447 réponses à ce sujet

[outlaw1109]

Animal populations are not due to the sidequests. It's due to the "WORLDMASTER" system they developed. So, nothing to do with sidequests. Also, "animal populations" is certainly not "several things". It's one thing and it's not even relevant to the topic at hand.

 

And I'm not sure what Fairbanks being at Skyhold has to do with this. What did I directly impact, exactly? An NPC's location?

 

"There's much more impact than you give it credit for,"

 

Examples?

 

"Uninteresting and tedious to YOU."

 

It's not, though. They're objectively uninteresting and tedious. Just because you're contrarian doesn't make it not true. Again, millions of fangirls disagree with people calling Twilight a bad book. Twilight is still a bad book. If I close my eyes, does the sun stop rising in the morning?

Actually, while I don't enjoy Twilight, that all depends on what you call a bad book...would you measure success by the amount of sales, for example, or gross income?  Because, while that book may not have appealed to you, but it DID appeal to "millions of fangirls", which, I imagine, was by design.

"Objectively uninteresting and tedious" would mean that EVERYONE found them that way.  This thread is actual proof to the contrary.

My post was in response to someone else's post, hence why I quoted it.  I gave ONE example of the world changing because of player actions.  Which, again, the context would be found in the quoted text.

So, picking out all the parts of my response and leaving out what they were in response to, is taking it out of context completely (literally, as it happens).

Troll much?

Why would people defend such a thing?  Because we don't think it needs to be changed, maybe?  

[Lianaar]

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 am not a defender in saying the design is good.
My goal is this: saying 'oh it is horrible' gets us nothing. Because lots of people said DA:2 is horrible and then complain DA:I is not the way they wanted. I want peole to be explicit in their wish on how to better ir. Complainint something is bad is not the way. Saying what is good gets you something, more of the things that is good. Wether that good is in the game you talk about or not is a different thing. But there must be an example on what you want, not in general terms such as 'good' quests, but more in terms of 'more cinematics' or 'different outcomes' etc. Those complaints are valid wether I agree with them or not, because they are progressive. They want a goal and they strive to achieve it. That is the point.

Whining and complaining gets none nothing. So there it is. I hope to see people on all sides (for there are not only two sides to this thread) expressing their exact wish on what to do, and not on what not to do. (Let's skip terms such as filler quest, interesting stories or well written, for those are so very much subjective. Something boring to me is fun for thousands of people and something boring to you might be also engaging and fun for a different thousands of people.)

[outlaw1109]

Trying to spin the definition of a "bad book" just because you willingly refuse to accept the analogy isn't very convincing. It was obvious I was not calling Twilight a commercial failure - which it isn't, but when someone calls a literary piece "bad" they usually mean it's bad from a literary perspective, not a money gaining one. Just like DA:I's sidequest design is bad from a design perspective, not a money gaining one.

 

Nope, I can just keep using the Twilight example over and over again. **** book, yet millions of teenage girls think it's good. Just like DA:I's sidequest design, it's ****, yet some people think it's good.

 

And no, I wasn't taking things "out of context". The post you responded to was me replying to someone else, and the post I responded to was you replying to my response #1.

 

So, how could it possibly be taken "out of context", when the person you were replying to was myself, thus they were not taken out of context as a reply to someone else, and your examples were nowhere to be found since you brought them up in your initial response to me, and you are the one that started the discussion between the two of us?

Oh, my mistake.  In that case, my point about the animal respawns was just laziness on my part because I didn't want to re-list everything I had said in previous posts.  
You, in this case, had said that the side quests don't "change" anything. 

Someone said that mages/templars never stop respawning, but they do.  One change.  You build watch towers to secure the Hinterlands, bandit encounters decrease.  Two.  You kill a specific group of bandits; they don't return.  Three.  You can speak to a healer, do a couple "fetch quests" for her and actually have her relocate to help refugees.  Four.  You can recruit some of the refugees for the Inquisition.  (they actually leave the area).  Five.

