447 réponses à ce sujet

[BammBamm]

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.

 

still its a matter of shifting from presentation to impact of quests. i cant remember any quest in da:o that changed the world, only npcs. so they are both equal meaningfull or meaningless just with another focus. doesnt mean that the fetch quests are not a little to minimalistic, often they lack of introduction, finish and direct reward, but at least they often influence the world which fits for an open worldish game

[Maverick_One]

Most of the sidequests don't impact the open world. You can argue that it's a shift from "presentation" to the "impact" of the quests, but now the point changes from "DA:I has an overabundance of shitty fetchquests" to "the "impact" of the fetchquests isn't very well done"

 

The only sidequests that have any sort of visible impact in the world are the keeps, Crestwood town quest line, destroying the mage/templar strongholds in the Hinterlands (which just blows out a couple of fires and despawns them), clearing out the garrisons in the Exalted Plains, Sahrnia Quarry, and the Emerald Graves where Fairbanks and his crew just move places. All other quests you're just told you're making a difference - never shown. Meaning there is no impact in doing the majority of the quests when there is no real difference save but a few dialogue lines. That makes for a very poorly executed "impact of quests" design choice. So even if they went the "impact of quests" route, only a handful actually do it, and the rest do it poorly or do not do it at all.

 

The crux of the point still stands - irregardless of what their focus on quest design was ("presentation of quests" vs "impact of quests"), the vast majority of DA:I's sidequests are uninteresting and tedious.

To you. Not all players will agree. You can say it is this way or that way all you want, but it is still in your opinion, just like the a player who disagrees with you can't say it is fact that the vast majority of the side quest is enjoyable. Just because you don't like Fried Chicken and think it is the worst thing you ever tasted doesn't mean that it is fact that Fried Chicken is the worst thing ever tasted. 

[Frenrihr]

still its a matter of shifting from presentation to impact of quests. i cant remember any quest in da:o that changed the world, only npcs. so they are both equal meaningfull or meaningless just with another focus. doesnt mean that the fetch quests are not a little to minimalistic, often they lack of introduction, finish and direct reward, but at least they often influence the world which fits for an open worldish game

 

TC never argued about the impact of the world because there is not a tryhardandfail open world in DA:O or DA2 to begin with.

 

Im about to finish the game just the last 2 story missions and i have yet like 4 full areas of meaningless fetch quests to explore if at least the rewards were not meaningless i would care to do them BUT the only thing you get is power and inlfuence, power is bassically useles and farm influence its pointless, too much waste.

[outlaw1109]

Most of the sidequests don't impact the open world. You can argue that it's a shift from "presentation" to the "impact" of the quests, but now the point changes from "DA:I has an overabundance of shitty fetchquests" to "the "impact" of the fetchquests isn't very well done"

 

The only sidequests that have any sort of visible impact in the world are the keeps, Crestwood town quest line, destroying the mage/templar strongholds in the Hinterlands (which just blows out a couple of fires and despawns them), clearing out the garrisons in the Exalted Plains, Sahrnia Quarry, and the Emerald Graves where Fairbanks and his crew just move places. All other quests you're just told you're making a difference - never shown. Meaning there is no impact in doing the majority of the quests when there is no real difference save but a few dialogue lines. That makes for a very poorly executed "impact of quests" design choice. So even if they went the "impact of quests" route, only a handful of sidequests actually do it, and the rest do it poorly or do not do it at all.

 

The crux of the point still stands - irregardless of what their focus on quest design was ("presentation of quests" vs "impact of quests"), the vast majority of DA:I's sidequests are uninteresting and tedious.

You're actually incorrect.  I've mentioned several things:  ie, animal populations change.

Also, Fairbanks can be found at Skyhold after all is said and done.

There's much more impact than you give it credit for, but this line (ie, your point) is all about opinion:  "the vast majority of DAI's side quests are uninteresting and tedious."  

Uninteresting and tedious to YOU.
 

[BammBamm]

It's my opinion that the majority of these quests have no impact and are badly done? Or is it my opinion that they are tedious and uninteresting? Because #1 is not an opinion, while #2 also isn't. What is opinion is whether or not it detracts from your enjoyment of the game. For me, it did. For you, it supposedly didn't.

