227 réponses à ce sujet

[hong]

Ok, prove that all of this is true.

That's easy enough. Are you having fun?

[hong]

Because you aren't persnickety?

That's not true. That's impossible.

[Vilegrim]

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.


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


A high probability is still a probability.


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.

 

 

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.


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


A high probability is still a probability.


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.

 

where you ever planning on offering an argument?

[theluc76]

Big Original Post to say, wrap it in gold paper and its so much better.

 

oh and red goes faster, trust me im a painter.

[hong]

Only if you are.

Again, you've already used that line. You really need to come up with a different one.

Since I'm generous, how about this: "ur mom".

[hong]

Meh

That's not quite "ur mom", but it'll do.

[hong]

Why?

Indeed.

[hong]

Ah, so you're just looking to get the last word. Not surprising, considering your other petulant responses, you can have it, no worries.

But I thought you said you were having fun.

[Almostfaceman]

... because they're not. Mostly.

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.

 

It's cool you've taken the time to analyze why you like the quests in the game. I think you make good points. 

 

I like them as well, I just didn't put much thought into the why because I was busy (and am busy) enjoying the game. I still haven't put much thought into it, I'm lazy like that. 

[l7986]

Hong can you just come out and call everyone that doesn't agree with you stupid and tell them how much better of a person you are then them already?

[Draining Dragon]

How is picking up an item off the ground different from talking to a boring NPC with no personality?

[hong]

How is picking up an item off the ground different from talking to a boring NPC with no personality?

The NPC is failing to give me the proper respect by saddling me with a chore. The item does no such thing, instead leaving me to saddle myself.

[FaWa]

I did not enjoy the fetch quests. As much as it pains me to say, what inquisition was trying to do, Guild Wars 2 (an actual MMO) did better. 

[robertthebard]

1) That definition is bad, sorry to disappoint. 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. Also, you would have to demonstrate and define the "meaningful" interaction for the majority of fetchquests, for them not to be considered so

So every quest in any game, because they all fit your definition of "fetch quest"? Oh, wait, I forgot, all that's needed to change that is a cutscene, right?
 

2) Except they're still structurally fetchquests, which 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.

True.
 

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

Subjective. Evidently you're unaware of what objective means. There's the definition. Since it's pretty common for people that believe they're objectively correct in every assertion they make on the BSN: "based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings" That is the part of the definition that relates to your comment. The link is provided if you wish to verify it for yourself. You feel that these quests are bad, therefore, it is subjective, to wit: "based on feelings or opinions rather than facts". Your feelings about it don't make it objectively true.
 

4) They're still fetchquests.

While I feel your definition is overly broad, and biased by confusion about objective and subjective viewpoints, I can't and won't dispute this. That you feel(subjective) that they don't drive exploration doesn't necessarily dictate that they don't, however. The fact is, if you're going to do them, you're going to be driven to explore the area whether you feel(subjective) you are or not, or whether you find them fun(subjective, since fun is a feeling) or not. The fact is, some people do find it fun, and have even posted such in this very thread. That should be enough to demonstrate how subjective this topic really is.

[hong]

I did not enjoy the fetch quests. As much as it pains me to say, what inquisition was trying to do, Guild Wars 2 (an actual MMO) did better.

I'm still waiting for a proper Canthan expansion....

[hong]

1) Nope, but the vast majority
 
2) Not that either, since they aren't bad because I don't like them, they're bad because of how they are designed, which is objectively bad. I can't possibly imagine a scenario where the most simplistic and lazy quest design is heralded as anything but "bad".

Here you go:

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.

 

You can choose any definition of fetchquest you want, but it all falls down to as basic as possible quest design or a variance of one (talk to x, do x, go back to x), while also featuring minimal content in between. It's there for padding, strictly speaking, because it's easy to create and easy to copy paste between areas.

But it is also quite possible to use it as a means of encouraging exploration.

This content can be either dialogue, quest-related story, choices to make, and rewards. Doing these quests isn't particularly fun,

But they are.

You can find these fetchquests fun even if they are bad - they're still objectively bad.

Ah yes, "objectively bad". The so-called aesthetic filter by which things are deemed worthy of elevation to a superior plane.

Enjoyment and quality don't have to always be linked.

The trick is to realise that enjoyment trumps quality. As long as you're having fun, it's all good.
 

And I never denied that they don't "drive exploration", I denied that if this was true it somehow alleviates the problem of the overabundance of such quests. Point is, most of the exploration you do leads you to even more fetchquests, while the act of exploration itself is directly linked to doing the quest - which is badly designed,

That is what "encourage exploration" means. You appear to have a very strange idea of what constitutes bad design, not that it matters.

and exploration driven by low quality content after a while would get stale.

Doing anything 4 or 5 times will get stale. Exploring is no different.

 

"Fun" doesn't equal "well designed".

You seem to place a great store in this "well designed" thing. Why is this?

You can find things fun that are bad in many ways. Justin Bieber, Twilight, The Room, Transformers, Fifty Shades of Gray. They're all so objectively awful, yet you have people finding them fun. Just because you have people disagreeing on a certain thing, does not mean that every opinion on that thing is entirely subjective.

