227 réponses à ce sujet

[Melca36]

That doesn't make me lazy or wanting my hand held, nice try though.

 

They aren't more relevant, either. Mother Giselle tells me how I helped the area? Too bad the area is literally the same regardless of whether or not I did the refugee questline. LOL

 

Actually the ambient dialogue changes in the hinterlands after it. 

[hong]

1) Nope, not really. All mere assertions, no argument present

Please, let us stick to arguments by metaphor, rather than arguments by assertion. Or even argument by assertion about argument by assertion.
 

2) Nah, I like exploring. It just isn't fun exploring because what I am exploring towards is more low quality filler.

Then you are not truly exploring.
 

3) Not really

Indeed.
 

4) The people that criticize the game.

Ah yes, the "critics".
 

5) The nice thing is, they do. They involve minimal interaction, minimal dialogue, minimal narrative, trivial rewards, and no choices present.

And for the purpose under consideration, these are all good things. Of course, by so-called "objective" criteria, they may not be desirable, but that simply points out that the applicability of such criteria can be a subjective matter.

And you're still going on with the exploration thing - that still doesn't change the fact that the quests are low quality filler

Which is good, if you just want to get on with uncovering the map.

 

6) Oh, so you're still hung up on this. Actually, the Twilight example was there to show that just because a lot of people like something, it does not necessarily mean it's good. And the sandwich example was there to show that just because you enjoy something that is very simple, that does not mean that it's good either. Just like DA:I's fetchquets. I'm just hoping your pedantry will result in an argument eventually.

I'm not sure why you felt you needed to explain how argument by metaphor works. It's not like McDonalds is complicated. I mean, yes, a nice big steak is great, but sometimes, you just want to kick back with a simple burger.

[hong]

1) Still making no sense

Now you're not even trying.
 

2) Nothing, since that wasn't the main part of the argument, that was just me saying why I don't like them, because they're low quality filler.

Fair enough, let us pretend that messy "objectively bad" comment never happened.
 

3) Oh no, I see it as interesting. Thing is, in DA:I exploration by low quality filler drives you only to even more low quality filler, which is another layer of badness.

But this is simply because you have failed to reinterpret such so-called "filler" in a way that drives enjoyment of the game. Not that there's anything wrong with that; after all, as said before, there's a limit to how much gamification one can tolerate.
 

And you're still hung up on the metaphors. Already explained, it was merely to illustrate how things that are bad that a lot of people like are still bad despite them liking it, and things that are of low quality are still of low quality even though they like them.

Please, don't be so defensive about your use of metaphors. There's nothing wrong with them, really. Sometimes you might want to make a good argument on its own merits, but at other times you just want to compare things to others without consideration to how external factors might mean the comparison is prejudged and thus fails to illuminate. It's like steak and hamburger. I like steak, but not all the time. Sometimes I just want a nice greasy burger.

[pawswithclaws]

Actually the ambient dialogue changes in the hinterlands after it. 

Not just in the Hinterlands, it changes in the other areas as well. I personally find it satisfying to hear that refugees, who not long ago were worrying whether they would make it through the night or not, are finally warm and fed.

[hong]

1) No need to be so pedantic - repeating the same metaphor thing over and over again makes it obvious that you think being snarky somehow makes for an argument to support your claims

Well, I do like a nice hamburger, but not all the time. Ice cream is good too, you know?
 

2) I am.

No, you're not.

It's not my fault the world is populated by low quality filler, though, and it's not my fault the low quality filler that drives exploration leads to even more low quality filler.

But it is your fault that you are seemingly unable to view the content in any context that presents it as something other than "low quality filter". Still, I guess some people like having hamburger all the time.

3) Yep

Indeed.
 

4) Yep, them.

The ones that led to multiple critics awards and readers awards?
 

5) Quite wrong.

Quite true, in fact.
 

6) The low quality filler is still low quality filler - regardless of your claim for its purpose in the game

And now we have moved on from argument by metaphor to argument by assertion. Please provide more foodstuffs to justify your unwillingness to use the game content in a way that encourages exploration.

7) Still missing the point.

Would you like some ice cream, perhaps?

[hong]

1) I'm just giving the same amount of effort as you are

Clearly not.
 

2) Nah, it's still objectively bad. "I don't like them because they're objectively bad" was just an addition of why I don't enjoy them. Because they're objectively bad.

Ah yes, "objectively bad".
 

3) No, that's simply because that low quality filler is so badly designed, the fact that it's supposed to drive exploration doesn't make it any better, especially when you consider the fact that it just leads you to even more and more garbage

But if you have fun while getting to the destination, do you not have fun?
 

