447 réponses à ce sujet

[Nefla]

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.

I like cutscenes but I don't see why they would be necessary to make dialogue choices or do puzzles or make choices in action (such as saving an innocent victim vs running after the bad guy) other games do this just fine and BioWare had already changed so many things, I don't see why they couldn't have done something like this for sidequests. There is actually one quest with the beginnings of that style in the Hinterlands "measuring the veil" I think. The NPC talks to you about the quest beforehand but also goes with you into the little ruin, makes comments to Solas, and you can convince her to give you the amulet when you finish. It's not much but it definitely made it more engaging.

 

I don't think it's a lost cause, they'll never know what we like and what we don't unless we say something. I've been satisfied with BW sidequests in KotOR, SWtOR, DA:O, ME2 and Jade Empire and thought they were ok in DA2 and (some)ME1. It wasn't until ME3's eavesdropping quests and DA:I's MMO style quests that I found the side content to be a chore rather than enjoyable.

[In Exile]

I like cutscenes but I don't see why they would be necessary to make dialogue choices or do puzzles or make choices in action (such as saving an innocent victim vs running after the bad guy) other games do this just fine and BioWare had already changed so many things, I don't see why they couldn't have done something like this for sidequests. There is actually one quest with the beginnings of that style in the Hinterlands "measuring the veil" I think. The NPC talks to you about the quest beforehand but also goes with you into the little ruin, makes comments to Solas, and you can convince her to give you the amulet when you finish. It's not much but it definitely made it more engaging.

I don't think it's a lost cause, they'll never know what we like and what we don't unless we say something. I've been satisfied with BW sidequests in KotOR, SWtOR, DA:O, ME2 and Jade Empire and thought they were ok in DA2 and (some)ME1. It wasn't until ME3's eavesdropping quests and DA:I's MMO style quests that I found the side content to be a chore rather than enjoyable.

You're right that Bioware could start a new style of quest and I agree that hinterlands mini quest was cool. But that really was still the same sort of cutscene quest, except it lacked the cinematics. It's the same Bioware design.

Cool ideas we saw floating around are stuff like the axed Keep system and having Crestwood lead to a real time choice with a timer. That might be worthwhile.

All I'm really saying is that to make our voices heard we have to actually voice our real complaints.

[Nefla]

You're right that Bioware could start a new style of quest and I agree that hinterlands mini quest was cool. But that really was still the same sort of cutscene quest, except it lacked the cinematics. It's the same Bioware design.

Cool ideas we saw floating around are stuff like the axed Keep system and having Crestwood lead to a real time choice with a timer. That might be worthwhile.

All I'm really saying is that to make our voices heard we have to actually voice our real complaints.

I think I've been pretty specific in the things I'd like out of a sidequest, you can choose whatever label you want for it.

[In Exile]

I think I've been pretty specific in the things I'd like out of a sidequest, you can choose whatever label you want for it.

You really haven't, but now we're just rehashing a debate we just moved away from.

[Nefla]

You really haven't, but now we're just rehashing a debate we just moved away from.

Right. I think you're a special case then because I've done everything but make a bulleted list (which I could do for you by copy/pasting things that I already posted about if you like). Get hung up on semantics all you want for "cutscenes" vs whatever other label you decide to use.  

[Maverick827]

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?

 

You got to make the choice.

 

The choice reflects on who your character is and what he or she believes.

 

it gives you something different to choose on a different character who believes different things.

[In Exile]

You got to make the choice.

The choice reflects on who your character is and what he or she believes.

it gives you something different to choose on a different character who believes different things.

Then DAI is leagues ahead of DAO in that regard, since even with the trash side quests the level of personal expression in this game is unlike any other RPG. Every third conversation with a companion or MQ NPC is one asking for your opinion or reaction.

[Thane4Ever]

There is actually one quest with the beginnings of that style in the Hinterlands "measuring the veil" I think. The NPC talks to you about the quest beforehand but also goes with you into the little ruin, makes comments to Solas, and you can convince her to give you the amulet when you finish. It's not much but it definitely made it more engaging.

