227 réponses à ce sujet

[hong]

A strawman is  an intentional misrepresentation of another's argument, it's arguing against things that were never said. I never said that "people are just too stupid to know they're not supposed to enjoy them", nor was it ever implied. Ut's an imaginary opposition, as an argument, that is set up by you to be easily confuted. It's imaginary because I never said such a thing. So yes, it perfectly fits the definition.

Unfortunately, your position tends to boil down to exactly that.
 

It's not based on opinion, it's still objectively bad. You can scream "OPINION!" how many times you want, the fact that there are people thinking differently about it does not mean it's entirely subjective. There are numerous examples of things that are bad

based on one set of criteria...

but people think are good.

... based on a different set of criteria. The choice of which criteria to use is inherently subjective. This surely cannot be hard to understand.

[hong]

Nah

Of course it does.
 

Describe them.

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.

and
 

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.

and prove they're inherently subjective.

My decision to evaluate quests based on the above criteria is based on my own preferences. They are idiosyncratic to me (and others with similar tastes). You, and others who feel the same way as you, will choose different criteria based on your own preferences. These preferences are not universal across all actors, hence are subjective.

Are we having fun?

[hong]

Just more empty rhetoric.

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

[Dr. Rush]

Don't call them fetch quests, call it "forgettable filler content"

 

It is just busy work, grinding, padding, a way to stretch out a game that would otherwise be 30-40 hours into 100+ hours. 

Filler content doesn't have to be fetch quests, its just low quality, insignificant, grindy, busy work that is not really entertaining or satisfying.

[Elsariel]

I liked the side quests or, "fetch quests", if you will. I do agree that there really should have been some main story purpose to being in these zones besides "we need more influence". I like helping people out in these zones but I want it to matter by the end of the game. I don't like that I could do the bare minimum and still have a similar outcome by the end.

[hong]

Prove it.

No, you've used that line already. You're not allowed to reuse the same comeback, certainly not 100 times.

[hong]

Prove it.

Hm. You do seem like you're not having fun anymore.

[hong]

Prove it.

Certainly.

Are you having fun?

[robertthebard]

A strawman is  an intentional misrepresentation of another's argument, it's arguing against things that were never said. I never said that "people are just too stupid to know they're not supposed to enjoy them", nor was it ever implied. It's an imaginary opposition, as an argument, that is set up by you to be easily confuted. It's imaginary because I never said such a thing or held such a position, you just acted like I did. So yes, it perfectly fits the definition.
 
It's not based on opinion, it's still objectively bad. You can scream "OPINION!" how many times you want, the fact that there are people thinking differently about it does not mean it's entirely subjective. There are numerous examples of things that are bad but people think are good - I provided such a list. DA:I's sidequest is one of them.
 
As for proving to you it's objectively bad? I'm afraid you're too deep in the rabbit hole of fanboyism for that to be possible.

Actually, I linked the definition of straw man too, and it doesn't fit what you're claiming here. So, what we have to date is:

1. You don't know what these words mean, they're just common internet tropes for conversation, so you throw them around to add weight to what you're trying to say, even if they're objectively wrong in their use.

2. You claim that an opinion can be objectively correct, with nothing to support it but, ironically enough a straw man about how some people like Twilight, and others don't. You then claim that the books are objectively bad, presumably because you don't like them. You see, you can't change what a word or term means to suit your argument. When you start throwing these words around, people like me will call your opinions into question, especially if you're using them wrong, which you are. I have already linked to definitons of these words and terms according to Merriam-Webster. If I have to choose a source to reliably define a word or term, I'm going to go with them. I've been using that dictionary for about 45 years, and they haven't steered me wrong yet.

So, again, I'll ask you to provide whatever it is you're using as a reference. If you can't, feel free to ignore me, because shouting it from the rooftops won't make me see your point as valid, when I have evidence to the contrary.

[hong]

Prove it.

Oh dear, it does seem that submerged24's head has submerged to 48 and imploded, and he is now simply trying to get the last word in. I guess

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

was not something to be believed, after all.

[learie]

I wanted to discuss the fetch quests and my experience of the game, but apparently this thread is for hong and submerged.
9 pages of you both saying "oh yeah? " to each other. About as interesting as collecting bottles.

[hong]

Nope, that's exactly what strawman means. You insinuated that I held a position/opinion I never stated to hold, then argued against it.

1) That seems like you

Now, now.

2) That's not a strawman. A strawman is intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting another's argument, then arguing against that misrepresentation. Saying that some people like Twilight while others don't isn't a strawman. It's not the dictionary that's the problem, you just don't know what a strawman is.

Now you're just confused.

