go, put flowers on my wife's grave, it is too dangerous for me to go). These "quests" add flavor, they aim at making you see how dangerous the world is for normal people who just live by. Either you decide to help these little people or you decide to screw it, for there are just so much more important things for you to do, is up to you. This however doesn't make the quests generally worse. I'd call these mood setter quests if I had to name them.

 

I don't want these quests to have more resources, I much prefer those resources to be spent elsewhere.
Naturally I am not opposed if you can tell yes and no in 5-6 different ways instead of 2 ways, if there is enough resources to be dedicated to this.

I would have preferred if the rewards (again, be it material or emotional or whatever your shoe is) were more flashed out and the high points of the story would be positioned differently. This of course doesn't influence the side quests whatsoever.

[In Exile]

Honestly I feel like we're going around in circles now. For the 100th time, it's not just about the content of the quests. Even though I find the Ruck quest more interesting than any other sidequest we have in DAI but that's a matter of preference of course. But I can give you 3 reasons why most of DAO's quests can be better just by the way they are handled:



Obviously there are sidequests like the Chanter's board which don't follow those points and are basically like the ones we have in DAI.

So basically you have cutscenes and flavour RP choice. We're not going around in circles since - in almost every post I've made - I've said that people seem to want more cutscene and dialogue.

What I'm back to is how the actual gameplay part - the stuff you do in game - is any different. That's the quest design. Not the dialogue part.

A complaint that you would be completely fine with every quest staying the same if it had more dialogue is not a complaint about the quest.

[Lianaar]

@In Exile
I am not skilled in this, so I am curious, what other sort of quest designs are available, you think?
Maybe if you listed a few it would point out more prominently what you suggest. It is difficult at times to relate to something so abstract.

Most people don't disect the quests in this depth, which again makes it difficult to intone our wish properly.

 

Cut scenes and dialogue options are obviously in favor of the flavor and story, it also helps elaborating the role you take. It gives motivation, which makes people more tolerant toward other flaws. So yes, they matter, depending to people, to various degree. We can not deny that.

But I am interested in the quest design aspect you listed and I wonder which of them you think plausible in a game of this scope.

[Elhanan]

I might be one of the few, but I prefer less cut-scenes and cinematics in the game overall. While I like the ones used to flavor the story, they should not over-season the tale being told, esp the lengthier ones. Prefer to have it remain a game; not become a film.

And it has recently come to my attention that DAI side-quests may have better explanations than the earlier games. It seems that some of the side-quests done in DAO may not have been quite in character for some of my Wardens, and I missed the nefarious nature of some of those tasks. While feeding refugees may not be as glamorous, they certainly are clear as to their necessity, IMO.

[pinkjellybeans]

So basically you have cutscenes and flavour RP choice. We're not going around in circles since - in almost every post I've made - I've said that people seem to want more cutscene and dialogue.

What I'm back to is how the actual gameplay part - the stuff you do in game - is any different. That's the quest design. Not the dialogue part.

A complaint that you would be completely fine with every quest staying the same if it had more dialogue is not a complaint about the quest.

 

Well, it's actually about the quests too not just the way it's handled. The example you gave. Ruck. You find this upset woman praying and you ask her what's going on. She tells you about her son and if you want, you can offer your help. Even if you don't feel sorry about the woman, you're going into the Deep Roads either way, so why not? Then eventually you find him while you're on your way to do the main quest and find out he's alive but lost his mind because of the darkspawn taint. You can talk to him and you can either intimidate, persuade or kill him. Then you can lie or tell the truth to his mother. Tell me one DAI sidequest that is as big and developed enough to give you the amount of dialogue and choices the Ruck quest has. (here's a link just in case you don't remember that quest very well)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by quest design. I mean, if they create a quest where the only purpose is to retrieve a ring, tell someone person X is dead, hunt 10 rams, claim spots for watchtowers, etc. etc. of course there's no depth to them to actually give you a proper story, dialogue and choices. So in the end, DAO has indeed better sidequests just because they are more complex.

[Lianaar]

The things you list actually do have a story. The watchtower one particularly, for in my first play through my character was very involved with that quest. She understood the necessity and thus made it happen.
Even the fetch ones you mention are very realistic, because the war affects people in the most mundane sort of ways, like lack of food. I think it would be nice to see people cook around fires once you are done (as someone else mentioned), but claiming those have no story is exeggaration. Still, you can decide not to do them.

 

You speak about story driven actions, but those are. No cutscene, but there is a story, a realistic one and if your quizzy's personality is like that, he or she will be driven. You might think they are too short or too little decisions, but you can't claim there is no story behind them. Way more then the obviously fetch quests of chanter's boards etc.  I argue your statement, that they lack story. They are yes-no quests, but not void of story.

 

I'll go through the quests, for presently I am too engaged in Hissing Wastes to be able to think of anything else quest wise
Edit: amusingly, just as we are engaged in this discussion, there was a banter with Varrick ending with him saying:
"If you wanted an encyclopedia entry, you might as well get it from someone charming." - at quest end. Made me amused how it is overlapping.
 

[outlaw1109]

Prefer to have it remain a game; not become a film.
 

This.

As to what the other guy is saying about how quests work:

A "Fetch" quest is "Find item/bring to NPC".
"Gather" quests are "Find x amount of ITEM/Bring to NPC"
Kill quests would be "Go kill this person/group"

All of this REGARDLESS of presentation.  

I believe Exile is saying that people aren't complaining about the quests themselves.  They're complaining about the presentation of the quests.

Again, personally, I like the short and sweet DAI presentation because it's more conducive to multiple play-throughs, IMO.
 

[Retro-bit]

I've not read it.

 

Opinions. Great aren't they?

Forums. An open place to post opinions, great aren't they?