 

Wasn't that Merrill from DA:2?

[NedPepper]

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?

How about the emotional role playing context for making that choice?  For what it means to your PC and how your companions respond to his/her ways of resolving conflict?  Does that stuff not matter anymore? Does that stuff truly not have some kind of meaning to the narrative? I'm a bit perplexed at this argument.

[In Exile]

How about the emotional role playing context for making that choice?  For what it means to your PC and how your companions respond to his/her ways of resolving conflict?  Does that stuff not matter anymore? Does that stuff truly not have some kind of meaning to the narrative? I'm a bit perplexed at this argument.

 

But an amnesiac NPC kind of undercuts the emotional weight. Alistair loves me forever if I give him enough swag even if I just pissed all over his moral code, and he doesn't even bother to ever bring it up. That's where the RP aspect of DA:O runs into problems. It works as a self-contained choice, but the lack of consequence is a bit of a downer.

[Natureguy85]

As your post just now exemplifies, you're not talking about quest design. You want story and NPC interaction via cutscene. You're right to want it. That's IMO the A-level content (most) of us want from Bioware.

But that's not something that changes what nature of quest we're dealing with as a classification. The Sacred Ashes quest is an awesome rendition (in theory anyway) of the hunt for the holy grail. But it's still design to be a fetch quest. It's a crazy linear fetch quest too. It's the RP content thats top notch. But that has nothing to do with the quest design.

 

That's like saying the journey doesn't matter if the destination is he same. There is a lot that happens on the path to Sacred Ashes. You have Genetivi's house with his fake servant, the creepy Haven, the chapel there, the Guardian and the Gauntlet, plus the decision whether or not to poison the urn, and potentially a High Dragon battle. All of those things are quest design.

[In Exile]

That's like saying the journey doesn't matter if the destination is he same. There is a lot that happens on the path to Sacred Ashes. You have Genetivi's house with his fake servant, the creepy Haven, the chapel there, the Guardian and the Gauntlet, plus the decision whether or not to poison the urn, and potentially a High Dragon battle. All of those things are quest design.

 

The journey doesn't matter if every part of the journey is identical, but that's a YMMV.

 

None of those things are quest design, because all of those are just cutscenes on your linear corridor fetch quest. They're great RP content, they're arguably good atmosphere (they were evocative of absolutely nothing for me, but that's a YMMV), but they have zero impact on the quest. It would be one thing if, say, there were branching paths based on your dialogue. That would then translate into actual quest design, the dialogue simply being a decision point delivered via RP dialogue.

 

That's not what happens.

[NedPepper]

But an amnesiac NPC kind of undercuts the emotional weight. Alistair loves me forever if I give him enough swag even if I just pissed all over his moral code, and he doesn't even bother to ever bring it up. That's where the RP aspect of DA:O runs into problems. It works as a self-contained choice, but the lack of consequence is a bit of a downer.

 

I see your point.  I do believe, however, that having the choice is still better than not.  Especially by eliminating the gift bribing for approval, a direction they seem to be moving in.  And no amount of gift giving will make Shale not turn on you if you side with Branka or have Leliana not gun for you if you taint the ashes.  But I'm somewhat off point, now.

[In Exile]

I see your point.  I do believe, however, that having the choice is still better than not.  Especially by eliminating the gift bribing for approval, a direction they seem to be moving in.  And no amount of gift giving will make Shale not turn on you if you side with Branka or have Leliana not gun for you if you taint the ashes.  But I'm somewhat off point, now.

 

Oh, the choice is absolutely better than not having it at all. IMO, there's no debate on that front. I just mean that I think NPC interaction should be more reactive. DA:I sort of moves in that direction with the reaction wheel and some conversations that loop back (You said [X]. Does that mean you believe in the Maker? [Insert sultry french accent]),

[Natureguy85]

The journey doesn't matter if every part of the journey is identical, but that's a YMMV.