4) No reason to still be snarky, though. I find it funny that "defensive" seems to be a proper argument on these forums - insinuating that you have an upper hand or something. Regardless, those metaphors were to illustrate the fact that just because you like and enjoy the fetchquests, that doesn't make them any less bad, because they're two separate things.

It does mean that any arguments for why they are "bad" are of lesser importance, since they can be used in a way that neutralises their shortcomings.

[hong]

I did. Mother Giselle only tells you they're OK after you do a series of fetchquests for Cpl. Vale. The area is where the refugees are is literally the same, whether or not you do Vale's quest chain. So, no real result or relevance there, despite the claim.

You should explore a bit more.

[hong]

1) And your argument is for this is?

It seems that you are unable to proceed without foodstuffs.
 
 

2) Nope, pretty sure you're just spouting random things because you find yourself unable to actually back up your assertions.

Here it is again, for those back home.

The nice thing is that DAI fetch quests, for the most part, do not fit this template. Rather than talking to someone to initiate them, they're acquired automatically by entering an area, or reading some lore, or finding an item on the ground. You never talk to anyone, and hence there is no dissonant moment when the high-and-mighty Inquisitor gets treated as a random nobody. There are exceptions, but they're few in number.

So, what are these quests then? I see them as basically act as a way to draw you into exploring the map: uncovering the blank areas, looking for ways to get to the next ridge, and so on. The standard quests like rifts, shards and astrariums are intended for this, but most of the other quests can be approached in the same way. They are also puzzles: how do you get to that annoying shard up on the hill, or find the landmark that doesn't show? Figuring out the paths to these quest objects was something that gave me a surprising amount of satisfaction; no doubt because I was focused on the process rather than the goal. If I'd taken a traditional OCD/completionist approach focused on efficiency and mechanically crossing off each quest in the journal, I'd probably have become frustrated and given up before long.

 

3) I get what your "argument" is, it's just very bad.

Please provide more foodstuffs to back up your assertion that my "argument" is bad. Assuming you even know what you're arguing against.

[hong]

1) Still hung up on that, no surprise

 
Perhaps you would like some cheese? If ice cream, hamburger and steak aren't your thing....

2) Where's your argument, again?

 

The term "fetch quest" is kinda problematic in itself, because it's one of those phrases that means whatever you want it to mean, as long as it's derogatory: like "rollplaying" or "dumbed down". But for the purposes of this post, I'll assume that when people talk about a fetch quest, they mean a simple task, obtained from an NPC of no import, that involves no meaningful interaction with the game world. So you talk to a guy in town who asks you to find 10 bear pelts, which you obtain by killing bears one after another, and then you bring them back to him.

Now most CRPGs, including DAI, are power fantasies. You kill hordes of bad guys and accumulate huge wealth on the way to saving the world. However, the guy in town doesn't care about any of that. He just wants those bear pelts, and as far as he's concerned you're no different to anyone else he sees. This creates a disconnect between what the game sets you up to be, and how you're actually treated.

The nice thing is that DAI fetch quests, for the most part, do not fit this template. Rather than talking to someone to initiate them, they're acquired automatically by entering an area, or reading some lore, or finding an item on the ground. You never talk to anyone, and hence there is no dissonant moment when the high-and-mighty Inquisitor gets treated as a random nobody. There are exceptions, but they're few in number.

So, what are these quests then? I see them as basically act as a way to draw you into exploring the map: uncovering the blank areas, looking for ways to get to the next ridge, and so on. The standard quests like rifts, shards and astrariums are intended for this, but most of the other quests can be approached in the same way. They are also puzzles: how do you get to that annoying shard up on the hill, or find the landmark that doesn't show? Figuring out the paths to these quest objects was something that gave me a surprising amount of satisfaction; no doubt because I was focused on the process rather than the goal. If I'd taken a traditional OCD/completionist approach focused on efficiency and mechanically crossing off each quest in the journal, I'd probably have become frustrated and given up before long.

Of course, this introduces its own dissonance, in that the high-and-mighty Inquisitor is running off into the countryside for no good reason. But I can live with this; it's a decision I've made on my own rather than something the game world imposes on me. And hey, what's the point of having ultimate power if you can't indulge yourself?

 

3) Oh, I'm able to see why it's apparently in the game. The content is still bad, however, no matter the context.

Nonsense.
 

4) Justin Bieber sells millions and wins awards left and right, still a bad musician

I prefer to compare things to McDonalds. But there's nothing wrong with using Justin Bieber. Just because some people like food metaphors, and others like music metaphors, doesn't make one or the other objectively better.
 

