447 réponses à ce sujet

[NedPepper]

Fiona, Josephine, Cullen, some of the Keep Stewards, the Horse-master, some of the agents like the Avvar Sky Watcher, etc. While I am not good with names, there are so many personalities and characters in DAI, it seems unwise to dismiss all of them due dislike for the quests themselves.

 

Josephine and Cullen are basically companions.  No one is complaining about the companions.  We're talking about quest givers in the multiple maps.  As far as Fiona, if I hadn't had an emotional investment created for her character in other mediums, Fiona would have been just as bland.  In fact, I wish there was more than just a couple "investigate" conversations with her.  (This is the famed mother of Alistair.  I'm actually disappointed in how Fiona was utilized in this game. But that's a whole other matter.)

The horsemaster is okay.  He's a decent example.  The Avvar sky watcher?  You have one conversation, he decides to join the Inquisition, and that's it.  I honestly don't know, or just can't remember, anything about him other than he joins you and gives time off your War Table missions.

[Lianaar]

Why excluding the advisors? Would you prefer if they were general npcs with short quests that could be listed as examples of how good npcs are done?

3 characters more then DA:O offered which got a full flashed out story. They should be taken into consideration.

With each game you must consider resource distribution, for resources are not endless. Something for something.
I mean, we can ask for everything, but we won't ever get everything. Taking out forthes of DA:I analyses and comparision to DA:O is handicapping the game in a way.

 

Fiona didn't really touch me, despite having read her story otherwise. I agree that she lacked in game flashing out. It was more a cameo then a properly introduced NPC.

[Morroian]

Why excluding the advisors? Would you prefer if they were general npcs with short quests that could be listed as examples of how good npcs are done?

3 characters more then DA:O offered which got a full flashed out story. They should be taken into consideration.

 

To be fair I wouldn't call the advisors NPCs in the same way Dagna is, they are virtually companions.

[AlanC9]

Why excluding the advisors? Would you prefer if they were general npcs with short quests that could be listed as examples of how good npcs are done?

3 characters more then DA:O offered which got a full flashed out story. They should be taken into consideration.

 

Well, the complaint is that a particular class of NPCs doesn't have enough stuff in it. Mentioning that a different class of NPCs has plenty of stuff isn't really an answer to that complaint. Although it is an answer to the question of where the zots that could have been used to make more stuff went.

[NedPepper]

Scout Harding, Krem are 2 that are similar.

 

 

I should clarify that I'm talking about the characters on the maps.

The part of the game I LOVE is the story missions and and the guys hanging around Skyhold.  I've said this in another thread, it feel like there were two different developers of this game.  The people in charge of the maps and all of that content and the developers in charge of Skyhold and story missions, the parts of the game that I actually really like, that actually feel like they were developed by the Bioware team I know and love. Problem is, most of this game revolves around the maps.  It's where we spend 70 % of the game.

[AlanC9]

Doesn't that reduce to being opposed to the open-world concept itself, then? I don't see how the 70% of the game you don't like could be made into something you like without going back to the KotOR/ME1/DA:O structure, unless we start talking about unrealistic resource levels.

[In Exile]

Josephine and Cullen are basically companions. No one is complaining about the companions. We're talking about quest givers in the multiple maps. As far as Fiona, if I hadn't had an emotional investment created for her character in other mediums, Fiona would have been just as bland. In fact, I wish there was more than just a couple "investigate" conversations with her. (This is the famed mother of Alistair. I'm actually disappointed in how Fiona was utilized in this game. But that's a whole other matter.)

The horsemaster is okay. He's a decent example. The Avvar sky watcher? You have one conversation, he decides to join the Inquisition, and that's it. I honestly don't know, or just can't remember, anything about him other than he joins you and gives time off your War Table missions.

And what was Dagna? You had one conversation with her that had a few investigate options. That was it. Yet Fionna - who appears in multiple scenes - is "bland"?

Again - this is nothing more than saying you liked some characters but not others.

[Lianaar]

Yes, they are. They are almost companions, but they are an excellent part of the game, that should be valued, for they are more then npcs. They are integral part of the game and their quests are quite nice (well, I am not that fond of Vivi's personally). I do nto see why you should exclude them when comparision is made.

It is like: we talk about legs,  but since your sole is your best part, we only talk about legs knee up.
Can be done, but it is not fair.

 

The argument was, that npcs in DA:O are much more memorable and flashed out. If this is the argument, then advisors of DA:I should be taken into consideration.