 

None of those things are quest design, because all of those are just cutscenes on your linear corridor fetch quest. They're great RP content, they're arguably good atmosphere (they were evocative of absolutely nothing for me, but that's a YMMV), but they have zero impact on the quest. It would be one thing if, say, there were branching paths based on your dialogue. That would then translate into actual quest design, the dialogue simply being a decision point delivered via RP dialogue.

 

That's not what happens.

 

Identical to what? It's not identical to other quests that can be boiled down to "fetch quests", such as searching for Branka. There is a branching path in poisoning the urn or not. I think that all the events that happen along the way are part of quest design. You're correct that not all have consequences that change the quest. And those that do change the quest often have no consequence beyond it. This is where the OP is most missing your points. He says he wants consequence but didn't notice that those "different ways of completing" a quest often didn't matter once the quest was done. So the value is indeed pure role play.

 

Edit: On second thought, I don't know why we are using this as an example because it's a main quest, not a side quest.

[Rahelron]

We should be WANTING to do all the content that is possible within the game. To say "Dont worry! Just ignore it and go do something else!" is basically admitting you know its **** and cant defend it on the meaningfulness of the content itself.

 

True

 

Also you are ignoring opportunity cost. If you put resources into A, that means those resources cannot be put into B-Z. If they took half of these bloated zones and reduced them or cut them in order to make meaningful content, this would be less of an issue.

 

 

So true.

 

You didnt have anything like a gigantic map area that was specifically dedicated to completing a whole bunch of worthless MMO style fetch quests like Inquisition has.

 

 

This is one of the things that bother me the most: why creating whole gigantic maps if everything you wanted to do with them was filling them with fetch quests and boring meaningless combat encounters?

 

We are saying if the only way you have can have these big map areas is to dilute all the side content, THEN DONT BOTHER MAKING BIG MAP AREAS TO BEGIN WITH!

 

 

This wraps things up perfecly.

 

OK: DA2 was way too small and all those reused areas pissed me and most gamers off. A lot. But it seems that at Bioware they took our complaints too seriously.

"Ok, do they want a big game? We will give them the biggest game they have ever experienced!". This is missing the point: we didn't want to play the biggest game ever, we wanted to play a game that was big enough and diverse enough to be enjoyable. Open areas are a welcome addition, but why making so many of those? Noone ever asked for that!

[Natureguy85]

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? 

 

You're right that these quests had more ways to be completed, but that was pure roleplay value. This isn't a bad thing to have, but don't act like they had consequences beyond the completion of the quest.

[egalor]

OP is right, because excessive fetch quests only serve to inflate the gameplay time, but do not bring any aesthetical value to a game. One of the reasons I so utterly despise WOW and its clones.

[Paul E Dangerously]

I probably wouldn't mind the fetch quests as much if they had a more visible impact on the world. If I'm bringing someone ram meat and heavier clothing, then I should damn well be able to see more people around cookfires eating and wearing more cold-weather gear. If I build a new tower for Skyhold, then it better not be a piddly structure with four people inside, it better be an actual tower. If I'm helping refugees get somewhere, then I want to see them there in the future. Securing an area should mean I see more travelers on the roads, more merchants setting up (Hello, empty stalls along the road in Crestwood) and the like.

 

The problem is that so much stuff just..happens..and then it's done. Turn in a quest, get an inconsequential XP reward and a pittance of gold, and move on. You may get an item - probably a lousy one - that will also sell for a pittance, so you're really only doing this to fill time and watch the XP bar slowly increase while you farm crafting materials. On average, nothing really changes.

 

The occasional quest might have someone relocate, but they're not doing anything new - just standing around waiting for you to talk to them with a new backdrop.

[hwlrmnky]

I think the OP did a nice job laying out a point of view in his or her first post. It made me think about some of my assumptions which is always a nice trait in a forum post.