5) Unless you noticed it for the first time, the so called "argument by assertion" I've been using for quite a few posts. Still, not an assertion. I'm not playing the game wrong - the game is just badly designed.

You are clearly playing the game wrong, if you are not having fun.
 

6) Getting nowhere with that.

What, is there a problem with food metaphors now?

[hong]

Already have - you claim they do not fit this template, yet they do.

No, the definition I'm using is

a simple task, obtained from an NPC of no import, that involves no meaningful interaction with the game world.

The template is still the same (minimal dialogue, minimal story, no choices, trivial rewards), them being there to "drive exploration", like you claim, doesn't make them any less bad. How you get those quests is irrelevant, since they are still of the same structure.

It is completely relevant, because by removing the necessity of talking to someone, you also remove the dissonance that comes with being treated as a nobody. This is out of sync with what the game sets you up to be, which is a big goddamn hero out to save the world.

But you still have to prove that them "driving exploration" somehow makes these fetchquests less fetchquests.

The point is that driving exploration means that these considerations are less important (and, possibly, even an advantage). Not that the quests magically become profound activities.

They fit the structure of a fetchquest - thus they are a fetchquest, regardless of your claim as to why they were put in the game.

And the point is that whatever label you want to put on them is irrelevant, since they can be used for a purpose other than that what you have assumed.

[hong]

Now it's at the point where you're just repeating the same thing because you can't construct an argument, not that surprising.

You just need to explore more. Hint: there are more parts to the Hinterlands than the Crossroads, and more quests than Mother Giselle's.

[hong]

1) Still not that surprising.

An argument without an antecedent is always arguable.
 
 

2) I'll gladly list every fetch quest in the game and how it plays out if we want to test your claim that they aren't fetch quests. Just because you don't get them by talking to an NPC doesn't mean they aren't fetchquests, nor them being put in the game for "exploration" as you claim, make them any less of a fetchquest

The point is that these so-called fetch quests have a structure that makes them amenable for driving exploration, not that they are magically complex beasts. In fact, their not being magically complex beasts can be considered a feature, not a bug.

 

A fetchquest is a quest, tracked in the quest journal, that has trivial rewards, the same simplistic structure, minimal dialogue, minimal story, and more often than not, no choices involved. Whether you get it by talking to an NPC or not is irrelevant, they're still fetchquests because they fit the structure of one.

You seem to have constructed a line of argument solely for the purpose of arguing with yourself. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Ogillardetta]

Okay everything is fetchquests in every game ever made then by that logic because most games make you find and get something for someone as the MAIN quest. One big fetchquest.

[hong]

1) That definition is bad, sorry to disappoint.

That definition is perfectly reasonable.
 

A fetchquest is a quest, and a quest is any task that is tracked by the quest journal. Seeing as you get these quests even if you don't talk to NPCs, your definition is bad.

Or... it could mean that they're not fetch quests. By one definition, anyway.
 

Also, you would have to demonstrate and define the "meaningful" interaction for the majority of fetchquests, for them not to be considered so

This would be important if the label "fetch quest" was somehow fundamental to what I'm saying. Strangely, this isn't so.
 

2) Except they're still structurally fetchquests, which is all that matters.

No, whether you have fun doing them or not, is all that matters.
 

Whether or not there is dissonance is irrelevant - dissonance is not required for a fetchquest to be a fetchquest, despite your esoteric criteria.

Ah yes, argument by label.
 

3) The point is that doing them is not fun regardless of what they were meant to do, because they are objectively designed badly.

The point is that doing then can certainly be fun, and in fact getting people to explore is probably exactly what they were meant to do. For that purpose, they are designed quite well.
 

4) They're still fetchquests.

Whatever that means.

[hong]

1) Sure thing - but repeating the same snarky thing has been stale for a while

The key point is to be funny.
 

2) The point is- they're still fetchquests, and still objectively badly designed, regardless of why you claimed they were designed so.

Ah yes, "objectively bad".

No one is asking for "magically complex beasts" either. I have yet to see a provided example of a sidequest that actually drives exploration, outside of the Hissing Wastes.

Things like the rifts, the shards, the astrariums, the various items you pick up off bodies....
 

3) Nope

Yes.

[hong]

ofc it was a design decision (One of the only good ones BW made this game); It's a fkn desert. Tells me alot about what kind of 'games' you enjoy that you'd want a desert in a game where every 5 steps you'd have an NPC ask you to:

• Find his sheep
• Find her purse
• Find his 5 special coins
• find her 6 specific grains of sand
• Kill 7 sand bugs that have been terrorizing the locals
• etc

You'll notice that at no point do people actually ask you to do these things. (Well, maybe the sheep. Once.)
 