As for "Twilight isn't objectively bad", it has a lot of flaws that make it objectively bad. That doesn't stop teenage girls from enjoying it, however. But yeah, feel free to go to a literature forum and argue that Twilight is good and see how many people are gonna agree with you.

All that means is that whatever teenage girls see in Twilight, it isn't what writers look for in literature. Whether or not a person is looking for literature is something that cannot be objectively determined.

But the topic at hand is game quests, which is hardly as far-reaching a subject as literature. It is very easy to see that there can be different ways in which quests can be approached, and what works for one purpose may not be as suited to another purpose.

You don't have any evidence that it isn't objectively bad, just a couple of opinions, and different opinions does not mean something is not objectively bad, as evidenced by Twilight being objectively bad while millions of teenage girls do not think so.

You really should have stopped while you were ahead.

[robertthebard]

Nope, that's exactly what strawman means. You insinuated that I held a position/opinion I never stated to hold, then argued against it.
 
1) That seems like you
 
2) That's not a strawman. A strawman is intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting another's argument, then arguing against that misrepresentation. Saying that some people like Twilight while others don't isn't a strawman. It's not the dictionary that's the problem, you just don't know what a strawman is.
 
As for "Twilight isn't objectively bad", it has a lot of flaws that make it objectively bad. Numerous examples. That doesn't stop teenage girls from enjoying it, however. But yeah, feel free to go to a literature forum and argue that Twilight isn't bad and see how many people are gonna agree with you.
 
You don't have any evidence that it isn't objectively bad, just a couple of differing opinions, and different opinions does not necessarily mean something is not objectively bad, as evidenced by Twilight being objectively bad while millions of teenage girls do not think so.

Actually, I did, I linked to definitions of the terms to support my claims. So far, the only links you have provided are to a blog, where a guy even admits that he had to rewrite his review, because initially, some of his claims were childish: "I published the original version of this last year, and got some very interesting feedback. Most of it was positive, but I thought some of my reasons were a bit childish, so I'm currently rewriting them. Enjoy". What about that doesn't scream subjective?

The second reviewer contradicts herself in her zeal to run down the book: "Don’t get me wrong, Twilight (the first book in the series of four) has some redeeming qualities. It was a very honest depiction of an intellectual falling-in-love, I thought, and because intelligence is always what I’m attracted to, the initial story hooked me early. Aside from the epic love story, the premise was interesting (vampires who recognize that killing humans is wrong—“good” vampires, we’ll say), and Meyer has some ability to build suspense." then leads to:

"Bad romance: Edward breaks into the bedroom of a young girl without her knowledge. He stalks her, for heaven’s sake. The relationship is psychologically unhealthy from Bella’s standpoint too: she completely subverts her personality to please him.", so which is it? It's either a good romance, which "an accurate description of an intellectual falling in love" implies, or a bad romance, as the second passage claims, it cannot be both. So, subjectively, the reviewer likes and doesn't like the romance. You see, claiming that either position is valid objectively means that the other has to be inaccurate, since both can't be objectively true, they contradict each other. If one is true, the other has to be false, unless, of course, we're talking about how one feels about them. However, once we start talking about how one feels about something, it becomes subjective. Definitions were provided previously for your consideration.

[MikeJW]

Was there a Dragon Age:Twilight game I missed?

[robertthebard]

You sure did link to them. You just didn't understand them.
 
Now there's actually 4 link, 2 added - the last one is the most detailed one. Feel free to browse them at your leisure and prove that twilight isn't an objectively bad book.
 
https://www.fanficti...-Twilight-Sucks
 
http://www.jamiechav...tephenie-meyer/
 
http://snowcone666.d...Sucks-125620859
 
http://reasoningwith...res.tumblr.com/
 
#1 is admitted to being childish in his earlier review. Explain how this makes his entire review subjective.
 
#2 doesn't contradict herself - she says it's an honest depiction of an intellectual falling in love, the intellectual here being the main character, Bella. She never claimed it's a good romance. It's a bad romance, but an "honest depiction of an intellectual (the main character) falling in love". "Honest depiction of an intellectual falling in love" does not mean "this book has a good romance", she refers to the process of Bella falling in love, not the romance itself, yet another strawman from yourself. Even if she did contradict herself on one point - that doesn't make her entire review invalid, despite your strawman cherry-picking.

It's really easy to see how dialog with you can end up in "prove it". I'm sorry that my understanding of the terms trumps your opinion of my understanding of the terms. Linking to blogs and independent reviews isn't going to substantiate any claims you make about Twilight. I pursued the first bits you provided, despite how far off topic they are in regard to the quests in this game, out of my genuine curiosity to see some actual proof of your claims. You failed to provide that, and I see no reason to pursue this any further.

[Nefla]

Is that true?
You can easily ignore them and earn XP and power by doing something else, I think?

