227 réponses à ce sujet

[hong]

Nor did I call it proof, as I didn't know what was going on in the minds of the designers when they were designing the game. However, from the available facts, I can properly deduce that there is a higher chance that these quests were put there as padding, instead of driving exploration.

Exactly. Rather than definitive proof, what you have are statements of subjective belief, for which the natural framework is the framework of probability. Much like what I was doing when I used the word
 

probably

[hong]

1) Snarky statements don't make for an argument

Would you like me to go back to food metaphors?
 

2) There's nothing wrong with Twilight, it's just a bad book.

There is nothing wrong with DAI, it's just a critically acclaimed game.

3) Ok, prove it.

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

4) Explain.

You first.

[hong]

Not subjective belief, objective observations.

Objective observations evaluated to provide a probability estimate; unless you are using

I can properly deduce that there is a higher chance

to mean something other than what it means.

If the sidequests were, according to you, designed to carry exploration, there wouldn't be so many of them. There simply isn't a need for so many sidequests. But we can discern from the sheer number of them (approx. 120~ throughout the whole game) that the majority of them were put there as padding.

Which does not rule out the possibility of also using them to drive exploration.

Not probably, but most definitely.

A high probability is still a probability.

Since the only way I can "prove" what the developers intended is if I 1) read their minds or 2) read a statement from them saying it's there for padding, it's impossible for me to prove 100% why it's in the game, and I don't remember ever asking you that.

No, you just rejected a statement of belief merely on the basis that it was not definitive.

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.

[Yokokorama]

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.

 

That is a unique take on the matter that I have never heard before.  Can you elaborate on why you think you coming up with your own motivation is better?

 

Here is my beef with it; using that logic, I can play games like Dynasty Warriors / Pirate Warriors (which is a series of games that basically consists of nothing but endless horde mode) and still label it an RPG because I can contrive a motive, no matter how weak, because of my actions (i.e. "I'm killing these guys because they stole my cheeseburger 10 years ago" despite there being no in-game indication of this).  In my opinion, a good RPG needs to give you purpose to what you are doing and consistently reinforce it, otherwise it feels no different to any other genre.  And that purpose is usually given via human interactions, which are few and far between in this game.  Even when they do exist here, I felt they were lack luster. 

 

Quests that I felt hit a perfect balance of combat / dialogue are Cassandra's and Varric's companion quests.  Iron Bull's companion quest was also comparable, albeit much shorter.  Unfortunately, many quests fail to hit that balance of dialogue / motive and combat (and to an extent, exploration), thus leading to a situation where you feel like you are playing an arena fighter rather than an RPG.

 

I haven't played as many RPGs as most people; all I've played is the ME trilogy, DA trilogy, Fallout 3, Fallout NV, Oblivion, and Skyrim so I don't really have any RPG knowledge whatsoever prior to 2006.  Unless you want to count the original Pokemon games from the 90s, which would technically qualify . . .

 

 

 

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

 

It's obviously subjective criteria, but it seems a large portion of the posters here in your thread seem to share this sentiment.

 

What I'm sayng is that if a game that dubs itself an RPG yet has no dialogue or interaction with NPCs, most people will not consider it an RPG.  Most people would likely label it an "arena fighter" and rightfully so, because the biggest factor that differentiates an "arena fighter" and an RPG is dialogue and interactions.  You pound on waves of enemies in both types of games, but the RPG actually gives you purpose and consistently motivates you to do so.  Without that motivating factor, the RPG loses a lot of what makes it an RPG in many people's eyes.

[hong]

1) If you want, both of those are just empty words you use to appear like you have something to say

Well, when you started arguing with yourself, it was a bit hard for me to keep up. I might have gone off on a tangent at that point.

2) Nothing wrong with Justin Bieber either, outside of being a bad musician. Arguing that something is good because it's critically acclaimed falls apart for now.

Well, "I'm right, even though the critics disagree with me!" at least makes a change from "I'm right, and the critics agree with me!"
 

3) Why, how does critical reception make the sidequests any less bad?

It simply means such evaluation of quests as "bad" must clearly be of lesser importance when it comes to obtaining a final judgement of the quality of the product.
 

4) Those are still just empty words.

Nonsense.

[hong]

1) That's exactly what I stated - you seem to think that describing the same thing using different words is anything but handwaving

In other words, you are working off subjective probabilities as much as anyone else, yes?
 

2) Yeah, too bad you have no argument to actually support that

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) Is stating the obvious an argument now?

Thank you for agreeing that you, like me, are working with subjective probabilities rather than definitive proofs.

 

4) No, I rejected it because your argument was awful. It's a bit better because you didn't claim it was 100% true, but still awful.

Please not to start backtracking now, it'll leave a big mess on the carpet.

[Elfyoth]

A lot of the ones I notced where they ask they are truly asking for help. "Can you please?" Not demanding help, which makes a difference. Also, they're optional. They're great for building power and influence though, especially early in the game when nobody knows who the hell you are really. I thought of it as building good will. And I knew I could do them or not.

 

Now resource gathering ... Meh.

Well I have no prob with rescuing the prisoners in the emprise but have you ever noticed they never say thank you? Unless you free em all. Pfft rude Orliesns

[hong]

1) Not really

Yes, really. Please, do repeat the part where you offered to list all the quests that can be used for exploration!
 