 

Also, simply crying out "opinion" as a get out of jail free card doesn't constitute as a sound argument. A lot of people call Twilight a bad book, which it is, and there's a million fangirls that disagree with them. In the end, no matter how many Twilight fangirls think Twilight is a good book, it's still a bad one.

 

maybe you should finish for example the hinterlands completly and wander a while around and then start a new character and enter the hinterlands and you will recognize how different it is. and in other maps the impact is way bigger you just doesnt get a big cutscene to show that things changed, but its undeniable most of the "meaningless" quests have a direct impact in the world, some minor (like people talking about it) some major (like changing in landscapes)

 

i think the problem is more about the playstyle as the quests itself. i remember the same problem in gw2 which get rid off quests and replaced it through events. many people complained about meaningless events without reason, but when you recognize there is a showed story before the event started and the outcome of the event was mainly seen after the event was finished it started to be very interesting to discover what lies beneath the surface. it was exploring the world and discover things without being it slammed in your face....and it was great. exactly the same is happening in inquisition

 

does anybody really think if the game would be full of bring me 10 X and your only reward is 5 power anybody would defend this system?

[Kulyok]

I think it really depended on the writers who did the quest. Take Crestwood. 

 

Main quest(which is a side quest of sorts, too, since you didn't need to help the village) was great, and it had a story behind it. A spirit who asks you to do a task for her? Great. An agent who asks you to find another Inquisition agent who is late(and you find his body) - interesting. Then there's a girl you convince or not convince to join the Wardens(and there's a *spoiler* crazy terrible and awesome consequences if she does join). I'm not spoiling the details, but it was well-written. It was interesting. Even the "kill that beast for me" mini-quest was great. And when I was done with that area, I truly didn't want to leave.

 

But take the Western Approach and those mindless fetch quests for a crazy draconologist. Take mindless tasks from the keep you have to conquer. Take Emerald Graves - the most beautiful area in the game, but you have to do what? Help some wannabe Robin Hood, who could be awesome but... isn't. Take the Exalted plains and those endless labyrinth battlements. Frankly, yes, I was bored.

 

So, I think it's about the writing, first and foremost. Fetch/kill quests can be good - Crestwood is a living example. But not every area is Crestwood, sadly.

 

 

 

(And also with all the mosaic pieces, codex entries and bottles lying around, it's nearly impossible to just play without consulting a guide every ten minutes. Which is rather annoying. )

[Maverick_One]

It's my opinion that the majority of these quests have no impact and are badly done? Or is it my opinion that they are tedious and uninteresting? Because #1 is not an opinion, while #2 also isn't. What is opinion is whether or not it detracts from your enjoyment of the game. For me, it did. For you, it supposedly didn't. But the title of this thread isn't "Did you find DA:I's sidequests enjoyable?", it's "DA:I has inferior sidequest design", so I don't get your response as it misses the point.

 

Also, simply crying out "OPINION!" as a get out of jail free card doesn't constitute as a sound argument. A lot of people call Twilight a bad book, which it is, and there's a million fangirls that disagree with them. In the end, no matter how many Twilight fangirls think Twilight is a good book, it's still a bad one.

Stating it is fact does not make it so. Again it is your opinion, Just because you or I think something is so doesn't mean it is fact. Just means we believe strongly in our opinion. You don't get my response because you are missing mine. To the op it might not compare to the original but to someone else it does. It is supreme arrogance to think mine, yours or the op's opinion should be fact.  Tell you what if you can prove that an overwhelming majority agrees with you then I might consider it to be fact. And can not be refuted.

[Frenrihr]

maybe you should finish for example the hinterlands completly and wander a while around and then start a new character and enter the hinterlands and you will recognize how different it is. and in other maps the impact is way bigger you just doesnt get a big cutscene to show that things changed, but its undeniable most of the "meaningless" quests have a direct impact in the world, some minor (like people talking about it) some major (like changing in landscapes)

 

i think the problem is more about the playstyle as the quests itself. i remember the same problem in gw2 which get rid off quests and replaced it through events. many people complained about meaningless events without reason, but when you recognize there is a showed story before the event started and the outcome of the event was mainly seen after the event was finished it started to be very interesting to discover what lies beneath the surface. it was exploring the world and discover things without being it slammed in your face....and it was great. exactly the same is happening in inquisition

 

does anybody really think if the game would be full of bring me 10 X and your only reward is 5 power anybody would defend this system?

