447 réponses à ce sujet

[Lianaar]

I think some people here are trying to stress, that if you want to make an impact, you must speak the proper language to express your opinion.

Terms such as meaningful, good, important etc are subjective terms and mean a lot of things to different people. Like for me, codex entries are entirely and fully valued information equal to a cut scene, because I often play text-based and table top rpgs, so there written text is the main source of information. For me a quest based on written text is just as main quest as anything else. For others it is not (no, I am not pointing out anyone here, just bringing up a random example).

 

So instead of saying: I want more meaningful quests and less stupid ones, we should be using a language that can be understood universally and can not be misunderstood. There were some examples listed here, what is needed, such as
- the end can be the same, if there are different ways to reach it that intones the character's personality

- it must be at least 3 different ending for the quest so I feel my decision mattered

- I need visualisation of the consequences
a ) in having the world adapt and more ambiguous chatter about the consequence
b ) in a cutscene where the difference is aknowledged
c ) in different plots that open up or don't open up due to my solution to the original plot

d ) other

- add timer to some of the quests, and make failing them possible, closing down the option of that quest line

 

I am not saying this is what I want, I am bringnig up examples, which are exact and not subjective. If we can hash out statements like this, then we can make an impact for then our opinion is not vauge.

 

Another thing that we must do when doing the above is however listing what we hold less important and what we are willing to give up for it, just the same way:
- I am willing to give up cutscenes

- I am willing to give up maps

- I am willing to give up diversity in surroundings

- etc.

Again, not saying this is my opinion, just showing what I think would be useful when collecting complaints and suggesting improvements, for terms like 'sucks', make it 'better', 'mmo game' and what not just won't do it. They mean different things to different people. Even having consequences for the decisions you make means different things for different people, because what I consider consequence of import doesn't even reach the trashhold for others.

 

And one more note on my side: belligerence and trying to bash others will never lead to constructive critisism where people work together to create a generally accepted statement or two. Having only one voice heard won't make things better at all. Having more perspective will always lead to a better game. Naturally - just an opinion.

[WillieStyle]

I understand opportunity cost perfectly well. Its a concept I learned in elementary school. 

 

I realize that hyperbole is de rigueur on the interwebs.  But it is extremely unlikely that you learned about opportunity costs in elementary school.

[WillieStyle]

I think some people here are trying to stress, that if you want to make an impact, you must speak the proper language to express your opinion.

Terms such as meaningful, good, important etc are subjective terms and mean a lot of things to different people. Like for me, codex entries are entirely and fully valued information equal to a cut scene, because I often play text-based and table top rpgs, so there written text is the main source of information. For me a quest based on written text is just as main quest as anything else. For others it is not (no, I am not pointing out anyone here, just bringing up a random example).

 

So instead of saying: I want more meaningful quests and less stupid ones, we should be using a language that can be understood universally and can not be misunderstood. There were some examples listed here, what is needed, such as...

 

Excellent post.

[WillieStyle]

I love cinematic cutscenes as much as the next guy.  They're something Bioware does really well.  I certainly hope there'll be more of them in the next Dragon Age.  But there's something to be said for eschewing cutscenes on occasion.  Take the Hissing Wastes for example.  I loved the story about the lost Dwarven Thaig.  And learning about the story via codex entries emphasized the feeling that I was delving into ancient - previously lost - history.  The only things left to tell the tale of the Paragon and his heirs were carvings in the stone. I fear that having an NPC with cinematic dialogue would have done more harm than good in that one case.

[Aurok]

RP/narrative content (or lack thereof) within a quest is still a part of the overall quest design. They can't be neatly seperated like that. The whole point is that the roleplaying aspect and the mechanical aspect of the quest resonate to make the whole seem more than the sum of its parts.

If you consistently strip your quest design down to the absolute bare minimum in terms of roleplaying, then there is nothing to resonate with the mechanics (go here, get this, kill that) of the quest and so the overall quality is capped at however good the mechanics are.

Bioware has historically been able to get away with relatively poor-mediocre gameplay simply by virtue of their strong RPing and storytelling resonating with it and elevating it as a whole. That isn't the case with the side content in Inquisition. The way in which they have designed the side quests here (pretty much universally) plays to their weaknesses and neglects to make use of their strengths. The result is that all of the side content simply exposes the gameplay and draws attention to how weak it is by itself.