The argument was that side quests of DA:O are much more enjoyable and story driven. But side quests of DA:I advisors are flashed out and often tie in with the main story immensely. They are more then just the general companion stories, for those exist too. Thus they are extra, not main quest side quests. They should be listed as good in DA:I. At least I so think, for I loved them.

[NedPepper]

Not arguing this, but please check the title of the thread and the first part of the OP. It is offensive and belligerent, basically attacking people with different opinion and actually liking DA:I side quest. With a start like that, it is not surprising to get a certain style of answer. This is not a good base of tone for a conversation at all.

 

So yes, the forum is there to express opinions, but it should be constructive and respectful to others who disagree especially in places where personal opinions matter so much.

 

I admit, it was difficult each time I had to answer to distance myself from the original tone and mood set by the thread. But it was necessary regardless.
There are a lot of people that evoke emotions in DA:I, they just happen to have a bigger role then those npcs in DA:O.

I find DA:I to be big, a bit too big for my liking. I wish it was shorter. Even if this sounds really stupid. No matter how much I love pancakes, I can not eat it every day. But when I have a surplus from it, I tend to overeat. So the same with DA:I. Husband and me play and have over 700 hours invested by now. A lot of that time is also spent with reading codex entries, listening to ambiguous text, listening to bar music (Oh, they are so beautiful!). I don't fight dragons. Not if avoidable. Of course I wouldn't ask for no dragons in dragon age

Probably the content is too varried, so people don't focus on the part that is fun for them, but see how much is fun for them and how much isn't. Thus the ratio of quest is not good for them. But the quests they like might varry from people to people.

To be honest, I didn't join this thread because of the OP, but because of some of the other posters thoughts reflecting my own.  But I do see what you're talking about in the original post.  And I am glad you are enjoying the game.  I happen to love the tavern bard as well.

[Lianaar]

Well, the complaint is that a particular class of NPCs doesn't have enough stuff in it. Mentioning that a different class of NPCs has plenty of stuff isn't really an answer to that complaint. Although it is an answer to the question of where the zots that could have been used to make more stuff went.

It is, because there are quite a few of them.
You must chose what you do. You must either say: everyone is mediocre, or go: ok, some will be elevated to higher content and some will have less resources.
Instead of praising the extra content, we ****** at the less content. But if you add up everything, it has more valued content.

[NedPepper]

I'm going to exclude the advisors. I'm also not great with names. However, I'll share. I'll exclude characters from other media like Fionna, Gaspard, Brialla or Celene who IMO were all great but if you count Loghain you gave to count them.

Ser Barras is great. Felix, despite his fate. Mother Giselle is phenomenal. Krem is great. Scout Harding is unfortunately a breakaway character - people are asking for a romance.

There are other NPCs just as good as people like the Lothering tavern keeper. Pretty much the entire cast of characters at the Winter's Ball.

You've got a lot of rhetoric but it's nothing more than "I liked the DAO NPCs".

  No, I was emotionally invested in Dragon Age: Origins NPCs.  The key to every great story, despite the medium, is emotional investment.  As soon as the viewer or player has lost that, the game's in trouble.

I'm actually not someone who holds Origins as the nirvana of game making.  And, I'm one of those gross people who loves DA;2.  In theory, I'm actually a Bioware fan that's really easy to please.   You give me an engaging story with great characters, which is Bioware's MO, and I'm usually a happy camper. All three Mass Effects make me happy.  Jade Empire?  Dig it.  KoToR?  Yes, please. Which is what makes my disappointment in DA;I so much...harder, I guess is the word..  

[AlanC9]

It is, because there are quite a few of them.
You must chose what you do. You must either say: everyone is mediocre, or go: ok, some will be elevated to higher content and some will have less resources.
Instead of praising the extra content, we ****** at the less content. But if you add up everything, it has more valued content.

 

Hmm. Right. The content's still there, just not in the place the complainer is complaining about.

 

That's the problem with threads like this. We get a lot of people asking for more X, but nobody ever says what they'd like to cut in order to make more X.

[Elhanan]

Josephine and Cullen are basically companions.  No one is complaining about the companions.  We're talking about quest givers in the multiple maps.  As far as Fiona, if I hadn't had an emotional investment created for her character in other mediums, Fiona would have been just as bland.  In fact, I wish there was more than just a couple "investigate" conversations with her.  (This is the famed mother of Alistair.  I'm actually disappointed in how Fiona was utilized in this game. But that's a whole other matter.)