At least now we have moved on from "it's bad, even if the critics disagree with me!" to "it's bad, and even the critics agree with me!"

[robertthebard]

1) Nope, but the vast majority
 
2) Not that either, since they aren't bad because I feel like they're bad, they're bad because of how they are designed, which is objectively bad. I can't possibly imagine a scenario where the most simplistic and lazy quest design is heralded as anything but "bad".
 
You can choose any definition of fetchquest you want, but it all falls down to as basic as possible quest design or a variance of one (talk to x, do x, go back to x), while also featuring minimal content in between. This content can be either dialogue, quest-related story, choices to make, and rewards. Doing these quests isn't particularly fun, and a number of fetch quests is expected in any game. DA:I's problem, however, is that it is the majority of the side content within the game, and there is no excuse for that.
 
You can find these fetchquests fun even if they are bad - they're still objectively bad. Enjoyment and quality don't have to always be linked. I'd also like to know how this definition of fetchquest - any simplistic quest that is short in length, basic in structure, has minimal dialogue, no choices to do, minimal story, and a trivial reward is "too broad" or unfitting.
 
And I never denied that they don't "drive exploration", I denied that if this was true it somehow alleviates the problem of the overabundance of such quests. Point is, most of the exploration you do leads you to even more fetchquests, while the act of exploration itself is directly linked to doing the quest - which is badly designed. Simply giving a reason as to what the quests purpose is doesn't change the fact that they are awfully designed nor does it make them more palatable.

Again, this is subjective, not objective. You state awfully designed as if that is an objective standard. Some people posting in this thread have stated otherwise. So either it's subjective, or those people are just too stupid to know they're not supposed to enjoy them because, according to you, they're objectively bad? At the end of the day, a person's opinion about how a quest is designed is subjective, therefore, any conclusion drawn is also subjective, since it's based entirely upon their opinion. If this isn't the case, perhaps you can point me to some actual documentation that proves otherwise? I'm genuinely curious to see that.

[Yokokorama]

Submerged24, perhaps you would want to change your wording to "lacking quests" or "depthless" quests.  Hell, even "shallow quests."

 

This way, it won't sound as awkward when you say: "Someone can enjoy a quest, but it is still objectively bad" and instead have something like "Someone can enjoy a quest, but it is still objectively depthless / shallow."  I guess it's because "bad" and "good" are very subjective criteria, whereas something like "shallow" would be a more politically correct / objective / proper word to use.

 

Not that I don't agree with what you're trying to say, though. 

[hong]

That's great and all, but at the end of the day, your argument is poor since you still seem to be hung up on the "dissonance" pet theory,

Not really. Here, I'll list the other things I mention besides "dissonance".

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.

and the quest design is still bad.

No, the quest design is good for its modified purpose.

[hong]

Millions of teenage girls think Twilight is a good book. Still objectively a bad one.

Which implies that the criteria that you are using to determine "objectively bad" are perhaps not so relevant to anyone besides yourself.

Just because there totally different opinions doesn't make the nature of the topic entirely subjective.

Nobody said it did.
 

You should probably stop strawmanning or putting words in my mouth if you're gonna lead a discussion, never did I say that "people are just too stupid to know they're not supposed to enjoy them". I already said you're free to enjoy them, however they are still objectively bad.

Or perhaps just subjectively bad.

[hong]

Not that surprising, you're just throwing up more useless arguments.

It is not my fault that you are unable to properly handle an argument that turns on the shakiness of assumptions underlying so-called "objectively bad".

If you wanna have a discussion, at least make sure that you aren't handwaving most of the time.

So. Tell me about that whole "objectively bad" thing again.

[hong]

Where is that?

Why, that when repurposed, quests can become not so bad after all.

[hong]

Ah, yeah, that's the poor argument part.

It's a perfectly good argument. Objectively good, in fact.

Not my fault you can't argue.

Not my fault you are unable to comprehend what you are (trying to) argue against.

[robertthebard]

Millions of teenage girls think Twilight is a good book. Still objectively a bad one. Just because there totally different opinions doesn't make the nature of the topic entirely subjective.
 
You should probably stop strawmanning or putting words in my mouth if you're gonna lead a discussion, never did I say that "people are just too stupid to know they're not supposed to enjoy them". I already said you're free to enjoy them, however they are still objectively bad.

Um, the fact that it's based on opinion means that it's subjective. I linked to the actual definition of the words so that you could indeed see that. I also asked you for something that shows me wrong. Instead, I get accused of a straw man. "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted". Providing the definition for the term you're throwing around to try to gain some measure of credibility doesn't fit that definition, does it? So what ever research it is that you're privy to, link it up. I want to see the research that proves that an opinion about something is objective, despite the provided definition of the term that shows otherwise. Do you have that, or is it going to be more "Because I said so"?

[hong]

Wasn't convincing earlier today,

That's what they all say.

isn't convincing now.

I do hope you're still having fun.