To suggest 'just ignoring it' is missing the point. If it's on the dish it's part of the meal, and the meal will be judged accordingly. Sometimes less is more, and I personally think that Inquisition would have felt like a higher quality game overall if they ruthlessly stripped out the RP-free side content and half of the redundant zones. If they could have replaced those things with half a dozen high quality side quests across the game then great, but even if they didn't replace them at all the game still would have been better for losing them.

[Dermain]

I understand opportunity cost perfectly well. Its a concept I learned in elementary school. Its about making choices using limited resources. If you devote resources to A you cant do it to B-Z. You're trying to complicate things which are simple. Simple not in terms in game design or anything, but simple in the sense that if Bioware devotes to doing X (Lets say X means having large map areas) that takes away resources from doing Y (Lets say Y means having quality content, however that is done, in their smaller zones)

 

I fail to see how this is something somebody could have a disagreement with

 

 

1st bold part - Once again no. It doesnt have to be via cutscene. You could have exactly the same camera angle that is being done here, (Granted I would still say it does look better in cutscene, but thats not the bulk of the problem), but just adding more dialogue options, and multiple ways to end a quest, and then you would have taken care of 90% of the problem.

 

2nd bold part- How many times must I repeat myself? To compare something like the Sacred Ashes quest in DA:O, and boil it down to the same level of a fetch quest as any generic MMO side quest in DA:I is dishonesty at its finest. You have to purposefully cut out all of the meat that the Sacred Ashes quest had in order to do that. 

 

Actually, I feel like you are getting caught up too much on this distinction between quest design and RP. If by quest design you mean boiling something down to its barest components, then sure its similar, and if by RP you mean all of the meat in the fetch quest (The dialogue choices and the multiple ways to end the quest) then yes thats what Im talking about. Im complaining that the RP (Your words) are completely inferior to DA:O.

 

However they are still called quests, and I will say if one quest was better than another, if you want to call it quest design or RP or w/e, then go ahead.

 

Then you're missing the point.

 

If you want to complain about the lost RP options then you should make your thread/first post about the lost RP options not about quest design.

[aries1001]

I'm currently replaying DA:O for the third time. And yes, there are fetch quests in this game as well. Collect 9 or 18 corpse gall, get 10 deep mushrooms to the Chantry, deliver a wolf pelt to a an elf in the Dalish forest, deliver a scarf to a dalish elf, deliver motices of termination to threee or four mages, deliver a notice of we're on to you to npcs all over Denerim, and the whole questline favors for interested parties are indeed what I would decribe as fetch quests...

 

edit:

Aren't the point of fetch quest and sidequests that they are in the game in order to hel you get stronger by allowing you to get experience points for completing these...

Modifié par aries1001, 26 décembre 2014 - 12:22 .

[Aulis Vaara]

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".

I was a qunari and still I explored the whole ****** castle, and the only thing I remember of Celene is that she likes flings or something (well, there was Briala and then one of the guards tied up on her bed), whatshisname thinks he'll be a better emperor because Celene is too self-centered, and Briala is a stereotype elf who actually doesn't like anyone.

I shouldn't have to read a book to know these people. This is a videogame. Show, don't tell.

On the other hand, I remember that Harrowmont was a kind, traditionalist dwarf who believed in right and wrong, while Bhelen was a dictatorial scumbag who thought that the ends justified the means. Ultimately he wanted the dwarves to thrive once again. Ruthless but not wrong.

[lazysuperstar]

I'm currently replaying DA:O for the third time. And yes, there are fetch quests in this game as well. Collect 9 or 18 corpse gall, get 10 deep mushrooms to the Chantry, deliver a wolf pelt to a an elf in the Dalish forest, deliver a scarf to a dalish elf, deliver motices of termination to threee or four mages, deliver a notice of we're on to you to npcs all over Denerim, and the whole questline favors for interested parties are indeed what I would decribe as fetch quests...

 

Nothing beats playing the postman in Denerim! Supreme Roleplaying

[Aurok]

Then you're missing the point.
 
If you want to complain about the lost RP options then you should make your thread/first post about the lost RP options not about quest design.