The fetch quests in this game are plain bad, because this is not an MMO where a static world needs to exist. Dynamics can be put into place; Oh I just got all those blankets and food you were asking for, for the hungry and cold locals? Ok, well here they are... and nothing happens. No resolution. Just 'cheers m8'. It causes such a disconnect it gets to the point where you don't want to do another one because you ALREADY know the outcome. Bit of dialogue, now bugger off.

That is why things like shards, astrariums et al are nice, nobody is there to impose on your time, and then fail to make a big deal of it. If you like things like figuring out how to get to the top of a hill, or the other side of an impassable ridgeline, then these quests can be quite enjoyable. I didn't expect them to make a big change to the world (and this shouldn't have been an unreasonable thing either; it's not like the collections are given a prominent place in your journal).

[hong]

1) Yep, objectively bad.

The so-called aesthetic filter by which things are deemed worthy of elevation to a superior plane.
 

2) The rifts/shards/astrariums are only one part of such sidequests, and arguably the only one that would loosely fit your assertion. What about the others?

There are plenty more, not that you seem to be disagreeing with me.

Again, I'm offering to describe every fetchquest in the game that I know of, and then you can tell me why there is a need for so many of them if there are already rifts/shards/astariums

If you like that kind of thing, why not?
 

3) Nope.

Yes.

[hong]

1) The definition is perfectly reasonable, it's just a bad one.

Now you're (again) not even trying.
 

2) Not really. A quest is any task that is tracked in the quest journal. You get these quests even if you don't talk to NPCs.

Thank you for demonstrating that you did, after all, read the very first post.

These quests are of the same lazy structure as the quests you get from talking to NPCs, thus they are both fetchquests.

And...?

Unless you're gonna tell me you don't consider quests listed in the quest journal as "quests", which would just further show that you have no actual argument.

Please stop arguing with yourself.

Next thing you know you're gonna try to spin the definition of "quest" to fit your criteria.

The only person getting hung up on definitions is you.

 

4) It "can" be fun, it just isn't.

Sure it is.

You also still haven't proven your assertion that they were designed specifically for exploration.

You'll notice that word "probably".

You can drive exploration with fewer quests. I propose another purpose - since there are so many low quality filler quests, they're there for (mostly) padding. More likely designed for that than exploration, since exploration can be done with a lot fewer quests, but for some reason isn't

It's also quite possible that they are padding. Things can exist for multiple purposes; whether or not they are padding doesn't change the fact that you can still have fun with them.
 

5) Already said what it means.

Whatever relevance that has.

[hong]

1) Nope, by which things are bad by themselves. Like fetchquests in DA:I.

We have dismissed that possibility.
 

2) Name them. Demonstrate the "plenty more" quests that are there to "drive exploration", outside of rifts/shards/astariums

All the stuff you pick up off the ground, various quests by party members to retrieve objects....

Your point is what, exactly?

3) Still haven't told me what the point is of quests any other than shards/astariums/rifts, since they can drive exploration fine by their own. Again, it's padding.

whynotboth.jpg
 

4) Yes what?

Indeed.

[hong]

Ah, so that's just you speculating. For a minute I thought you were serious, but it seems like you're just talking out of your ass.

Very well, prove that all your so-called fetch quests were explicitly designed as padding.

[hong]

1) Where?

Why, all the critic's awards and readers' awards....

 

2) Name specific examples, outside of party members' grinding for approval

Wait, you were willing to provide a big list of so-called fetch quests before, and now you want me to do it? What is this bullsheet?

And besides, you are now terminally confused. I'm not saying that all these quests, whether you call them filler or fetch or George, are wonderfully constructed things. I'm saying that these quests, filler or fetch or whatnot, can be interpreted in a way that negates their shortcomings. Please, if you're going to continue, do put some effort into proceedings.
 

3) Why both?

Why not?
 

4) Indeed what?

That.

[Yokokorama]

Now most CRPGs, including DAI, are power fantasies. You kill hordes of bad guys and accumulate huge wealth on the way to saving the world. However, the guy in town doesn't care about any of that. He just wants those bear pelts, and as far as he's concerned you're no different to anyone else he sees. This creates a disconnect between what the game sets you up to be, and how you're actually treated.

The nice thing is that DAI fetch quests, for the most part, do not fit this template. Rather than talking to someone to initiate them, they're acquired automatically by entering an area, or reading some lore, or finding an item on the ground. You never talk to anyone, and hence there is no dissonant moment when the high-and-mighty Inquisitor gets treated as a random nobody. There are exceptions, but they're few in number.