 

(I wouldn't know, because I actually agree with OP so I never really tried to beat the game while ignoring the small side quests...)

 

lolno

You can't ignore them all. The main quests require power but doing only the main quests does not give you nearly enough power to move to the next main quest. Solas' personal quest and Iron Bull's recruitment (and Blackwall's personal quest) also each require 8 power to unlock their respective side areas. Those side areas don't contain anything else that I consider fun and are a complete waste of time in my opinion, especially after you've beaten the game once and realize that no matter how hard you search, you're not going to find a long, engaging, interactive questline out in those maps or interesting NPCs you can have branching dialogue with.

 

Think about this for a minute: entering Val Royeaux the first time costs 4 power, meeting the mages or Templars costs 15, here lies the abyss requires 8 to unlock crestwood, 8 to unlock the western approach, and 20 to go to adamant fortress. Wicked eyes, wicked hearts requires 30, and what pride had wrought requires 40 (there are also a few that require 1 but I wont count those). So if you add that up, it's 125 power that you need to beat the game. If you consider the face that each mind numbingly boring side quest gives you 1-3 power, that's a lot of doing boring, pointless time-wasting. That's a lot of being forced to do things that I don't consider fun at all. If I only did the main quests and companion quests (the parts that are actually fun) then the game would be 15 hours long so they force you to do these pointless chores to pad out the game time. It doesn't seem like a big deal for people that actually like the fetch questing but imagine if instead of grinding for power through finding bear claws and escorting druffalo, you had to grind it by doing 3 "minigames" that were the equivalent of scanning a planet to depletion in ME2 plus a tower of Hanoi. Every time you wanted 1-3 power you'd need to do that scanning and another tower of Hanoi. The same thing over and over again with no incentive and a very weak excuse as to why you're doing it in the first place.

[MikeJW]

I don't mind the fetch quests either. Would like more substantial quests but I started gaming when the pinnacle of story telling was Missile Command and a plumber jumping over barrels thrown by a big ape was cutting edge game play.

[robertthebard]

You can't ignore them all. The main quests require power but doing only the main quests does not give you nearly enough power to move to the next main quest. Solas' personal quest and Iron Bull's recruitment (and Blackwall's personal quest) also each require 8 power to unlock their respective side areas. Those side areas don't contain anything else that I consider fun and are a complete waste of time in my opinion, especially after you've beaten the game once and realize that no matter how hard you search, you're not going to find a long, engaging, interactive questline out in those maps or interesting NPCs you can have branching dialogue with.

I found the Hissing Wastes to be just that, very long and engaging. The story behind what's presented there was very interesting, to me.
 

Think about this for a minute: entering Val Royeaux the first time costs 4 power, meeting the mages or Templars costs 15, here lies the abyss requires 8 to unlock crestwood, 8 to unlock the western approach, and 20 to go to adamant fortress. Wicked eyes, wicked hearts requires 30, and what pride had wrought requires 40 (there are also a few that require 1 but I wont count those). So if you add that up, it's 125 power that you need to beat the game. If you consider the face that each mind numbingly boring side quest gives you 1-3 power, that's a lot of doing boring, pointless time-wasting. That's a lot of being forced to do things that I don't consider fun at all. If I only did the main quests and companion quests (the parts that are actually fun) then the game would be 15 hours long so they force you to do these pointless chores to pad out the game time. It doesn't seem like a big deal for people that actually like the fetch questing but imagine if instead of grinding for power through finding bear claws and escorting druffalo, you had to grind it by doing 3 "minigames" that were the equivalent of scanning a planet to depletion in ME2 plus a tower of Hanoi. Every time you wanted 1-3 power you'd need to do that scanning and another tower of Hanoi. The same thing over and over again with no incentive and a very weak excuse as to why you're doing it in the first place.

The problem I see here is that, in the Hinterlands, and in the Storm Coast, I achieved enough power to open all those areas. I did most of the rifts, but haven't completed them yet, some of them are sufficiently high enough level to kick me in the face on Nightmare, and I am, admittedly, a bit slow on my crafting this time around, this still on those two maps. The horses thing grants a lot of power, since it also requires a couple of other quests be done before you can complete it, which means, surprisingly enough, that it's a self contained story arc for the Hinterlands. The power I'll need to open the areas after that, and the two operations in the Exalted Plains will come from the stuff I need to do in the areas I opened, including the two main quest areas that I have already unlocked. But the two main quest maps, Emprise du Lion, and the Exalted Plains are already open for me. I just can't figure out what I want to do first, this time.

[hong]

You can't ignore them all.

This is what you said.
 

What's worse is that you're forced to do a ton of them if you want to beat the game.