And that's just the Hinterlands, off the top of my head.  I've also mentioned a couple of other scenarios regarding agents, but they, apparently, aren't counted as side-quests because...well, IDK, Origins didn't have them.  I found many of them (of those that I've gathered) to have easily overlooked dialogue with the Inquisitor.

It's not "spinning" the definition of "bad book" to ask what you consider to be a "bad book".  That's the problem with stating your preferences are fact.  YOUR definition of bad is different than mine.  I don't like Twilight, but that doesn't devalue the "millions of fangirls" opinions.  

Ever read a book (any of them) by Hemmingway?  The ONLY reason i have is because of a college requirement.  In which, it was shown that what was entertaining literature back in the day, would be a "non-seller" in today's world, and thereby "bad".  It wouldn't matter how good the content was, because the number of people reading it would be so low, that the author would probably have a great deal of trouble getting another book published in the first place.

Stupid people, I guess, because they don't all agree that Hemmingway's writing was great, when everyone loved him back in the day.  How dare they have such an opinion?

Saying that your opinion is fact or the only one that matters is actually a mental disorder.  True story.
 

[Lianaar]

Burning houses also don't burn any more. I know, it is not a plot, but an effect. A neat touch, even if not relevant to the quest discussion.

Not that I would not be willing to give it up for more dialogue options I can always agree to more dialogue options. But I am extreme. I am willing to give up all the combat for more dialogue options and I don't even guess how much a minority that opinion is

[outlaw1109]

"You, in this case, had said that the side quests don't "change" anything."

 

No I didn't. That's the opposite of what I said. I said some side quests change something, some do it very very poorly and most of them do change anything.

 

The mages/templars is the only sidequest in the Hinterlands that actually changes anything - the environment. They don't stop respawning, their respawn times are just very scarce.

 

Watchtowers got nothing to do with bandit spawns.

 

The bandits don't return - but they still spawn. Unless you think that sidequests having impact equals enemies not returning once you wipe them out? By that logic, Skyrim is the king of impactful sidequests.

 

The Hinterlands Healer just changes locations. She doesn't actually do anything there - nothing is fundamentally changed about the world.

 

And yeah, recruiting the refugees gets them into the Inqusition. And no, they don't move, they are still there. Only Corporal Vale is gone. What impact did this quest have, again? And not a mechanical one, mind you. By that logic, every quest ever has impact because it gives you XP, aka makes you stronger.

 

If you can prove that something is changed if you get the agents or not - outside of the 5% bonus, which would go towards the logic of "every quest is impactful because it gives XP" - then the agents matter.

 

It is spinning, though. You know very well what someone means by "bad book". You're just trying to change the definition of that because you think that makes for an argument. Point still stands - Twilight is a bad book. I don't care if you think it isn't a "bad book" because you think it sold well, since I wasn't speaking about how much money it made, which makes your entire point irrelevant. Twilight fangirls genuinely think Twilight is a good piece of fiction, when it's objectively not. Just like you think DA:I's sidequests design is good, when 90% of it isn't.

 

And I don't see what you're trying to say with the Hemingway example. You think things are good only if they are commercially successful? Sorry friend, that's not how it is. When people talk about a "good" book or a "good" movie, they don't talk about how much money it made, they talk about the standards of what a "good" book or movie is, then compare it to that piece of work. Whether or not Hemingway would be popular today is irrelevant, because the quality of his work is not judged by its number of sales, but by its literary quality.

 

No doubt you're preparing to say "we have different definitions of what a bad book is", which is just moving the goalposts, being pedantic and missing the point entirely, so I'll just word it simply: Twilight isn't a good work of literary fiction, no matter how many teenage girls think otherwise. In the same way, DA:I's sidequest design is collectively bad, no matter how many people think otherwise.

 

You can of course, yell "OPINION!", as many times as you like, but like Twilight, it's still bad, regardless of what other people may think.

Actually, your assessment of what I was going to say next is funny.

My point dragging sales, or in your limited view, money into it, is the amount of people reading it.

What's the point, exactly, of writing a book that colllects dust?  So...what, people can NOT read it?  Doesn't matter how good it is, if no one reads the written words, you might as well not make it a book.