 

The rewards are still useless power so... there is no incentive to finish areas AT ALL.

[BammBamm]

I did, and the only sidequest that changes things in the Hinterlands is wiping out the mage/templar stronghold. All it does is despawn them and wipe out the fires in the West Road. Another quest that changes the environment (wiping out the templars/mages at the CROSSROADS) is a part of the main questline and mandatory for progression in the game, which is why I did not include it, as this thread discusses sidequests.

 

only on example, the watchtowers for the farmers. and hell changing the spawns of a whole map is a BIG influence. but yeah you sense them as meaningless and there is nothing i can do about, but its still just an opinion and nothing more

[Frenrihr]

Stating it is fact does not make it so. Again it is your opinion, Just because you or I think something is so doesn't mean it is fact. Just means we believe strongly in our opinion. The impact from certain perspectives I will give you.  You don't get my response because you are missing mine. To the op it might not compare to the original but to someone else it does. It is supreme arrogance to think mine, yours or the op's opinion should be fact.  Tell you what if you can prove that an overwhelming majority agrees with you then I might consider it to be fact. And can not be refuted.

 

You are wrong, facts are not determined by the quantity of people that agrees with them,facts are a constant that dosent change based on people thoughts.

[Maverick_One]

What isn't fact is whether or not the bad sidequest design affected your overall enjoyment of the game. What is fact is that, collectively, the sidequests are uninteresting and tedious to go through. You can keep denying it, but again, closing your eyes won't make the Sun stop rising.

It was bad to you. Have the Devs came out and said it was a bad design? I get it that you don't like how it was designed. You think it was designed badly, but that is from your perspective. Does your perspective have more merit than someone's with a differing perspective? 

 

The truth is that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. It’s the Sun that’s motionless, and the Earth that’s moving around it. From our vantage point, it looks like the Sun is going around the Earth, because it’s actually the Earth that’s turning. The Earth rotates on its axis once every 24 hours, so that the Sun returns to the same position in the sky every day.  I am not trying to be a jerk just using your sun analogy to point out our perception is not always reality. And when talking about games unless it is an absolute disaster. X-Men Destiny is the one that comes to mind immediately it is hard for me to see anything as fact and not the opinion of an unhappy gamer.

[SpiritMuse]

What isn't fact is whether or not the bad sidequest design affected your overall enjoyment of the game. What is fact is that, collectively, the sidequests are uninteresting and tedious to go through. You can keep denying it, but again, closing your eyes won't make the Sun stop rising.

No. When there are people saying they don't find them uninteresting and tedious, it cannot be fact. If it were fact every single person would agree that this is true and it would be indisputable, but clearly that is not the case.

[Frenrihr]

When people call this quest meaningless its because of these:

 

--First you dont get any dialogue or cutscenes that make them interesting.

 

--They are marked on the map and you go to them and do them, some of this quest are even just a paper that you read and guide you to another part of the map to read another thing and end the "quest".

 

--They dont contribute to the main quest, their impact is 0 to the main quest.

 

--Spending time in doing them makes you feel disconnected from your character and the overall situation of the game and the characters.

 

--The rewards to doing the filler content is ridiculous and not worth it, power is useless and farming influence its pointless, not worth it.

 

 

We understand that not every single side quest has to be like this, BUT the problem is that in DA:I not a single side quest is like this every side quest is just filler content and thats about it.

 

Have they had cutscenes and dialogue and better rewards no one would complain about them, im gonna say it again, im 2 quest to finish the game and i have yet to explore 4 areas of the game and i dont want to and i will not do it because its not worth the time, the rewards are lame and the incentive to do them is null, which is a shame since the locations are pretty, it feels like so much wasted potential.

[BammBamm]

What did the watchtowers impact in the world, exactly? Can you name me one direct visual consequence (aka one that is shown to you instead of spoken of) that is there due to the watchtowers being built?

 

Templars/mages still spawn even if you destroy their strongholds. The spawn number is just reduced by a lot. And no, that isn't a big influence either. Their spawn rates weren't huge to begin with. This example was also included in my short list of "sidequests that actually have an impact". You said that there are others that also have an impact such as this sidequest, and listed the same sidequest I did.