Are you really claiming that the RP aspect of a quest doesn't make up part of the quest design? That's plainly nonsense.

[byeshoe]

Here's a drink to you OP. Excellent post and I agree with all of your points

[Vox Draco]

TL;DR - Dragon Age Inquisition isn't Dragon Age Origins, because if Dragon Age Inquisition would be Dragon Age Origins, it would be called Dragon Age Origins, and not Dragon Age Inquisition.

 

That's...bascically all that is to say about the two games ...

[DemGeth]

This is that thread about that thread about that other thread.

[Skymaple]

Now I think you are forgetting how were the side quests in DAO (I have no problem with them, but they weren't that better)

 

http://dragonage.wik...uests_(Origins)

 

Read the list (without the DLC, the companion quests and how you meet companions (which I think DAI did better) and you have what? fetch quests? some more interesting, some less exciting.

 

In DAI there're quite a few side quests which I love (previously mentioned) and DA2 had a lot of them.

[WillieStyle]

I was a qunari and still I explored the whole ****** castle, and the only thing I remember of Celene is that she likes flings or something (well, there was Briala and then one of the guards tied up on her bed), whatshisname thinks he'll be a better emperor because Celene is too self-centered, and Briala is a stereotype elf who actually doesn't like anyone.

I shouldn't have to read a book to know these people. This is a videogame. Show, don't tell.

On the other hand, I remember that Harrowmont was a kind, traditionalist dwarf who believed in right and wrong, while Bhelen was a dictatorial scumbag who thought that the ends justified the means. Ultimately he wanted the dwarves to thrive once again. Ruthless but not wrong.

Wait, what?! Someone is trying to suggest that Orzammar had more role playing and or Character development than the Winter Palace?! This is just taking the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia to an absurd extreme.

What's amusing is that your own quote is self refuting. The descriptions in your first paragraph about the Wjnter palace are far more distinctive than your description of the cliche political strife in Orzamar.

And complaining about having to read codex entries?! So much for the notion that DA:I represents the "dumbing down" of the franchise to appeal to the ADHD generation.

[Aulis Vaara]

First of all, I've read the whole of The Wheel Of Time, what is out of A Song Of Ice And Fire. I've read Lord Of The Rings, the Silmarillion, the Hobbit AND The Children Of Hurin. The last book I've read was Words Of Radiance and that's not a small book itself. I DON'T mind reading. I DO mind having to pause a GAME for an hour to learn things that should be apparent through dialogue.

What's amusing is that your own quote is self refuting. The descriptions in your first paragraph about the Wjnter palace are far more distinctive than your description of the cliche political strife in Orzamar.

Cliche political strife? Maybe. Though the only other example I can think up at the moment is Skyrim.

Regardless, it's not about how often you've seen this situation before, but how well it is told. And the situation is set up fantastically in Orzammar, where each side is well defined, not only through the people who speak for them, but also by the quests they give you and the very story you go through and how these people behave.

And Orlais distinctive, really? "The Great Game" comes back in just about every fantasy series. It's teenage drama and little more than that. But that's just my opinion and isn't relevant about how well the story is told. It remains the case that Celene and Gaspard don't feel distinctive and have no clear political positions.

[wicked cool]

The argument could be settled on which game has/will have more impact choices in the keep.

I truly think if they have dlc that one idea is complete x number of fetch quests will unlock story/cutscene content/adventure that will have a lasting impact on world.

[NM_Che56]

 

I'm enjoying them. 

[tmp7704]

I shouldn't have to read a book to know these people. This is a videogame. Show, don't tell.

On the other hand, I remember that Harrowmont was a kind, traditionalist dwarf who believed in right and wrong, while Bhelen was a dictatorial scumbag who thought that the ends justified the means. Ultimately he wanted the dwarves to thrive once again. Ruthless but not wrong.

But funnily enough these things you know about the dwarves only come from what they tell you in a cutscene or two, and the ending slideshow which is... just text.

[Feranel]

I will take fast traveling all over the Hinterlands in DA:I for side quests any day than having to backtrack the Korcori Wilds or the Circle tower 15 times to complete side quests.