Michael Bay is a good example of what "intellectuals" would call a "bad" director.  However, his movies are still popular.  The same as the Twilight books.  Must be something about them that isn't terrible because they're still insanely popular.  Actually, what I'm taking away from this is that you think of yourself as better than millions of "teenage girls" you don't actually know anything about.  

Which returns to my original point:  you call it bad, but if it entertains (thereby, completing it's purpose) millions of people, is it really "bad"?

Better yet:  since millions of people are entertained by those books, is there something wrong with you or I for not finding them entertaining?

Also, I just check in the Hinterlands and...no mages or templars to speak of.  Perhaps a bug on your end, because there aren't any bandits there either...but it must be that their spawn timer has been toned way down, because this is my first play through and it's been ages since I've been here...(like 80hrs of gameplay).

[Baerdface]

I just replayed Star Wars Knights Of The Old Republic and side quests there just blow any other Bioware game out of the water. 

 

Over the years only things that evolved in game design are graphics and technology. Writing hasn't reached a peak as much as people claim it has. More than anything writing now is just topical nonsense far up its own ass. Last Of Us and Gone Home hasn't done anything new, sorry to burst the bubble.

 

Also a reminder that masterpieces like Silent Hill 2 and Deus Ex came out over 10 years ago.

[Lianaar]

You can, of course, keep yelling "OPINION!" as many times as you like, but like Twilight, it's still bad, regardless of what other people may think.

I couldn't force myself to read Twilight, but my daughter loves it and wasn't willing to read anything for ages. My mother-in-law and my best friend loves it too. No clue why.

But now we are getting into ontology (I wish I knew the proper English term). The distinction between real and true. For TRUE is an objectively existing thing, no matter how many people believe in it, while real is something that might or might not exist objectively, but due to people believing it exists.

We can never see what is true, but we can very well see what is real, and we can claim something is real based on the many people who believe it (eg. God, who is real for sure, but wether he is true is debatable) or we can claim this is real for a certain person or a certain group of people.

 

So Twilight is based on the amount of fans it has, no matter the age group or education level (for I listed three different age groups and three different education levels with it) is realistically a good book. But might be a truely bad one. If you take a different perspective it is realistically a bad book. Real truths can be valid despite being totally contradictionary.

Based on filosophy at least. So if you go down that road, I might consider your statement wrong, well... based on opinion, since filosophy is all about opinions

 

Sorry for the off. Couldn't resist.

 

I still think it would add more to the topic if we focused what we would like to see more in terms of non-abstract emotional level, but in codable content, such as: numerically more words and conversation trees with more branches or more npcs with dialogue options or whatever your shoe is. I am curious to see what is most commonly favored in regards of that.

[outlaw1109]

No, Michael Bay movies and Twilight books are still pretty terrible. They might be entertaining, but as pieces of film and pieces of literary fiction, they're terrible. There's a fine line between something being entertaining and something being of good quality. Although something you find entertaining is often something that is also very good - something that is entertaining can also be something that isn't very good.

 

No, I don't find myself above Twilight fangirls, but you can keep trying to paint me as such. I was simply pointing out that just because a lot of people disagree with Twilight being bad, that doesn't make it any less bad. I have a hard time seeing where I was flaunting my superiority here- the purpose of this analogy wasn't to **** on Twilight fangirls, but to demonstrate that you don't have to have everyone agreeing on something for it to be fact.

 

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not telling you you're wrong about finding the game entertaining. I'm not telling you you're wrong about finding the SIDEQUESTS entertaining. Twilight fangirls have a right to call the books entertaining, as do Michael Bay fans do with his movies, as do BW fans do with their games. I'm telling you you're wrong when you say that the sidequest design isn't, collectively, bad. Which is a fact. The opinion here is whether or not it bothers you. It bothers me. It didn't bother you, and I'm fine with that.

 

And I never said that that example with the mages/templars was bad. Indeed, if you read a post 1-2 pages behind, you can find a list of sidequests that I thought actually had tangible impact, and wiping out the templar/mage strongholds in the Hinterlands was among them. I said that they (seemingly) don't 100% completely despawn, which is true, but just a minor detail.