 

You also failed to provide any examples for your previous claims. The majority of DA:I's sidequests are designed badly, that isn't opinion. You can continue thinking that it is and keep grasping at straws, but it isn't. But your argument for your point of view just got a lot weaker since you made claims for it that you didn't back up and now discarded them altogether.

 

first the watchtower itself (new buildings = change in landscape), second the stop of wolf spawns in the area. isnt that impact enough? wasnt that the whole point of the quest? what do you expect? farmers building temples to praise you because you helped them with their wolf problem?

 

examples for the impact are everywhere where are discussions about the quests from me and others, tired to repeat and repeat and repeat them for people that just try to ignore them. explore and discover things, same here as in the game

[SpiritMuse]

And there are millions of fangirls that disagree with other people calling Twilight a bad book. Regardless of what they think, Twilight is still objectively a bad book. In the same way, many of you BSN users can deny that DA:I has bad sidequest design, won't change the fact that it does.
 
Facts don't have to be forced upon you to be facts. They aren't some omnipresent force that is inserted into your mind at birth. Unless you think everyone on this earth operates and arrives to every single conclusion based on 100% factual information? Nor do they have to be held by everyone to be considered 100% undeniably true. Some people think vaccines cause autism. Some people think The Room is a good movie. Other people think Fifty Shades of Gray is a good book. Those things are all false. Just because you appear to think differently, doesn't negate facts. You can chalk this up to lack of insight, willful ignorance, or genuine stupidity. In the end, it doesn't matter, just because other people might disagree with facts, that doesn't stop them from being true.
 
You can find people disagreeing with objective information in life every day. Just because you have them disagreeing doesn't make that objective information any less objective.

Facts do have to be universally true and unchangeable to be facts. You can't "disagree" with a fact. You can dispute its existence, or its truthfulness, but not disagree.

"Some people think vaccines cause autism. Some people think The Room is a good movie. Other people think Fifty Shades of Gray is a good book. Those things are all false."

Those things are not all the same. Vaccines causing autism can be tested. It is either true or not. Wether books are good books or movies are good movies depends entirely on the opinion of the person watching them (barring technical flaws, of course). Sure, there can be a general consensus, but that does not make it the same as a universal fact.

[Maverick_One]

No. Do you think it's bad design only if the Devs come out and say it? Does a bad painter need to call his painting bad before establishing it as bad is valid? Also, do you think the Devs will ever directly come out and state that something in their game is bad? Unless the game received **** reviews and was universally panned, I don't see this happening. So that's quite an unrealistic and faulty point of reasoning.

 

You can keep repeating the same thing over and over again - it's still not opinion, as the majority of the sidequests are objectively bad. At least try making a concise argument for disagreeing instead of parroting the same subjectivity card that's pulled out every time there's a discussion on this forum.

 

And I'm not sure what your "perception is not always reality" is supposed to mean. "Sun rises in the morning" is figurative, because that is how it looks like to the people on Earth, meaning the Sun does not actually rise. "Sun rises in the morning" refers to the Earth orbiting the Sun, that results in our view of seeing the Sun rise up in the morning and receiving daylight.

 

 

Unless you seriously thought that I wasn't aware what was actually happening? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you intentionally misunderstood it as to appear that you have an argument when you don't.

Seems we are at an impasse. You can't comprehend how someone could have different view from you and still have been objective. If they disagree with you they are being subjective about it. As far as the sun part goes I was pointing out how it could appear to rise, but in reality it doesn't. That I even used it to try to get you to see where I am coming from would mean I figured you knew this. Me and you are two different people and just because you view something as bad does not mean I will. Doesn't mean I am being subjective.  

 

It does happen I can point you to an article where a Silicon Knights Whistle Blower talked about how bad a game actually was. The Journalist also found other devs who worked on the game who confirmed this to be the case.

[BammBamm]

That is not a "major change in landscape", as you claimed. Those are 3 minor watchtowers that do not do anything at all (and they don't affect the wolf spawn rate - not sure what you got that from). And the last point, if you consider three 10ft structures spread throughout the map as being "impactful", then I'll just say you're grasping at straws again.

 

"Farmers building temples to praise you because you helped them with their wolf problem?" - I'm not sure where you got this from either. Please point to the quest where this happens? The only wolf problem you solve is with the horsemasters wife, and she just thanks you. No temple is being built, and I completed 100% of the Hintelands multiple times. So I must have missed something, or you're fabricating it.