 

You're right that these aren't fetch quests.  I've personally assigned them to the category of "even-worse-than-fetch-quests."

 

Getting a quest (I'm assuming we are talking about quests here and not "collections") when automatically entering an area is that it brings into question several things, like why we are doing this quest and where did we get this idea. 

 

Magically being assigned  a quest from thin air isn't "better" in my opinion; its far worse.  It makes even less sense from a story perspective and also limits the amount of dialogue / interaction with NPCs, which in of itself is a defining element of an RPG.

 

To each his own, though.

 

 

 

I see them as basically act as a way to draw you into exploring the map: uncovering the blank areas, looking for ways to get to the next ridge, and so on. The standard quests like rifts, shards and astrariums are intended for this, but most of the other quests can be approached in the same way.

 

Just to let you know, everything you are defining here is a "collectible," (or a "collection") not a quest.  Although I don't go around doing every single one of them, I don't mind them if observed in isolation because in of themselves there aren't many of them.

 

The problem is when even "real" quests have a similar grindy nature, and when their number far outweighs the quantity of meaningful quests in the game.

 

They are also puzzles: how do you get to that annoying shard up on the hill, or find the landmark that doesn't show? Figuring out the paths to these quest objects was something that gave me a surprising amount of satisfaction; no doubt because I was focused on the process rather than the goal. If I'd taken a traditional OCD/completionist approach focused on efficiency and mechanically crossing off each quest in the journal, I'd probably have become frustrated and given up before long.

 

I'd argue that the game can just as well familiarize the player with the map by using meaningful quests.  Witcher 2 had a similar format to DA:I in that it didn't have levels, but "open-world" zones (albeit much smaller than Inquisition's).  It encouraged exploration, but did not depend on menial tasks as much as Inquisition did to do that.  Of course, menial tasks did exist in that game, just not to the extent that they exist in Inquisition.  Furthermore, it wasn't as problematic from a lore perspective because you didn't play a pseudo-king character.

[hong]

They make up either the majority of each area's side content or at least half of it. The quests are recyclable, easy to design, and easy duplicate. Thus, they were added to the game as padding, low quality, simplistic quests, that are there for the sake of making the game longer.

That isn't proof. That may be evidence that the quests were designed in a hasty timeframe and are less complex than would be desirable, but evidence is not proof.
 
Please provide documentary evidence that the designers explicitly created these quests without regard to how they might play out in practice; specifically without considering that they might indeed be used to encourage exploration.

If you want, my offer to count the fetchquests in each area still stands. Then by inference we can conclude that they're there only for padding, since there is no need to overload each area with fetchquests because a small number of them can drive exploration.

Inference is not proof either.

Please provide documentary evidence that the designers had a specific target of the number of quests that they considered necessary for various purposes, whether it be driving exploration, furthering the storyline, filler, or whatever.

[hong]

1) Winning awards doesn't make the fetchquests any less bad - just like Justin Bieber's music is still bad while he sells millions and gains dozens of awards.

No, you're supposed to counter that with the assertion that EA/Bioware paid off the critics and the fanbois stuffed the ballot. Please to do it right.
 

So, your argument that since something is (critically) well received, certain aspects of it must not be bad, is proven wrong.

Well, it's like Twilight. There's nothing wrong with Twilight, even if millions of people like it.
 

2) Oh, they can be interpreted like that, I'm not denying it. That's just not the reality of the situation.

It certainly is the reality of the situation, for me and for many others.
 

3) Why not what?

That.
 

4) Explain.

You first.

[hong]

You're right that these aren't fetch quests.  I've personally assigned them to the category of "even-worse-than-fetch-quests."
 
Getting a quest (I'm assuming we are talking about quests here and not "collections") when automatically entering an area is that it brings into question several things, like why we are doing this quest and where did we get this idea.

I actually like how DAI leaves it up to you to define your own motivation. It's hard to remember now, but early games were very much like this. Nobody forced you to go to a certain area; nobody forced you to go into a dungeon.

Now there is certainly a disconnect between this approach and the conceit that you're the leader of a big organisation. If you were really the leader you're made out to be, you should by rights be spending 99% of your time in Skyhold, or in various cities talking to other leaders. But the conceit has been made, and we have to deal with it. Personally I'm happy to put all that out of my mind and just go traipsing around the countryside -- and since I've decided to ignore it, it doesn't really matter if the quests I'm doing don't engage with it.
 

Magically being assigned  a quest from thin air isn't "better" in my opinion; its far worse.  It makes even less sense from a story perspective and also limits the amount of dialogue / interaction with NPCs, which in of itself is a defining element of an RPG.

......

Let's not get into the whole "how to define an RPG" thing.