Haha, you're right.  It is a misunderstanding.  No, they don't "despawn" but they do stop spawning.

Funny thing is:  alot of my points in this thread is that Bioware doesn't have a long history of "great sidequests" behind them.  IE:  The difference between Origin sidequests and DAI's are the luster and not the mechanics.  Strip away the cutscene conversations and you end up with the same, "go get this, bring it back" quests.

The topic title being why people think Inquisiton SQ's are better than origins or some such nonsense.

The answer, IMO, is neither.  They are par for the course when it comes to Bioware games.

Also, I wasn't trying to "paint" anything about you, it was just what your tone about the topic portrayed.  IE:  "teenage fangirls".  My fiancee is a fan-girl, but far from teenage.

[Lianaar]

However, we have examples of superior food, superior design (in games, graphic design, etc.), superior books, superior movies, etc. So while you CAN argue that, at a philosophical level, everything is indeed "subjective", we still have a degree of objectivity in the world, as demonstrated by things that have superior quality over the same things that have inferior quality.

 

If you're just wondering why I'm even posting, I just want to get the criticism up. I'm not here to hate, I just found the sidequest design to be by far the most deplorable and laziest thing in the game, and considering previous games in BW's arsenal, it's not like they can't do better. And I find it hard to imagine you would not like to go back to the better sidequests we had in previous games.

No, not really. you think they are superior, but you'll always find a lot of people who will argue it, based on their culture, their age, their preference. There is no general good, general superior. Just look at what is considered beautiful by people in different cultures or different eras. You won't find two matching ideals or superiors, it just doesn't exist. All the core elements, that is needed for a book we consider now superior just isn't the same in what they used to consider so or what is so in a different culture. Humanity is way more diverse then that. I consider eg Fightclub to be superior cult movie, it was so in Europe, but it was a total failure in the US, enough to get its producer fired, if I recall right. The idea of it being superior is not a fact. It being well recieved in Europe is a fact.

Statements of this nature must be considered within a scope, be that culture, era, religion, gender, lifestage, time of all emotionally invovled moments (in my language it is called the 'lived age' meaning the time you actually will remember no matter what happens to you - no clue for English term).

 

I don't mind criticism. I don't expect you to read back either, I never really check who said what in the long run, for I am too lazy for that. But I am foor  critisim, provided it is constructive. Say what you WANT, and not what you HATE. Or yes, list what you hate, but list also how would you change it? What exactly is that makes a certain plot good for you and another not so good? What is your definition, key building stones of superiority. And don't use general terms such as a good engaging story driven plotline, for that is way too different for individual people. Try to crop down your preferences to things that can be numerically expressed or which can be drawn down like a flowing chart etc. See what I am hoping to find? A lot of people here are quite skilled and good with expressing their opinions elaborately (on all sides of the conversation, and despite having a different opinion visibly incl. you too), so I am positive my hope can be achieved if the focus of the talk shifts somewhat. If we want to progress.

 

I also understand it is very difficult a task I ask for, because most often people have a general feeling, but conversations like this thread help with realising what it is that troubles you in the quests, what does not work for you in them.

[Lianaar]

So your claim is, to sum it up, that the game would be better if there were simply less quests, for those that you list as low quality fetch quests should be cut.
The question: would that not make the world have an empty feel? What is more important? Filling the world or cutting out the quests you list (I hated the bottles too).

[Baerdface]

So your claim is, to sum it up, that the game would be better if there were simply less quests, for those that you list as low quality fetch quests should be cut.
The question: would that not make the world have an empty feel? What is more important? Filling the world or cutting out the quests you list (I hated the bottles too).

 

Filling the world with pointless **** somehow makes it seem more alive and interesting? How about making a smaller world then? Bioware overextended with their ridiculous ambition to make Skyrim. Less and smaller areas with better multiple choice quests with proper amount of NPC dialogue is how Bioware always rolled and it always worked for them. Star Wars Knights Of The Old Republic had that, smaller areas with interesting quests. Mass Effect had that. Dragon Age Origins had that. Inquisition completely failed in that regard.