 

"Examples for the impact are everywhere where discussions about the quests from me and others" - well, excuse me, but I'm not going to scour through your posts to make up for your lack of examples. I'll ask you to provide examples again - it's not my issue that you're bored of giving them over and over again. If you knew you weren't going to be able to provide examples, then maybe you should not have made claims that required you to do exactly that.

 

never said the watchtowers are a major change nor somebody will build a temple for you

 

and i gave examples, if you want more do your research. all you do is say the examples are still meaningless denying the fact they have an impact in some way and nothing else was claimed by me and others

[SpiritMuse]

I never said they don't have to be universally true - I said a fact does not require for everyone to agree with it.
 
"Those things are not all the same. Vaccines causing autism can be tested. It is either true or not. Wether books are good books or movies are good movies depends entirely on the opinion of the person watching them (barring technical flaws, of course). Sure, there can be a general consensus, but that does not make it the same as a universal fact. "
 
Considering there are standards and examples for what good and bad books/movies are, then yes, we can arrive to a conclusion on whether or not a book or a movie is collectively good or bad which is universally correct and independent of what someone that disagrees thinks. In the same way, there is a standard, and examples, for what good and bad quest design is, and Inquisition is the fulfills the bad part..

Facts cannot be disagreed with, that's the nature of them. I think something is interesting, you don't, that's an opinion, not fact. I think something is horrible, you think it's good, that's an opinion, too.

Sure, there are standards that determine "good" or "bad" movies but those are consensus, agreements. Plenty of people who hold stuff to different standards and come to different conclusions for what is bad or good. To come back to video games, some people consider a game "bad" if it's easy. Me, I love when games are easy so that would make me consider a game "good".

It's that simple. Whether these fetch quests are bad or good is opinion, not fact. For people who like them, it's good. For people who don't, it's bad.

[Maverick_One]

I comprehend that you have a different viewpoint. I'm just saying that no matter how hard you deny it, it's wrong.

Wrong to you. You are not me. I can't just automatically like or not like something because you or the op doesn't or does like something. Doesn't make me wrong just makes me on the other side of the fence as you. Somethings we will agree on like our views on Twilight.

[nici2412]

If someone is interested in the view of people outside of BSN on the sidequests in Inqusition, there is a thread about this particular topic on Neogaf. It has 350+ replies so far and I would say more than 90% of the posters agree that the questdesign in this game is horrible.

http://www.neogaf.co...ad.php?t=961552

 

I really don't get what the defenders are trying to achieve. We should clearly point out the weaknesses in particular areas of the game, so that Bioware can do it better in the next game. Or does here anybody really prefer the simple mmo-fetch-quests in Inqusition to actually well written sidequestlines with cutscenes, choices, interesting stories and quest-mechanics?

[Maverick_One]

No, it does. You are wrong - but you're not wrong on liking the game despite it's shortcomings. Unless you really think I'm calling you wrong on liking the game?

So you think someone who does like a game design that you view as a bad is wrong for liking the game design? 

[Maverick_One]

If someone is interested in the view of people outside of BSN on the sidequests in Inqusition, there is a thread about this particular topic on Neogaf. It has 350+ replies so far and I would say more than 90% of the posters agree that the questdesign in this game is horrible.

http://www.neogaf.co...ad.php?t=961552

 

I really don't get what the defenders are trying to achieve. We should clearly point out the weaknesses in particular areas of the game, so that Bioware can do it better in the next game. Or does here anybody really prefer the simple mmo-fetch-quests in Inqusition to actually well written sidequestlines with cutscenes, choices, interesting stories and quest-mechanics?

I get what you both are saying. I just can't call it a fact. If you and submerged can get the changes you want to DA 4 more power to you. When it comes to people's likes and dislikes I can see how it could be consensus but don't see how it is fact. Maybe the defenders really feel like they claim. One can never account for taste can they?

[Maverick_One]

No? I don't know how you can possibly miss this part, as it was in my previous posts, multiple times. I'm not calling you wrong on liking the game design. I'm calling you wrong on calling the sidequest design "good", which it is not. You can think that it's good, but it's not. I wasn't arguing whether or not you like it, nor was my issue ever with that. There is a difference between liking something and recognizing it as good or bad.

