What if I could prove that DAI had a shockingly high number of "filler" side quests when compared to Origins' side quests?
What if I could prove that DAI had a shockingly high number of "filler" side quests when compared to Origins' side quests?
What would proving this tell us except what we already know: that DAI's world is magnitudes larger than Origins'?
What would proving this tell us except what we already know: that DAI's world is magnitudes larger than Origins'?
It would tell us that it has less meaningful side quests, which is the claim in the OP that some are disputing. The reason for this (larger world) is irrelevant.
It would tell us that it has less meaningful side quests, which is the claim in the OP that some are disputing. The reason for this (larger world) is irrelevant.
Ah well that's slightly different. If you can prove that Inquisition has less meaningful side quests (not a ratio, mind you) than Origins I'd be interested to see that proof.
- "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."
Biggest lie ever. Almost every side quest involve back tracking. You have to go back to the area's you've gone before to do them. very few happened mid quest. And the maps for dao with loading time made it a pain to do.
"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)"
Not really.Dao also have a limited way for things to play out for sidequest as well. Every quest of a job borad(which is the majority of quest in dao.) Had one way for it to finish.
You need to replay origins.
"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)"
Bs.....Everything in origin for side quest was backtracking and place in copy past locations. Try again.
It would tell us that it has less meaningful side quests, which is the claim in the OP that some are disputing. The reason for this (larger world) is irrelevant.
Larger world =/= less meaningfull side quest.
It would tell us that it has less meaningful side quests, which is the claim in the OP that some are disputing. The reason for this (larger world) is irrelevant.
Biggest lie ever. Almost every side quest involve back tracking. You have to go back to the area's you've gone before to do them. very few happened mid quest. And the maps for dao with loading time made it a pain to do.
What? Which quests involved back tracking? I can remember Dagna's, where you had to go to the circle if you wanted them to accept her, but even then if you didn't want to go back and forth you could just talk to her father and she would stay at Orzammar (*gasp* choices!). I can write you a wall of text of sidequests that can be done while you're in a particular area doing the main quest. So they are not "very few".
Edit: Unless you're talking about the loading screens you get everytime you enter a different place like Orzammar's shaperate, dust town, the tavern, the diamond quarter, etc. If that's the case then I'm sorry, that's not a very good excuse because Origins has a lot of loading screens in one area. But what the OP meant was that while you're in Orzammar, Redcliffle, the Brecilian Forest, etc. doing the main quest, you have all these sidequests you can complete. So it's not a lie.
I want more quests like that one in Origins called "Something Wicked" where the templar sir otto got shanked through the stomach by a pitchfork. Now that was a sidequest.
I will remember you.
Will you remember me?
Good night sweet blind prince.
DA:I needs more of that. I actually remember the quest giver's name because of it.
What? Are we talking about the same game? Which quests involved back tracking? I can remember Dagna's, where you had to go to the circle if you wanted them to accept her, but even then if you didn't want to go back and forth you could just talk to her father and she would stay at Orzammar (*gasp* choices!). I can write you a wall of text of sidequests that can be done while you're in a particular area doing the main quest. So they are not "very few".
Edit: Unless you're talking about the loading screens you get everytime you enter a different place like Orzammar's shaperate, dust town, the tavern, the diamond quarter, etc. If that's the case then I'm sorry, that's not a very good excuse because Origins has a lot of loading screens. But what the OP meant was that while you're in Orzammar, Redcliffle, the Brecilian Forest, etc. doing the main quest, you have all these sidequests you can complete. So it's not a lie.
..You're serious?
Every chantry board quest, half of the crime wave quest, the Favors for Certain Interested Parties quest, the side quest in Orzammar, The Blackstone Irregulars quest, the Mages' Collective quest's, most of The Trial of Crows quest, and killing off those sealed reverents.
And the maps in dao where still pretty big.
I want more quests like that one in Origins called "Something Wicked" where the templar sir otto got shanked through the stomach by a pitchfork. Now that was a sidequest.
I will remember you.
Will you remember me?
Good night sweet blind prince.
DA:I needs more of that. I actually remember the quest giver's name because of it.
but it does.like the quest dealing with finding Samson if you side with the mages.
..You're serious?
Every chantry board quest, half of the crime wave quest, the Favors for Certain Interested Parties quest, the side quest in Orzammar, The Blackstone Irregulars quest, the Mages' Collective quest's, most of The Trial of Crows quest, and killing off those sealed reverents.
And the maps in dao where still pretty big.
Basically nearly all of the region quests (Ostagar, Korcari Wilds, Redcliffe, Brecilian Forest, etc.) can be completed while you're there for the main quest. So again, not "very few" and more like "at least half". And what you mean by "the side quest in Orzammar"? You mean Dagna? Because almost all of the Orzammar sidequests can be completed while you're there. And the Chanter board, Blackstone irregulars, Mages collective quests are there for those players who want some extra sidequests to gain some more XP/money. They are meant to be scattered across the maps and be different from the other "normal" sidequests.