 

I'm sorry if you feel that making cleptomaniac porn somehow makes the games better. I play RPG's for dialogue and character building, not collecting herbs. Big and empty doesn't bring me a sense of adventure or pique my interest in any way. Just a big playground with nothing in it.

[Lianaar]

Ugh, I find all the Asian games to be horrible in regards of game and graphic design. People of that culture have different ideas of how to enjoy a game then me, so you must have a different approach to them. Be that game design, marketing, books, movies.

You still present your opinion as a fact, which it is not. But there, we got to a point where we can only agree to disagree and we talk in circles.
You say - this is fact, you are wrong in calling it opinion.
I say - this is opinion, you are wrong to call it fact.

 

I wonder if there is a way to move away from it?

[Lianaar]

Filling the world with pointless **** somehow makes it seem more alive and interesting? How about making a smaller world then? Bioware overextended with their ridiculous ambition to make Skyrim. Less and smaller areas with better multiple choice quests with proper amount of NPC dialogue is how Bioware always rolled and it always worked for them. Star Wars Knights Of The Old Republic had that, smaller areas with interesting quests. Mass Effect had that. Dragon Age Origins had that. Inquisition completely failed in that regard.

Nah, I didn't say it makes it more alive. I asked if it would not make it emptier.
I have expressed often enough, that DA:I is too big for me, as I prefer the story driving style of DA:2 the most, I am not bothered by scenery

But if we strip down the anger from your text, we can come to something: less maps and no achievement sort of quest is your thing. While I enjoy DA:I, I also am fine with less quests and cutting off any and all achievement sort of quests.

[Lianaar]

Less and smaller areas with better multiple choice quests with proper amount of NPC dialogue is how Bioware always rolled and it always worked for them.

There, that's what is important for me.
I can accept that and I am not opposed to it in any way.

[Baerdface]

Nah, I didn't say it makes it more alive. I asked if it would not make it emptier.
I have expressed often enough, that DA:I is too big for me, as I prefer the story driving style of DA:2 the most, I am not bothered by scenery

But if we strip down the anger from your text, we can come to something: less maps and no achievement sort of quest is your thing. While I enjoy DA:I, I also am fine with less quests and cutting off any and all achievement sort of quests.

 

There's no anger in my text. It's how discussions work. People seem to forget that discussions can be passionate. They have this weird misconception that everyone has to be a robot when expressing themselves. Just look on youtube of any intellecuals arguing, it can get quite heated. There's nothing wrong with showing passion. Deadpan and passive way of presenting an argument is not very stimulating.

[Lianaar]

There's no anger in my text. It's how discussions work. People seem to forget that discussions can be passionate. They have this weird misconception that everyone has to be a robot when expressing themselves. Just look on youtube of any intellecuals arguing, it can get quite heated. There's nothing wrong with showing passion. Deadpan and passive way of presenting an argument is not very stimulating.

I apologise, I change anger to passion then. You are right that I had no base to judge the direction of it.
And you are right, it was a presumption on my part that people like to discuss thing my style, which is more a calm, less passionat sort of way. I am not saying this is better or worse, just how I and people around me usually do. It is stimulating to us, but I can easily accept it doesn't work for others. So I stand corrected.

[Nefla]

What is this thread even about anymore? How does arguing against each other's personal taste and insulting each other help anything? If the things that are important to you in a quest are exploration and combat then of course you'll probably like the majority of DA:I sidequests: go here(exploration) and kill this (combat). If you like character interaction/roleplay/branching choice/etc...then you'll be disappointed like I was. What did DA:I do right (so BW can do it again in the future), what could they improve? I think the main story quests were great, the companions were top notch as always as were their personal quests, the judgments were fun as well and despite how empty it feels to me, the world is gorgeous. Things that would have improved the game for me:

 

-If the main quests were more tied in to each zone. Most of them are in their own self contained map separate from the world at large. I would prefer if there were elements of the main story quests do be done in each zone to give you an excuse to go there and that it would be longer and more involved than "meet Varric's warden ally in a cave." It would also go a long way in making "collect 4 druffalo hides" type quests more palatable to those that find them boring because you'd be doing them along the way rather than those quests being the only reason you're in a zone.