To me if I like something it is good if not it is bad. Simple as that. No rights no wrongs. Not in this instance.  I would agree completely if say we were talking about a car design, or something where there was a possible safety issue or something like that. In video games it is harder on the rare occasion when a dev says yeah we messed up, or no one likes the game and everyone agrees yeah I will concede it is bad. On this when people are divided as we are I can't call it a fact. 

 

Say I design a computer for 11 people. 6 don't like the design but the other 5 loved it. To those 6 it was a bad design, but to those 5 it was a good design. Now it would be argued the majority thinks it is a bad design but does it really make those other 5 wrong for liking the design?

[SpiritMuse]

They can - again, that's why you have people still claiming that vaccines cause autism. Facts do not force you to agree with them. In the end, the decision is yours. However, if you decide the opposite, that won't change the reality of the situation.
 
There's a reason that consensus is reached. It's very hard not to claim it's objective - because if you actually spend a considerable amount of time thinking upon that consensus you will realize why it's there, even though you might have previously disagreed. Or are you going to tell me Shakespeare is only valued by kooks and pretentious wackjobs? Or that Tolstoy only appears to have good writing because of some arbitrary consensus? Or that Mozart wasn't objectively a great musician? You may not enjoy Mozart and his music personally, but he is still objectively good.
 
You can go ahead and claim that Shakespeare wasn't a good poet or a dramatist, that Tolstoy was a **** writer, or that Mozart was an inept joke. But people will just laugh at you because it's not the problem in the figures you're describing, it's in your lack of insight and crucial misunderstanding of what makes them "good" at what they do.
 
It's not opinion that they're bad. DA:I fills the areas with the same as bare bones as possible formulaic fetchquests that have little to no variety between them. While DA:I does have some good sidequests, everything else, which is the majority, consists of lazy fetchquests, which undermines any sort of effect the good sidequests had. So yes, repetitive sidequest design, little to no variety, minimal content in said sidequests, that is bad quest design, and that is the quest design in most of DA:I's sidequests and as a consequence, that is what makes DA:I's sidequests bad. It's not an opinion. Again, what's opinion is whether or not it bothers you and sours your overall game experience.

Again, facts is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. But I'm done with this. You seem incapable of understanding that fact =/= opinion you agree with. So I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain. Pretend that means I've run out of arguments and you win if you must. I have better things to do.

If someone is interested in the view of people outside of BSN on the sidequests in Inqusition, there is a thread about this particular topic on Neogaf. It has 350+ replies so far and I would say more than 90% of the posters agree that the questdesign in this game is horrible.
http://www.neogaf.co...ad.php?t=961552
 
I really don't get what the defenders are trying to achieve. We should clearly point out the weaknesses in particular areas of the game, so that Bioware can do it better in the next game. Or does here anybody really prefer the simple mmo-fetch-quests in Inqusition to actually well written sidequestlines with cutscenes, choices, interesting stories and quest-mechanics?

What I have a problem with is the implication that a lot of these posts make that the people who do like the quests as they are, or simply don't have a problem with them, are somehow inferior or stupid for disagreeing. Often these posts are also personally insulting towards the makers of the game, which is just uncalled for.

[Maverick_One]

Well, not everyone holds the same arbitrary requirements at which point one might consider a game "bad". I don't think I've ever met anyone who needs a dev to call their game bad to actually think that that game might be bad before.

 

And no, simply being divisive of something doesn't make it strictly opinion. I'll give you the same example again - millions of Twilight fangirls think that the book is good, it's still bad. Simply having people disagree with you does not change something from a "fact" to an "opinion" - in this case, and in yours, the Twilight fangirls simply don't know what makes something good or bad literature, aka they lack proper insight and thus their opinion is largely irrelevant, while people who think that DA:I's sidequests aren't bad might not actually realize why the design the sidequests follow is bad. You might enjoy this sidequest design, but that does not make it good, nor does it remove its low quality. That was the whole point of my posts. Enjoyment and quality are two different things that are not always necessarily linked.

 

Anyway, this is getting us nowhere so I'll stop messaging you now.

I just don't think I am entitled to call something bad that others like. I look at is I just don't like it. Doesn't necessarily make it bad. Just not to my liking. On the other hand if a number of devs came and said they worked on this game and it was just phoned in, and it was rubbish as a result. Who am I to argue with the devs?