2) Please do point to reviews where critics state that the numerous sidequests in this game are well designed. And the last I remembered, the critics' opinion is no higher than mine or your own, so using them as a shield isn't exactly good

Ah yes, "there is no objectively bad".
 

3) Just like Justin Bieber evaluating aspects of Justin Bieber's music as bad is of lesser importance because of all the awards he won and albums he sold

I think you might want to edit your post here.
 

4) Case in point

Indeed.

[hong]

That is a unique take on the matter that I have never heard before.  Can you elaborate on why you think you coming up with your own motivation is better?

That's just how it is in many older games. You had a dungeon, there was a boss at the end, and your job was to kill the boss. That's it. Or you had a big world, and you wandered across it killing monsters and taking their stuff (and at the end, you probably went into a dungeon and killed the boss).

That's how it is in p&p gaming too; matters there are much more flexible than videogaming. You get kinda crappy production effects, but everyone has a lot more freedom to make sh*t up (ideally).
 

Here is my beef with it; using that logic, I can play games like Dynasty Warriors / Pirate Warriors (which is a series of games that basically consists of nothing but endless horde mode) and still label it an RPG

....

Here's a hint: arguing based on labels only devolves into arguing about labels.

[hong]

1) The conclusion is still objective

If a conclusion is based on a subjective evaluation of probabilities, it cannot be objective.

Trust me, I'm a statistician. 

2) Wrong statement again. You have an argument, it's just a bad one

Ah yes, "ur wrong".
 

3) I'm still right, though. Your only argument for now is screaming "SUBJECTIVE!"

Prove that you're right.
 

4) Yet more empty words.

Prove it.

[hong]

1) Explain how that's arguing with myself

It is very easy. Nobody was taking issue with generic terms like "fetch quest" until you came along and made a big production of it. Somewhere along the line, you got it into your head that I was denying whatever definition you were using. Things just got more wacky from there.
 

2) Ah yes, strawman

I do not think that word means what you think it means.
 

3) No need, point still stands.

I do not think you know which point you're making anymore.
 

4) Indeed what?

Indeed.
 

What are you arguing again? That the sidequests aren't objectively bad?

That "objectively bad" is a pointless judgement to be throwing around, of course.

Why abandon your original post? If so, do a different argument other than yelling "SUBJECTIVE!" over and over again.

I'm not abandoning my original post. Why, I've even repeated it several times for your edification. Somehow I doubt you know what it was saying even after all this time, though.

[hong]

1) Prove it

You first.
 

2) No, that's just you

You seem to be having trouble coming up with an appropriate response. Would you like a Clippy icon to go with this?
 

3) Prove that I'm wrong

 
No, that's my schtick.

4) Nah, prove me wrong.

Oh man, this is like the good old days.

[hong]

1) And yet you kept arguing about it, meaning it wasn't only myself

There's nothing wrong, as long as you're having fun. Are you having fun?
 

2) Yep, I do.

No, you really don't.
 

I offered to list all the quests that were low quality filler, not the ones that drive exploration

To be precise, all the quests that you would (probably) consider "low quality filler" are also the ones that drive exploration.
 

3) How is that?
 
4) ?
 
5) Prove it.
 
6) Alright, prove it.

You really need to work on those comebacks.

[hong]

1) More empty words

And yet you don't deny that you were, essentially, arguing with yourself.
 

2) Prove that.

Arguing without an antecedent is always arguable.
 

3) Prove it

Didn't I tell you to work on those comebacks?
 

Ok, I'll wait for you to prove me wrong.

So, what exactly did you say was wrong?

[hong]

Still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

I'm waiting for you to prove me wrong. As the person who started the thread, I put up the argument. While you've certainly gone round and round a little bit, I don't think you've actually managed to address it. Oh sure, you went off on tangents about "objectively bad", but as was pointed out, such evaluations depend on a certain underlying framework. Remove that framework, and the evaluation becomes less relevant.

[hong]

What'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?

I'm also excluding the more substantial quests from the above: things like the helping the refugees in the Emerald Graves, or the townsfolk in the Emprise, for example. I doubt those would fit any reasonable person's conception of a fetch quest.

[hong]

I'm waiting for you to prove me wrong, too.

Such shining wit.

 

Prove it.

And these are precisely the elements which make the quests easy to turn into vehicles for driving exploration: there is less narrative baggage to shed, and fewer consequences to deal with. Because you are not talking to guys on farms who only want their bear pelts, there is also no dissonance between your purported heroic deeds and your social status ingame. Because how many shards you get doesn't have a critical impact on whether NPC X dies or not, you can get on with searching for them rather than worrying about how it will impact your endgame. Because you only get a relatively minor ingame reward, you are also free not to go looking for shards if you don't find it fun.

[hong]

Alright, prove all of that.

I suspect you're no longer having fun. You really shouldn't continue doing an activity that isn't fun. OCD isn't a joke.

[hong]

Ok, prove all of that too.

Sure. Question: are you having fun?

[hong]

Only if you are.

I certainly am!

Let's start 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?

I'm also excluding the more substantial quests from the above: things like the helping the refugees in the Emerald Graves, or the townsfolk in the Emprise, for example. I doubt those would fit any reasonable person's conception of a fetch quest.

[hong]

Ok, prove that all of this is true.

No, you've already used that line. You'll have to find another one, or I'm going to start thinking you're not having fun.

[cronshaw]

I've realised why I don't have a problem with DAI's fetch quests

 

Because you aren't persnickety?