 

-If there were bigger, more in depth side quests included as well as the simple "go here, get/kill this" quests. Quests with NPCs that you have several dialogue interactions with that allow you to roleplay as well as make branching choices ex: save a group of refugees from being burned in a fire(but the one who started the fire escapes) vs run after the person who started the fire (but the refugees die) something like that. If they included things like puzzles, good and unique gear as a reward, the ability to talk to enemy (boss) NPCs before you fight them and maybe convince them to go away/join the inquisition instead of fighting. If there was one main, long, multipart quest with these elements in each area I'd be excited.

 

-More smaller quests that give you flavor choices. It doesn't have to be anything epic or plot related or even effect the zone at all, but it would help you roleplay and define your character. There's a Dalish woman in the Exalted Plains who's brother is missing and you can tell her his fate in different ways such as "he died trying to save this artifact of our people" or "he was a foolish kid who got in over his head" or "he used blood magic and brought this on himself." It's not the most amazing example and I do prefer something along the lines of "Zerlinda's Woe" from DA:O but it's definitely better than nothing.

 

-More NPCs that you can talk to (not quest givers or people involved in quests) to get more information about the area, what's happening, and to flesh out the world more. Most NPCs in DA:I are non interactive. You can only talk to a select few and those few are all quest involved.

 

-In an open world without safe zones, I wish the NPCs reacted to enemies. If you're being chased through the crossroads by a bear for example, the inquisition soldiers don't help and the villagers continue to stand there doing nothing rather than running away. It just adds more illusion of life to the game.

 

-Cutscenes or zoom/pan over new or unique enemies, and this goes for the story missions too. If it wasn't for the tactical camera showing names over the targets, I wouldn't have known those "guys in funny hats" were actually darkspawn and it wasn't until my 3rd playthrough that I used the tactical camera to zoom in on a red Templar and see what they actually looked like (I was surprised by the shark teeth and messed up face) not to mention that random enemy NPC I fought in Haven was actually

Spoiler

grand enchanter Fiona

I think bosses deserve some fanfare at least.

 

-I'd scale waaaay down on the quest based completely on codex entries. If the only characters and story content in a quest are what's written down in a short note or codex entry then why is it considered a "quest" at all? This is the kind of thing that used to be found just for flavor (like the journal entries in Crestwood) or only occasionally (Topsider's honor, Crosscut Drifters) and now they're considered story quests and there are a lot of them. The main zone quests all use notes and codex entries instead of NPCs and actually seeing what's going on and there are a ton of others as well.  

[Maverick827]

What is this thread even about anymore? How does arguing against each other's personal taste and insulting each other help anything? If the things that are important to you in a quest are exploration and combat then of course you'll probably like the majority of DA:I sidequests: go here(exploration) and kill this (combat). If you like character interaction/roleplay/branching choice/etc...then you'll be disappointed like I was. What did DA:I do right (so BW can do it again in the future), what could they improve? I think the main story quests were great, the companions were top notch as always as were their personal quests, the judgments were fun as well and despite how empty it feels to me, the world is gorgeous. Things that would have improved the game for me:
 
-If the main quests were more tied in to each zone. Most of them are in their own self contained map separate from the world at large. I would prefer if there were elements of the main story quests do be done in each zone to give you an excuse to go there and that it would be longer and more involved than "meet Varric's warden ally in a cave." It would also go a long way in making "collect 4 druffalo hides" type quests more palatable to those that find them boring because you'd be doing them along the way rather than those quests being the only reason you're in a zone.
 
-If there were bigger, more in depth side quests included as well as the simple "go here, get/kill this" quests. Quests with NPCs that you have several dialogue interactions with that allow you to roleplay as well as make branching choices ex: save a group of refugees from being burned in a fire(but the one who started the fire escapes) vs run after the person who started the fire (but the refugees die) something like that. If they included things like puzzles, good and unique gear as a reward, the ability to talk to enemy (boss) NPCs before you fight them and maybe convince them to go away/join the inquisition instead of fighting. If there was one main, long, multipart quest with these elements in each area I'd be excited.
 