In the playthrough just completed, I did basically every quest in the game, and ended with about 350 power. Given that that includes spending to unlock all the optional areas and dungeons, you only need to get about one-quarter of the available power to progress the storyline. So no, I don't consider that an onerous task at all.
 

If you consider the face that each mind numbingly boring side quest gives you 1-3 power, that's a lot of doing boring, pointless time-wasting.

You get 1-3 power every rift you close. You get 1-3 power every camp you unlock. You get power for lengthy quest chains that actually do involve more than just picking up rocks. If Skyhold had toilets, you would probably get power every time you left the seat up. This game throws power at you like it's confetti.
 

That's a lot of being forced to do things that I don't consider fun at all. If I only did the main quests and companion quests (the parts that are actually fun) then the game would be 15 hours long so they force you to do these pointless chores to pad out the game time.

If you don't want to do ANY sidequesting at all, then yes, it would be annoying. But not wanting to do ANY sidequesting is just being difficult. It's reasonable that, when calibrating the rate of progress for the storyline, Bioware would assume a player will do at least some portion of the optional content. As it is, people already complain that the later stages are too easy to outlevel.

[Chadwin]

On my first playthrough I really thought I'd get something a lot better than that for gathering all those damn shards.

[katokires]

... 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.

In other words you are saying you are happy to decide shallow and unimportant things like "I decided to climb a hill to get a shard" and the complete inability to decide what to do when it comes to real matters. Like the most basic: I want to be the Inquisitior or I don't (then you could support someone to be, like Cassandra, Leliana or Cullen)

Choose your way to fight Corypheus. Choose to deal with Orlais or not. Same with the grey wardens. And the Venatori and stuff. Game offers you one way, and one approach, to the problems. Even the "choice" of mage and templars don't change anything because what you have to do is the same, get people to help you close the breach. Of course all of it have lore supporting need, but that's precisely the problem. You have one very defined way of dealing with the enemy, and among all the main quests you have one choice that makes absolutely no difference.

 

So you are left with the decision on what to do on the wartable and side quests aka unimportant and even more unimportant things. Easy way out Bioware? You don't want to report to a lot of different decisions so you let players choose shallow hollow stuff? A M A Z I N G. In short you shouldn't have written your post as something other than "I like them, it is my opinion", because that's it. You said yourself are able to enjoy the path to get a shard. Which previous Draon Age game featured mario jumping? None. So you just said you like something Dragon Age is not and never was. Just understand that this is exactly the problem.

 

You are still arguing like Inquisition was overall bad. No it isn't or is, doesn't matter, it absolutey doesn't matter. What everybody complains is that it was objectively mathematically dumbed down, you can count the number of features you had control over while building your character and tactics and compare, it IS A FACT, game is dumbed down. There is a higher absolute number of side quests, a lot higher, insanely higher. And people who love Origins loved the game as it was, did not want it too become better or different, so if you're into Mario Shard Hunting, go play Assassin's Creed or even Mario 64 if you must. Go collect the 120+ stars. Still a better RPG than Inquisition though.

 

Your hole post is explained by the "I enjoy making it to the shard" part. And of course you not realizing that for people who are not into action games the simples act of jumping is ridiculous, even more jumping to reach a place. You are talking as if Dragon Age was not a RPG franchise that never had action before. It doesn't matter if it is good or bad, if it is possible to enjoy or not, it is not Dragon Age, pure and simple. Is it that difficult into your mind to understand that I and a lot of other people couldn't care less if the game is good or awful as long as it keeps the Dragon AGe Origins features? And NEVER remove any of them? That's the most basic disagreement, and easy to understand for me, for the others it seems impossible, some people want a good game, some people want a great game, other people just want Origins.

 

"blla bla bla get over it" - If Bioware did not have this long story of keeping their legacy (that died with Inquisition) no one would expect it from them. Now it is pretty clear they will only go down so yeah, just like me a lot of people will never buy another Bioware game ever, we will play true RPGs like Divinity and Shadowrun, but is not unreasonable for people to expect a better version of Origins instead of a completely different game. And not only for their legacy but also for their videos saying it would be something between DAO and DA2, not something completely different from both.

 

Keep playing Plumbersition

[berelinde]

I've been playing BioWare games since Baldur's Gate, and *all* have been fetch quests. "Bring me my gauntlets. I think I left them in a barrel by a warehouse." Fetch quest? Yup. Go kill Basillus. Fetch quest? Yup. 

 

They don't bother me. Maybe they would if I'd ever played an MMO, but I haven't, so I don't get the reference. I don't see how collecting bear pelts is any different from collecting vials of darkspawn blood or collecting Tears of Bhal or whatever. You collect X many Y and something happens.

 

Maybe it would help if someone provided an example of something they did not consider a fetch quest. It's great to say "I don't want that," but it's better to say "I want more of this" instead.