I'm never going to do all of the fetch quests and I'll never finish any collections unless it's by accident. Nonetheless, I will point out that some of what intially seemed like fetch quests have turned out to be opportunities to recruit agents. Those were fun discoveries and nice turns of event.

[Cyonan]

You got to make the choice.

 

The choice reflects on who your character is and what he or she believes.

 

it gives you something different to choose on a different character who believes different things.

 

My point was about consequences in the game that I keep hearing mentioned every time the side quests debate is brought up, not about being able to make the choice or not.

 

 

How about the emotional role playing context for making that choice?  For what it means to your PC and how your companions respond to his/her ways of resolving conflict?  Does that stuff not matter anymore? Does that stuff truly not have some kind of meaning to the narrative? I'm a bit perplexed at this argument.

 

As I said above, my point was entirely about the consequences I hear about that Origins evidently had so much of.

[HTTP 404]

I like what I like is my response to arguments on opinions on liking things ever.  It was a decent read though, I just don't agree with some of it.

[Zanallen]

What sidequests are we comparing here? I keep hearing people bring up quests like gathering meat and what not for DA:I, but the only DA:O quests I see people bringing up are things like Connor or the Urn. Redcliffe and the Urn weren't really sidequests in DA:O. They were part of the main quest.

[Maverick827]

Then DAI is leagues ahead of DAO in that regard, since even with the trash side quests the level of personal expression in this game is unlike any other RPG. Every third conversation with a companion or MQ NPC is one asking for your opinion or reaction.

 

Outside of telling people you're not the Herald of Andraste and telling people which side of the mage/templar conflict you're on, no, you cannot.

[Nefla]

What sidequests are we comparing here? I keep hearing people bring up quests like gathering meat and what not for DA:I, but the only DA:O quests I see people bringing up are things like Connor or the Urn. Redcliffe and the Urn weren't really sidequests in DA:O. They were part of the main quest.

Sidequests I personally enjoyed were ones that were focused on a human element and that had different ways to resolve. Things like:

 

-Camen and Gheyna: get them together (through persuasion or getting a pelt and saying Camen hunted it) or break them up (you can convince them not to get together or even sleep with one of them yourself and break them up)

 

-Finding Bevin in Redcliffe: rescue him, and either find the sword or don't and choose to steal it, return it right away, return it after the battle, or pay the family for it. You can then choose to give the siblings money or not and how much to give them (which determines how good of a living they can have)

 

-Helping Redcliffe prepare for the undead assault: there were so many optional things you could do and then you were able to see their effect in battle. The oil fires, and Lloyd, Dywn and Berwick fighting in the battle and if Lloyd dies then Bella takes over the tavern and renames it "the warden's rest" little touches like that give me motivation to do sidequests.

 

-Helping Feynriel in the fade: having to steer your dialogue properly so he figures out that he's with a demon, but making sure not to snap his mind and then choosing to help him, sell him to a demon for possession, or make him tranquil.

 

-The haunted orphanage in the Denerim alienage: I liked the creepy atmosphere and Ser Otto's willingness to help where none of the other Templars would even though the elves shun him and I like when an NPC accompanies you on a quest like that.

 

-Finding Ruck for widow Filda(?): I thought this one was sad and creepy at the same time. Learning about what happened to him and what can become of someone who is slowly tainted and you get the choice to kill him, or leave him alive and tell his mother he died or tell her what became of him (and if alive she goes after him). 

 

-Helping Zerlinda get out of dust town: This quest did a good job of emphasizing how crappy the caste system is and you really feel for her and her son. Again you have choices here, have brother Burkel's chantry take her in (if you established it), reconcile her with her father, or tell her to leave her son to die. Her statement of "when he's old enough I will send him to you to be a knight in your service" was a nice touch that I really liked.

 

There are more of course but you get the style from these examples. I want a choice in how I resolve quests and how I treat the NPCs involved even if it's not an important or game altering choice, it adds so much in roleplaying and character building. The sidequest NPCs in DA:I have so little depth or interaction that you're hard pressed to even remember any of them.