Before you guys get any more involved with this, is using sidequests to encourage map exploration actually a problem?
Did this thread ever reach an agreement of what actually counts as a "filler side quest"?What if I could prove that DAI had a shockingly high number of "filler" side quests when compared to Origins' side quests?
Aside from the companion quests, I can recall very few of the side-quests in the game. They don't stand out. There's a metric ****-tonne of 'read this note, go to this location on the map, press a button' or 'read this note, go to this location on the map, kill something'. That's fine in moderation, but it lacks depth and elegance. After the first few notes, I simply stopped reading, because it felt like I was treading over the same ground over and over - I just stopped caring because there wasn't much in the way of variation or interactivity. When the majority of the content available in a given map is just filler, there's a problem. And it feels like this is the case for half the maps in the game. They were a lot of pretty scenery with not much to do beyond kill X number of Ys to collect their spleens.
Side-quests need not be long, and they need not be complicated. But they should feel at least somewhat relevant, rather than simply being filler content. One of the most memorable moments in ME1 was the I Remember Me side quest - it was short, just a single conversation with an NPC, but it was powerful and it made me feel like my character had an impact on the world. That's one little side quest that I still remember over six years after playing the game.
Did this thread ever reach an agreement of what actually counts as a "filler side quest"?
I like how it never occurs to some people that the size of each game is so different that comparing the two is like comparing cruise ships to 747's.
It's really not fair to either game.
Origins didn't have agent missions. didn't have random NPC's help you through out the game (ie: that one in the hinterlands that helps you with wards, I know her name, but this is a spoiler free zone). Didn't have the ability to engage in conversation on the fly IE: hundreds of random moments when you can click a button and say something to someone you had been walking by. It didn't have beautifully drawn areas that you might just (simply) enjoy viewing. The one area you could claim for the Wardens was a DLC for one, but it was also one of the most forgettable. After it was played through, it was kinda just there. No point going back to it other than a merchant and a box.
What about Michel? (DAI). He's actually a very interesting character, an agent and there are multiple ways to let that situation resolve itself. Ultimately, he's forgettable because you deal with him/see him when you're assaulting a certain location. You don't see him ever again, like many SQ in Origins, but you also don't have cinematic conversations with him. You actually HAVE to pay attention to what he says or you'll miss it completely.
I think much of the point of this thread is: Inquisition doesn't hold your hand and tell you who's important and people don't want to actually discover things on their own, so Origins is better.
Whoever argues with this facts is a fanboy period.
I liked a LOT Kingdoms of Amalur even with his problems it was a good game with a bunch of content i wasnt expecting anythng because it was a new entry, a new game, its different in DA:I because you had this previous 2 games in which you can see and compare how they delited and dumbed down the franchise.
It would tell us that it has less meaningful side quests, which is the claim in the OP that some are disputing. The reason for this (larger world) is irrelevant.
Alright but less meaningful to whom? You? The Op? Me? ChronoDragoon? Other Players? What you find meaningless don't be surprised if I found meaningful or vice versa.
Whoever argues with this facts is a fanboy period.
I liked a LOT Kingdoms of Amalur even with his problems it was a good game with a bunch of content i wasnt expecting anythng because it was a new entry, a new game, its different in DA:I because you had this previous 2 games in which you can see and compare how they delited and dumbed down the franchise.
So anyone who disagrees is a fanboy? Also how can these be construed as facts when it is a matter of opinion? Opinion is not the same as fact.
For instance. Dragon Age Inquisition has mounts. Which is a fact. Why? Because it is indisputably the case. On the other hand. I like the Armored Mount the best because I think it is the best mount befitting someone of the Inquisitor's station. Is opinion. What makes it thus? Opinion is a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. Meaning my belief in The Armored Mount is more than the impression of you and your belief in arguing for The Red Hart. Yet neither can be stated as positive knowledge because someone who likes a different mount can dispute our respective claims.
Whoever argues with this facts is a fanboy period.
I liked a LOT Kingdoms of Amalur even with his problems it was a good game with a bunch of content i wasnt expecting anythng because it was a new entry, a new game, its different in DA:I because you had this previous 2 games in which you can see and compare how they delited and dumbed down the franchise.
Reading this post gave me a headache, thanks.
Which of "this facts" are you referring to?
The "dumbed down" part?
Because Origins is far more gilty of pandering than DAI. It literally shows you which NPC is important and holds your hand (via quest markers) throughout the entire game.
Whereas in Inquisition, you actually have to look for things.
I'm not sure what "delited" means.
I'm presuming that english isn't Fren's first language. I do hope it isn't anyway.
Facts:
--"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."
-- "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."
--"worthless MMO style fetch quests like Inquisition has."
--"you are COMPLETELY IGNORING all of the Origins side quests which involved multiple dialogue options and multiple ways to end a quest."
--"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"
--"there is a correlation between Open World games and meaningless fluff content."
--"Quality > Quantity "
--"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."
Extracted from the TC topic, you cant argue with facts you can like them or not but thats an opinion.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut