447 réponses à ce sujet

[Nefla]

Copying and pasting from a previous post of mine:

 

 

Still Waters (Crestwood)

Carta Lyrium Smugglers in the Hinterlands (culminating in Valammar)

Chateau d'Onterre (haunted mansion in Emerald Graves)

The Knight's Tomb (Emerald Graves)

Temple of Dirthamen

Take Back the Lion / Capturing Suledin Keep (Emprise du Lion)

Citadelle du Corbeau (Exalted Plains)

Lost Souls (Fallow Mire)

Cleaning House (Storm Coast - Blades of Hessarian)

Still Ruins (Western Approach)

A Corrupt General and the ancillary quests surrounding it (Emerald Graves)

 

There are a lot of good, deep side quests in DA:I which bear no resemblance whatsoever to "fetch" quests. That's not to suggest there are not filler quests on the side... but those are primarily designed to fill in the map and reward exploration (and to be completely optional aspects of that exploration). Given the size of the maps, I'm not sure how some filler quests could have been avoided without making the game absurdly large (filling in the quests with more substantial content) or making the maps fairly empty (no reward but the scenery and random combat).

The only one of those I thought was good (though not great) was freeing Crestwood from the undead. Helping the miners in Emprise du Leon had potential, it would have been fun if the miners hadn't been one dimensional cardboard cutouts like every NPC outside the main storyline "did you open all the cages sir or ma'am?" over and over for each one freed doesn't give me the illusion of real people I can sympathize with and if you could talk to the enemy leader, if there were multiple solutions or outcomes like in previous games it would have been a million times better.

 

 

I agree with you on all points OP, and the unexpectedly high number of people who like fetch quests and think scattered notes such as  "hey guys, the inquisition is moving in on our territory. Better pull up stakes and move to ____" and nameless trash mobs waiting at the end of a quest marker given by such notes is a great and engaging "storyline" makes me worry for the future of Dragon Age. If so many people are seemingly in love with (or at least satisfied by) this kind of quest then of course BW will keep making them in future games to the exclusion of deeper, engaging, and interactive quests. It's far easier to put in a stationary NPC that spits out a line of dialogue about "please find my grandmother's shoe" and then mark the shoe on the player's map than it is to make something fun, something with different outcomes, relatable NPCs, mysteries to solve, people to talk to, choices to make, and ways to roleplay your character. It's a depressing thought.

[In Exile]

The only one of those I thought was good (though not great) was freeing Crestwood from the undead. Helping the miners in Emprise du Leon had potential, it would have been fun if the miners hadn't been one dimensional cardboard cutouts like every NPC outside the main storyline "did you open all the cages sir or ma'am?" over and over for each one freed doesn't give me the illusion of real people I can sympathize with and if you could talk to the enemy leader, if there were multiple solutions or outcomes like in previous games it would have been a million times better.

 

 

I agree with you on all points OP, and the unexpectedly high number of people who like fetch quests and think scattered notes such as  "hey guys, the inquisition is moving in on our territory. Better pull up stakes and move to ____" and nameless trash mobs waiting at the end of a quest marker given by such notes is a great and engaging "storyline" makes me worry for the future of Dragon Age. If so many people are seemingly in love with (or at least satisfied by) this kind of quest then of course BW will keep making them in future games to the exclusion of deeper, engaging, and interactive quests. It's far easier to put in a stationary NPC that spits out a line of dialogue about "please find my grandmother's shoe" and then mark the shoe on the player's map than it is to make something fun, something with different outcomes, relatable NPCs, mysteries to solve, people to talk to, choices to make, and ways to roleplay your character. It's a depressing thought.

 

It's pretty obvious Bioware had a resource cap they had to hit, but chose to invest everything when it came to the real RP content into (A) the main plot, for a stellar, high resource if short plot and ( the companion content. Obviously more content is always better. But I think (unlike DA2) Bioware made the right choice when faced with a budget crunch.

 

If DA:I exceeds whatever target EA gave it, then we'll likely see a return to real sidequests in DA4. Just like how in ME1 we had trash fetch quests in the UEW but ME2 gave us better side quests (before ME3 borked it again).

[In Exile]

1st bold part - Im pretty sure I dont disagree with this. Lets see if the next part has the point of contention.

 

2nd bold part - Dont remember the quest, but it doesnt matter, lets just say I agree with this too, not sure why this matters to my original point, but lets continue.

 

3rd bolt part - Are you really telling me this entire debate between us is because of me not using the words quest design? When I say I have a problem with the quest. I am saying that I have a problem with it because it is *designed* to not have these meaningful dialogue options and multiple ways to end the quest, even if you boil it down its still a fetch quest.

 

There. Does that make you happy? Because if thats what you were looking for me to say, it should have been pretty damn obvious in the first post I made that this was the case. I hope it wasnt however, otherwise both of our times have been wasted on such a non issue.

 

4th bold part - I like New Vegas, and the reasons you cited were certainly part of why I did. Now please tell me where these *multiple gameplay paths* exist in the side quests? We both agree that it doesnt have the *multiple dialogue paths* which Origin did, so I hope you're able to show me where these gameplay paths are.

 

And even if you did, are you telling me Origins does NOT have these gameplay paths as well?

 

(Also the one with the Overseer I believe had a bunch of terminals you used to find what happened, which is still better than these codexs) 

 

5h bold part - DUH! (And multiple endings to the quest.) I mean seriously, did I not already say this in my opening post? Do you realize that you have just spent this entire time explaining to me that what I wanted Inquisition to have......were the same things that I ALREADY SAID IN THE FIRST POST? 

 

(Except that part about the Maker, no thats not what I mean. Having an npc ask me a question about the maker, which does not end up meaning anything regardless of my answer, is not what im talking about in regards to multiple dialogue. I mean having different results, different endings, based on that dialogue, something which me answered about the Maker does not really have, but this is a moot point)

 

This isn't a meaningless semantic debate. It's incredibly important. Because avoiding fetch quests does not mean more dialogue or more varied choices. It could mean that in DA4 there are multiple ways to complete the same quest, for the indentical result, with the same exact reward, and the same 1 sentence dialogue without a cutscene.

 

Maybe that's exactly what you want. I don't know. But it would still be totally different from DA:O and DA2. And it wouldn't be meaningful in the way you keep using that word.

 

This is why actual exact language about quest design matters. If you want more RP choices, more dialogue, more investigate options, that's one thing and it means Bioware should invest more heavily in the side-quest stories. If you want more varied paths, more gamplay viability, multiple paths to the same objective, then it means Bioware should invest less in dialogue (e.g. in the MQ) and add more vaired gameplay. The latter is what (for example) New Vegas and especially Skyrim did.

 

Stop being belligerent. It's not making a point. It's just empty chest-thumping.

[Cyonan]

I would say most of DA:I's side quests are like Origins' chantry board side quests. The average Origins side quest however was much better than Inquisition's for the reasons of the semi-open world nature which is an entirely different debate about which type of game you prefer.

 

The main point in this whole debate I have to disagree with is the idea that Origins offered plenty of consequences. Other than each party member's crisis moment which was a simple "did you do X?", there really wasn't any consequence beyond the immediate conversation.

[AlanC9]

I agree with you on all points OP, and the unexpectedly high number of people who like fetch quests and think scattered notes such as  "hey guys, the inquisition is moving in on our territory. Better pull up stakes and move to ____" and nameless trash mobs waiting at the end of a quest marker given by such notes is a great and engaging "storyline" makes me worry for the future of Dragon Age. If so many people are seemingly in love with (or at least satisfied by) this kind of quest then of course BW will keep making them in future games to the exclusion of deeper, engaging, and interactive quests. It's far easier to put in a stationary NPC that spits out a line of dialogue about "please find my grandmother's shoe" and then mark the shoe on the player's map than it is to make something fun, something with different outcomes, relatable NPCs, mysteries to solve, people to talk to, choices to make, and ways to roleplay your character. It's a depressing thought.

What's your alternative? My impression is that people don't so much like fetch quests as they accept them as part of what you get with an open-world approach. Unless you're opposing that whole approach -- which is a perfectly reasonable perspective -- it's difficult to see where you'd get enough zots to add lots of the higher quality content you'd prefer.

[tmp7704]

The information about this was in a bunch of codex entries like usual, which is still a cop out. Im not going to bother reading all of these Codex entries because the game refuses to display that information in any meaningful way.

Complaining about quality of the content if you refuse to even examine this content is silly. I could as well complain "DAO side quests were nothing but boring mmo-like content with no background because I refuse to watch cutscenes, so I just skipped through them all".

[Nefla]

It's pretty obvious Bioware had a resource cap they had to hit, but chose to invest everything when it came to the real RP content into (A) the main plot, for a stellar, high resource if short plot and ( the companion content. Obviously more content is always better. But I think (unlike DA2) Bioware made the right choice when faced with a budget crunch.

 

If DA:I exceeds whatever target EA gave it, then we'll likely see a return to real sidequests in DA4. Just like how in ME1 we had trash fetch quests in the UEW but ME2 gave us better side quests (before ME3 borked it again).

Having nothing of any depth outside of the main story and companion stuff makes the world feel dead. If there were maybe 1 or 2 more in depth quests in each zone, perhaps ones that take you to different points in that map then the huge number of fetch quests wouldn't feel like such a slap in the face. You could be doing your more interesting quest and collect bear pelts or kill 5 bandits along the way rather than that being the sole reason for traveling the area.

 

I think DA2 and DA:I are on the opposite sides of an extreme and neither got it right. DA2 actually had some interesting side quest content as well as more role playing opportunities and companions that would get involved with the quests (such as Fenris crushing people's hearts to make them talk, Merrill ruining your lie about there being a fire because she's an idiot, etc..) but had tiny, undetailed, uninteresting, and reused maps. DA:I has big, beautiful maps with nothing in them. I wish there was a toolkit for DA:I so that modders could fill that empty space with interesting NPCs and questlines like many did for Skyrim and other games.

[In Exile]

Having nothing of any depth outside of the main story and companion stuff makes the world feel dead. If there were maybe 1 or 2 more in depth quests in each zone, perhaps ones that take you to different points in that map then the huge number of fetch quests wouldn't feel like such a slap in the face. You could be doing your more interesting quest and collect bear pelts or kill 5 bandits along the way rather than that being the sole reason for traveling the area.

 

I think DA2 and DA:I are on the opposite sides of an extreme and neither got it right. DA2 actually had some interesting side quest content as well as more role playing opportunities and companions that would get involved with the quests (such as Fenris crushing people's hearts to make them talk, Merrill ruining your lie about there being a fire because she's an idiot, etc..) but had tiny, undetailed, uninteresting, and reused maps. DA:I has big, beautiful maps with nothing in them. I wish there was a toolkit for DA:I so that modders could fill that empty space with interesting NPCs and questlines like many did for Skyrim and other games.

 

I just completely disagree with you. Again, the "living" world part comes from Skyhold and Haven, and to a certain extent Val Royeaux. There are a number of scripted scenes, and especially ambient conversations where people actually act like people: they talk about **** while standing around and killing time.

 

Would more cutscenes really make the zones feel more alive? I just don't see it. Do you think that DA2 had a living world, just because it had a lot of cutscenes even though Kirkwall itself was so static and empty in terrms of the actual zone in gameplay?

 

There was lots of stuff in the DA:I maps - they just weren't people who you could talk with. Which, again, sucks. I also like interactive dialogue more than basically story-via-codex-archeology. This is what makes Skyrim so stale and boring - well, that and replacing all the people with person shaped worker ants.

 

DA2 had some great conversations. But the quest design was pure ass. It was just a long corridor with a badly designed quest. Don't get me wrong - I liked DA2 a lot. I just don't think it had meaningful quests. At least in DA:I you don't get innundated with trash mobs as much, even as you lose the cutscenes.

[Nefla]

I just completely disagree with you. Again, the "living" world part comes from Skyhold and Haven, and to a certain extent Val Royeaux. There are a number of scripted scenes, and especially ambient conversations where people actually act like people: they talk about **** while standing around and killing time.

 

Would more cutscenes really make the zones feel more alive? I just don't see it. Do you think that DA2 had a living world, just because it had a lot of cutscenes even though Kirkwall itself was so static and empty in terrms of the actual zone in gameplay?

 

There was lots of stuff in the DA:I maps - they just weren't people who you could talk with. Which, again, sucks. I also like interactive dialogue more than basically story-via-codex-archeology. This is what makes Skyrim so stale and boring - well, that and replacing all the people with person shaped worker ants.

 

DA2 had some great conversations. But the quest design was pure ass. It was just a long corridor with a badly designed quest. Don't get me wrong - I liked DA2 a lot. I just don't think it had meaningful quests. At least in DA:I you don't get innundated with trash mobs as much, even as you lose the cutscenes.

You're the one that keeps bringing up cutscenes, not me. I don't think that DA2 had a living world, no and I probably hate the small, reused corridors almost as much as you do. I do think the sidequests were better for having dialogue, choice, multiple ways of solving them, NPCs that were memorable, companion participation, etc...I thought DA2 was ok, but I never thought I'd be holding it up as something to strive for. DA2's quests weren't amazing, DA:I's are just that bad. If the side quests, NPCs, etc...were like Fallout: New Vegas but with a BioWare main story and characters I could have died happy, but it's not even close.

[Superluccix]

This isn't a meaningless semantic debate. It's incredibly important. Because avoiding fetch quests does not mean more dialogue or more varied choices. It could mean that in DA4 there are multiple ways to complete the same quest, for the indentical result, with the same exact reward, and the same 1 sentence dialogue without a cutscene.

 

Maybe that's exactly what you want. I don't know. But it would still be totally different from DA:O and DA2. And it wouldn't be meaningful in the way you keep using that word.

 

This is why actual exact language about quest design matters. If you want more RP choices, more dialogue, more investigate options, that's one thing and it means Bioware should invest more heavily in the side-quest stories. If you want more varied paths, more gamplay viability, multiple paths to the same objective, then it means Bioware should invest less in dialogue (e.g. in the MQ) and add more vaired gameplay. The latter is what (for example) New Vegas and especially Skyrim did.

 

Stop being belligerent. It's not making a point. It's just empty chest-thumping.

 

First bold point - What the hell does this have to do with what I said? Did I say avoiding a fetch quest does not mean more dialogue or varied choices? I am talking about how utterly terrible DA:I sidequests are in comparison to how Origin is, because Origin made all of these *fetch* quests so much more interesting because of all the varied ways they could turn out. 

 

Are you actually going to refute this, or will you continue making completely irrelevant points to what Im saying?

 

2nd bold point - Having multiple dialogue options, and multiple ways to complete the quest, would obviously be better than what Inquisition does. Yes. Do you deny this? 

 

3rd bold point - Any person with any degree of common sense could have figured out this is exactly what I was complaining about in my original post, (Along with their not being multiple ways to end a quest, which can also happen in dialogue).

 

Seriously, you are the only person here on this forum who somehow did not understand what I meant about the differences between DA:O quests and DA:I quests, and that you wanted me to further clarify on something that was so obvious to the naked eye.

 

4th bold point - Stop being so oblivious to what I say. Its not helping. Its just wasting both our times. ( I can do that too)

[Superluccix]

I would say most of DA:I's side quests are like Origins' chantry board side quests. The average Origins side quest however was much better than Inquisition's for the reasons of the semi-open world nature which is an entirely different debate about which type of game you prefer.

 

The main point in this whole debate I have to disagree with is the idea that Origins offered plenty of consequences. Other than each party member's crisis moment which was a simple "did you do X?", there really wasn't any consequence beyond the immediate conversation.

 

1st bold point -  I agree, but what makes it even worse is that these DA:I quests are put in big map areas whos only sole reason for existing.....is for those meaningless quests. Those areas dont have a main quest going on there, or even a more interesting side quest.

 

2nd bold point - I agree with this too. The reason why DA:I sidequests suck is mainly due to it being semi-open world. Where resources go to making the game big rather than making the game good.

 

3rd bold point - Even if I were to agree that there wasnt any consequence (which I dont) *beyond the immediate conversation*, that still would be better than what happened during DA:I. 

[Superluccix]

Complaining about quality of the content if you refuse to even examine this content is silly. I could as well complain "DAO side quests were nothing but boring mmo-like content with no background because I refuse to watch cutscenes, so I just skipped through them all".

 

Did you just complain that watching a cutscene is somehow more dull and more of a copout than reading some Codex entry? Especially when reading a Codex does not give me any way to respond to it? To give my own view on the information whereas a cutscene with an npc would? To be able to change the outcome of whatever situation Im in? I mean seriously? No, your analogy is terrible.

 

Replacing meaningful npc interaction which can go a variety of ways to completing a side quest, and instead opting to put some random letter on the ground ......is so obviously an indication of diluted content when compared to the former.

[tmp7704]

Did you just complain that watching a cutscene is somehow more dull and more of a copout than reading some Codex entry?

No, I didn't. THat's a pretty straw man you are trying to build, but my complaint --which you even quoted-- is pretty specific and says nothing of that sort.

edit: you know, i'll just repost it to make it easier. Alone, so there's no analogies to distract you.

Complaining about quality of the content if you refuse to even examine this content is silly.

[SomeUsername]

Without reading all of the comments on this thread which I do apologize for, let me say what I personally think. First of all, my memories of Origins consist of following a good main questline while doing other important things on the way. In Inquisition, I only remember the countless fetch quests I have done, the main quests are buried beneath the "content" this game is made up of (aka "sidequests"). As far as I know, the only fetch quests in Origins were the chantry board ones. Those were few even but enough to leave you satisfied. They were also completely optional and rewarding. The ones that you get Lothering pay you with gold (which is very good for beginning). Anyways, other "sidequests" are all part of a story and things you do "on the way" while doing your main quest. The length time of Inquisition as a whole is extended by the sidequests, which make up I would say 50-60% of the game. For those who say that these sidequests "help" you get attached to the world and learn more about it or something similar, sorry to say this, but I assume those people are trolling. The sidequests in fact have detached me from the main storyline and the events. Instead they make me feel like I am playing an MMO and racing to max level so I can do PvP. They are so small, so unimportant, so forced, so forgettable, and so many that I can't even think of ONE specific sidequest that I remember doing, but for my whole game experience I can only remember doing so many of them, as I said before.

[Maverick827]

Dear person who thinks sidequests in Inquisition are MMO **** compared to glorious olden days DAO sidequests,

lol if you say so.

 

So you don't have a counter argument?

[The Spirit of Dance]

Y'know I like Inquisition (so far) and just started it a few days ago but I do see a lot of what the OP is saying.

[Remmirath]

I was under the impression that the definition of a 'fetch quest', as people usually use the term, is a quest that consists solely of retrieving an arbitrary number of items from scattered locations across a map (often locations that do not even really make sense) for minimal if any reward, either in terms of money/items or dialogue/choices.

Working under that definition, I would say that yes, DA:I has more fetch quests than DA:O. Most of DA:O's fetch quests were gathering items such as poultices or potions, which could be either created or bought and then turned in, rather than hunting all around for bottle fragments or something (completely random example there).

I do believe that the main problem with Inquisition's sidequests isn't the actual basic design of the quest (although more variation would be nice), it's that there is usually nothing to them except for the bare-bones quest content. Little to no lead-up conversation, typically no end conversation or reward, and I can't think of any that have a choice associated with them.

Still better than DA II's version, though; as hilarious as dropping off some guys bones to somebody that you never even knew was looking for them only to be greeted with something like "an old foolish thing, you have my thanks" was, it was also really not exactly an opportunity for anything other than some humour.

[Casuist]

 

 

Do to your 3 examples completely and utterly failing to display how these quests are on the standards of Origins, I see no reason as to why I should expect the others to somehow not avoid this problem

 

 

If you think valid story cannot be derived from text then, yes, we have little in common. Feel free to disapprove of DA:I as is your prerogative.

[In Exile]

First bold point - What the hell does this have to do with what I said? Did I say avoiding a fetch quest does not mean more dialogue or varied choices? I am talking about how utterly terrible DA:I sidequests are in comparison to how Origin is, because Origin made all of these *fetch* quests so much more interesting because of all the varied ways they could turn out.