The horsemaster is okay.  He's a decent example.  The Avvar sky watcher?  You have one conversation, he decides to join the Inquisition, and that's it.  I honestly don't know, or just can't remember, anything about him other than he joins you and gives time off your War Table missions.

Scout Harding; my romantic interest of choice for my Dwarven Archer Inquisitor.

I also wanted Mother Giselle to be the next Divine; looks as if she might be around for a sequel.

[AlanC9]

  No, I was emotionally invested in Dragon Age: Origins NPCs.  The key to every great story, despite the medium, is emotional investment.  As soon as the viewer or player has lost that, the game's in trouble.
 

 

You do realize that arguments based on your own level of emotional investment don't travel well, right? If my level of emotional investment doesn't match yours, any point of yours that depends on emotional investment simply fails.

[In Exile]

No, I was emotionally invested in Dragon Age: Origins NPCs. The key to every great story, despite the medium, is emotional investment. As soon as the viewer or player has lost that, the game's in trouble.

I'm actually not someone who holds Origins as the nirvana of game making. And, I'm one of those gross people who loves DA;2. In theory, I'm actually a Bioware fan that's really easy to please. You give me an engaging story with great characters, which is Bioware's MO, and I'm usually a happy camper. All three Mass Effects make me happy. Jade Empire? Dig it. KoToR? Yes, please. Which is what makes my disappointment in DA;I so much...harder, I guess is the word..

But "emotional investment" is a nebulous term that isn't something we can really quantify. For examples, I couldn't be emotionally invested in the Last of Us at all. There's nothing in it that works for me. But I'm not about to critise it in comparison to other works on that basis, unless there's some objective convention I can point to that the game failed at pulling off.

DAI NPCs don't work for you. That's fine. It's like how some people hated sarcastic Hawke. That's just not really an indictment of the game or NPCs, so much as it is a statement of preference.

[NedPepper]

Doesn't that reduce to being opposed to the open-world concept itself, then? I don't see how the 70% of the game you don't like could be made into something you like without going back to the KotOR/ME1/DA:O structure, unless we start talking about unrealistic resource levels.

If Bioware cannot implement the same standards of storytelling into an open world format, which is something I believed they could do, then I guess I am opposed to open world.  If it's a matter of resources, I would personally rather see them spent on not developing a multitude of maps with a bunch of bland side quests and perhaps focusing on, say four big maps that have interlocking stories with the ;main quest, cut scenes, choices, variables, etc.  

But I don't think it really matters what I think.

[Cyonan]

But "emotional investment" is a nebulous term that isn't something we can really quantify. For examples, I couldn't be emotionally invested in the Last of Us at all. There's nothing in it that works for me. But I'm not about to critise it in comparison to other works on that basis, unless there's some objective convention I can point to that the game failed at pulling off.

DAI NPCs don't work for you. That's fine. It's like how some people hated sarcastic Hawke. That's just not really an indictment of the game or NPCs, so much as it is a statement of preference.

 

As another example, I'm not emotionally attached to or invested in any NPC that I only spend 5 total minutes talking to. Even in Origins I didn't get attached to somebody like Ruck or any other side quest NPCs.

 

My attachment is to the characters that stick with you, which are mainly companions and a few others.

[alwaysquestions]

It is, because there are quite a few of them.
You must chose what you do. You must either say: everyone is mediocre, or go: ok, some will be elevated to higher content and some will have less resources.
Instead of praising the extra content, we ****** at the less content. But if you add up everything, it has more valued content.

 

Or you choose to lower the number of npc and raise the average quality. Content for the sake of content isn't great design in my opinion.

 

Hmm. Right. The content's still there, just not in the place the complainer is complaining about.

 

That's the problem with threads like this. We get a lot of people asking for more X, but nobody ever says what they'd like to cut in order to make more X.

 

I think people are saying it, they are saying why make a massive world if that means you'll have to lower the quality of some of the content filling it. 

[NedPepper]

You do realize that arguments based on your own level of emotional investment don't travel well, right? If my level of emotional investment doesn't match yours, any point of yours that depends on emotional investment simply fails.

You also realize I can only speak for myself.

You also realize that In Exile asked people for personal opinions on what they liked about Origins NPCs.  

I complied.  If it's now your argument to use my personals preferences against me after the fact, that's one you.