-More smaller quests that give you flavor choices. It doesn't have to be anything epic or plot related or even effect the zone at all, but it would help you roleplay and define your character. There's a Dalish woman in the Exalted Plains who's brother is missing and you can tell her his fate in different ways such as "he died trying to save this artifact of our people" or "he was a foolish kid who got in over his head" or "he used blood magic and brought this on himself." It's not the most amazing example and I do prefer something along the lines of "Zerlinda's Woe" from DA:O but it's definitely better than nothing.
 
-More NPCs that you can talk to (not quest givers or people involved in quests) to get more information about the area, what's happening, and to flesh out the world more. Most NPCs in DA:I are non interactive. You can only talk to a select few and those few are all quest involved.
 
-In an open world without safe zones, I wish the NPCs reacted to enemies. If you're being chased through the crossroads by a bear for example, the inquisition soldiers don't help and the villagers continue to stand there doing nothing rather than running away. It just adds more illusion of life to the game.
 
-Cutscenes or zoom/pan over new or unique enemies, and this goes for the story missions too. If it wasn't for the tactical camera showing names over the targets, I wouldn't have known those "guys in funny hats" were actually darkspawn and it wasn't until my 3rd playthrough that I used the tactical camera to zoom in on a red Templar and see what they actually looked like (I was surprised by the shark teeth and messed up face) not to mention that random enemy NPC I fought in Haven was actually

Spoiler

grand enchanter Fiona

I think bosses deserve some fanfare at least.
 
-I'd scale waaaay down on the quest based completely on codex entries. If the only characters and story content in a quest are what's written down in a short note or codex entry then why is it considered a "quest" at all? This is the kind of thing that used to be found just for flavor (like the journal entries in Crestwood) or only occasionally (Topsider's honor, Crosscut Drifters) and now they're considered story quests and there are a lot of them. The main zone quests all use notes and codex entries instead of NPCs and actually seeing what's going on and there are a ton of others as well.

I couldn't like this post twice so I quoted it.

[Nefla]

I couldn't like this post twice so I quoted it.

And I love you random citizen!

[leaguer of one]

Here's a good page for you.

 

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. 

So wrong.

 

in Brecilian forest you have the theive quest and crows quest. And you have 2 revents to fight. Orzammar have you do the shaprate quest, a crows quest, finding nugs, saving a sick noble,

And yes the board quest count as side quest. That the majority of the side quest in the game. and don't use the it's optional excuse...there all optional. they count as back tracking.

[pinkjellybeans]

So wrong.

 

in Brecilian forest you have the theive quest and crows quest. And you have 2 revents to fight. Orzammar have you do the shaprate quest, a crows quest, finding nugs, saving a sick noble,

And yes the board quest count as side quest. That the majority of the side quest in the game. and don't use the it's optional excuse...there all optional. they count as back tracking.

 

 

The revenants quest (if we're talking about the same thing) can be done while you're out in the forest doing the werewolf quest. The nugs can be found all across Orzammar while you're doing other things. And I didn't say the Chanter's board and whatnot aren't sidequests, I just said they are extra sidequests that involve other areas therefore are more difficult to complete and less straightforward than the region sidequests. (Even though not all of those quests involve different areas. There are a few Chanter's board quests in Lothering that ask you to go kill some bears and bandits and find a woman. So they can be completed in that particular place).

 

Maybe we have different definitions of backtracking. To me, a backtracking quest was for example, Dagna's quest, where in order to complete it you have to go to the circle and then come back to Orzammar to give her the news, even if you don't have any other reason to go back to Orzammar. (and yet you could just talk to her father and she would stay in Orzammar if you didn't want to go all the way to the circle and come back). Even so, if you count the Chanter's board, Mages Collective, etc. there are quite a few of those quests, but not all or nearly all like you keep saying, so stop telling me I'm wrong. Seriously, people on these forums...

[Zjarcal]

 

(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. )

 

It is possible, just give up on the idea of collecting them all.

[BioWareMod03]

This thread has run its course and the discussion has become hostile. We are done here.