[WillieStyle]

First of all, I've read the whole of The Wheel Of Time, what is out of A Song Of Ice And Fire. I've read Lord Of The Rings, the Silmarillion, the Hobbit AND The Children Of Hurin. The last book I've read was Words Of Radiance and that's not a small book itself. I DON'T mind reading. I DO mind having to pause a GAME for an hour to learn things that should be apparent through dialogue.


Cliche political strife? Maybe. Though the only other example I can think up at the moment is Skyrim.

Regardless, it's not about how often you've seen this situation before, but how well it is told. And the situation is set up fantastically in Orzammar, where each side is well defined, not only through the people who speak for them, but also by the quests they give you and the very story you go through and how these people behave.

And Orlais distinctive, really? "The Great Game" comes back in just about every fantasy series. It's teenage drama and little more than that. But that's just my opinion and isn't relevant about how well the story is told. It remains the case that Celene and Gaspard don't feel distinctive and have no clear political positions.

 

Look, you yourself summarized the basic conflicts in Orzamar and the Winter Palace in your own post.  I simply pointed out that, someone who had played neither game, would find your description of the Winter Palace far more interesting than your own description of Orzamar in spite of your intentions.  

[In Exile]

But funnily enough these things you know about the dwarves only come from what they tell you in a cutscene or two, and the ending slideshow which is... just text.

And you really have to dig around to learn the truth about each. To see both sides of Bhelen, you need to muck around the palace reading codex entries (shows how he back stabbed Trian and his relationship with his castless lover) and talk to a random merchant (who illustrates that he's willing to grow Orzammar economically).

The Winter's Palace has your advisors explain them in a lot of detail. You can interact with one candidate directly and freely and constantly call them out. You can also call out another. You get far more interaction with each of them - cinematic interaction, not codex entries - than you ever did with Bhelen and Harrowmont.

DAI has underwhelming side quests. It's fade section is truncated and disappointing. But the Winter's Palace is phenomenal, and it's by far their best and most varied RP quest.

[rigron]

Completely agree with the OP

[Superluccix]

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.

 

Are you serious? The one who has not been understanding the other person this entire time has been you. You started debating me all because you wanted me to use *your* terminology of quest design and RP and to separate the two. You were completely and utterly missing the point. I made an obvious claim, that DA:O side quests for the majority were much better than DA:I because of the various dialogue options and the multiple ways to end the quest. You on the other hand decide to completely troll this thread by missing the obvious difference between them and by bringing up irrelevant points.

 

You have not refuted this. You keep going off on tangents that have nothing to do with my original point.

 

"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."

 

Because it is dishonest. If you nor anybody else on this forum can see the difference between something like the Sacred Ashes quest in Origins, to any of the 99% side quests that Inquisition has. There is absolutely no way I can help you. You trying to figure out what I mean by a fetch quest is just a complete attempt at derailing the obvious topic of the thread.

 

Edit: Casuist has pointed out my error in saying Sacred Ashes was a main quest. I was wrong to use that. Replace that with any other actual side quest

 

Once again, stop being oblivious. You are looking far deeper into this than is remotely necessary.

 

"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."

 

Dude, I already went over this via my T bone steak example. I said to say that Origins sidequests were the same as Inquisitions, would be like comparing a T bone steak to a T bone, simply for the fact that when you boil both of them down, they are both T bones. Its like yeah no ****. But you had to first strip the meat away from the first one.

 

"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."

 

Lol. Just lol. I wasnt clear? Did you not see me saying that Origins side quests were what I was asking for?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think its clear that conversing with you is just a complete waste of both of our time. The whole reason we even had this back and forth was because you couldnt understand what my opening post was about, even though it was clear as day. I have had to continuously spell out what I said over and over, so Im done. 

 

But to end on a good note, hope you had a good Christmas

[Casuist]

 

"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."

 

Because it is dishonest. If you nor anybody else on this forum can see the difference between something like the Sacred Ashes quest in Origins, to any of the 99% side quests that Inquisition has. There is absolutely no way I can help you. You trying to figure out what I mean by a fetch quest is just a complete attempt at derailing the obvious topic of the thread.

 

 

Sacred Ashes is a main quest, not a side quest.

 

A little less talk about "honesty" is warranted here... as we have little standing to judge one another on that quality. Basic "accuracy" still needs enough work, itself.