[AlanC9]

If Bioware cannot implement the same standards of storytelling into an open world format, which is something I believed they could do, then I guess I am opposed to open world.  If it's a matter of resources, I would personally rather see them spent on not developing a multitude of maps with a bunch of bland side quests and perhaps focusing on, say four big maps that have interlocking stories with the ;main quest, cut scenes, choices, variables, etc.  

But I don't think it really matters what I think.

 

Probably not. My impression is that the open-world aspect is going over pretty well. I'd probably be better off if it hadn't, since I've never been a huge fan of exploration in RPGs. My impression is that going to a lot fewer maps wouldn't satisfy the people who really like the exploration aspect.

[Lianaar]

If Bioware cannot implement the same standards of storytelling into an open world format, which is something I believed they could do, then I guess I am opposed to open world.  If it's a matter of resources, I would personally rather see them spent on not developing a multitude of maps with a bunch of bland side quests and perhaps focusing on, say four big maps that have interlocking stories with the ;main quest, cut scenes, choices, variables, etc.  

But I don't think it really matters what I think.

Everyone's opinion matters. Open worlds are a thrill for many, but also there are people opposed to it. This game was a test and feedback is important, I believe.
I enjoy focused plots more, I don't need exploration and fighting isn't my thing, so I personally am opposed to open worlds. The ones I tried bored me. They lacked story.

So yes, I do wish the next game they make or the DLCs made are more focused on plots and less on exploration.
However I also think (or presume is a better word), that the more people buy it, the more resources are available to make a game giving different people what they want. I can easily skip a lot of exploring. I think I spent way more time with reading codexes then with exploring. And way more time with avoiding battle then exploring too. The only place I actually did explore was Hissing Wastes. Everything else was only if I was driven IG via my character.

[NedPepper]

And what was Dagna? You had one conversation with her that had a few investigate options. That was it. Yet Fionna - who appears in multiple scenes - is "bland"?

Again - this is nothing more than saying you liked some characters but not others.

 

YOU asked for personal opinions on what people liked or didn't like about NPCs.  Of course someone is going to like one character over another.  It's...very draining debating with you.  I honestly feel like there is no point to this argument.  I stand by my original point.  I'm not changing ;my mind.  So, this is all rather aimless.

[AlanC9]

You also realize I can only speak for myself.

You also realize that In Exile asked people for personal opinions on what they liked about Origins NPCs.  

I complied.  If it's now your argument to use my personals preferences against me after the fact, that's one you.

 

That's not what In Exile was looking for, as you can see above. He was looking for something that didn't just reduce to personal taste; something quantifiable.

 

OK, you don't have that. Nothing wrong with not having that.  But then there's not much you can tell Bio, or us. You didn't get attached to the DA:I characters because... you just didn't. End of line.

[NedPepper]

But "emotional investment" is a nebulous term that isn't something we can really quantify. For examples, I couldn't be emotionally invested in the Last of Us at all. There's nothing in it that works for me. But I'm not about to critise it in comparison to other works on that basis, unless there's some objective convention I can point to that the game failed at pulling off.

DAI NPCs don't work for you. That's fine. It's like how some people hated sarcastic Hawke. That's just not really an indictment of the game or NPCs, so much as it is a statement of preference.

And I just made that point a few pages back about how some people could tolerate the reused maps in Dragon Age 2 and how some people found it game breaking.  And how all very SUBJECTIVE this all is.  I get it, man.  That's why I made that point.

[Lianaar]

Or you choose to lower the number of npc and raise the average quality. Content for the sake of content isn't great design in my opinion.

 

 

I think people are saying it, they are saying why make a massive world if that means you'll have to lower the quality of some of the content filling it. 

That's the question, isn't it? First the quality is subject to preference. And also, just because it matters to you NOT to have content, it might matter to others to DO have content. General quality one,  because they don't suck (well, some do, like bottles, but I think I expressed my gripe with them enough, however there are people who just love collectibles and achievements like that). This game tried to appease various people and maybe (just presumption) they thought, if you get what you like, you won't mind if things other people like, but you don't, are in the game at an optional level.

When we say: skip the part you dislike, we don't say: don't dislike it, we say: focus on the good things which appeal to -you- and don't let the ones that are aimed at others take from your fun. And maybe they enjoy their part and don't focus on the things that they dislike and are fun for you.
Of course if you dislike the game as a whole, then that's a different cake.