Are you actually going to refute this, or will you continue making completely irrelevant points to what Im saying?

2nd bold point - Having multiple dialogue options, and multiple ways to complete the quest, would obviously be better than what Inquisition does. Yes. Do you deny this?

3rd bold point - Any person with any degree of common sense could have figured out this is exactly what I was complaining about in my original post, (Along with their not being multiple ways to end a quest, which can also happen in dialogue).

Seriously, you are the only person here on this forum who somehow did not understand what I meant about the differences between DA:O quests and DA:I quests, and that you wanted me to further clarify on something that was so obvious to the naked eye.

4th bold point - Stop being so oblivious to what I say. Its not helping. Its just wasting both our times. ( I can do that too)

So instead of not being belligerent, you doudbled down on being rude. Lovely.

At this point, the conversation is pointless. You're clearly not responding to the points I've made. You're just throwing a deluge of insults at me which, unlike your OP, is pretty inexcusable since you're talking to me directly.

Other than a rant, you haven't said much beyond buzzwords like "meaningful content" or "varied content". I have tried to parse your rant for an actual point, but you're apparently not open to having that discussion. Still, I will endeavour to try for polite conversation.

1. What you said in your OP was that anyone that tried to draw a parallel between DAO having fetch quests and DAI having fetch quests as "dishonest" or "lying", among other insults. I've attempted to get at what exactly you seem to consider a fetch quest, which you still haven't explained.

You say DAO made the fetch quests (do you admit that DAO had them, now, and will you apologize for your belligerent rant in your OP?) but that they were better because they had varied outcomes. Those outcomes were just dialogue choices in a cutscene. The only possible inference to draw from that is that you want more cut scenes.

2. Why would I deny a point I made in the post that you're quoting?

3. Setting aside another tirade of insults, your OP was not clear on what exactly you were asking for in terms of content. You say "multiple ways to end a quest", but that's not true in terms of gameplay. The quests all play out one way: run to the end of a corridor killing mooks and (some times) collect an item, then have conversations. This, again, sounds like you want more cut scenes. But then you repeatedly and insulting rant that you don't want cut scenes. So there's no clear indication of what you want.

[In Exile]

You're the one that keeps bringing up cutscenes, not me. I don't think that DA2 had a living world, no and I probably hate the small, reused corridors almost as much as you do. I do think the sidequests were better for having dialogue, choice, multiple ways of solving them, NPCs that were memorable, companion participation, etc...I thought DA2 was ok, but I never thought I'd be holding it up as something to strive for. DA2's quests weren't amazing, DA:I's are just that bad. If the side quests, NPCs, etc...were like Fallout: New Vegas but with a BioWare main story and characters I could have died happy, but it's not even close.

You're the one that keeps mentioning gameplay elements that are dialogue cutscenes. NPC interaction, RP choices, multiple endings - in a Bioware game that is all done via the dialogue cutscene. It is the same mechanism going all the way back to BG1. To say that you're not asking or talking about cutscenes makes no sense given the features you outline.

In this very post you list all of those feature in DA2 that were only available via dialogue cutscene and are only in DAI via dialogue cutscene.

As for FO:NV, I think it's a lost cause expecting good quest design from Bioware. They just don't know how to do it. They've never had it. In any game.

Edit: again, I agree with you more cutscenes would be better. I like them a lot. But that's what we're all reallt asking Bioware to do.

[Cyonan]

3rd bold point - Even if I were to agree that there wasnt any consequence (which I dont) *beyond the immediate conversation*, that still would be better than what happened during DA:I. 

 

I brought up in another thread about Origins the quest with Conner. Let's say that I use Blood Magic to sacrifice Isolde before making a deal with the Desire Demon.

 

What consequences do I face for doing that? Alistair disapproves -10?

[tmp7704]

What consequences do I face for doing that? Alistair disapproves -10?

But it was a cut scene! And he was really upset :/

[Cyonan]

But it was a cut scene! And he was really upset :/

 

I've never made the deal with the demon(and kept the save) but I did once use blood magic to enter the fade and sacrificed Isolde.

 

I bribed him with dog treats to counter his -10 being angry.