70 réponses à ce sujet

[wrdnshprd]

I knew before release that the Action Cam didn't have a proper auto-attack. That's why I kept insisting that it needed to be possible to play the whole game in the Tac Cam (it isn't).

But, I do think the Tac Cam works really well. It's free-roaming, we can look forward (and around corners) with it, and the controls are what I wanted (WASD, like Total War's camera). There are some minor tweaks I would like, but overall I think it's BioWare's best camera.

 

i think it works all right with the controller.. but not with keyboard mouse.  i will admit the details given in tactical cam are useful (i.e. showing resistances/vulnerabilities, etc) but otherwise i just found the interface clunky to use with keyboard and mouse and im not alone in that regard.

[Sylvius the Mad]

i think it works all right with the controller.. but not with keyboard mouse. i will admit the details given in tactical cam are useful (i.e. showing resistances/vulnerabilities, etc) but otherwise i just found the interface clunky to use with keyboard and mouse and im not alone in that regard.

I know. But I have trouble understanding those objections, because I genuinely like the KBM Tac Cam.

[Gothfather]

You know people open world exploration and strong story are not mutually exclusive. You got both in DA:I now if you don't like open world exploration you are not going to like that about DA:I, that doesn't mean its bad. If you don't like peaches that doesn't make peaches bad it just means it is a fruit you don't like. plenty of people like peaches.

 

The exploration aspects of DA:I can largely be avoided, it is extremely easy to out level the main quest so this idea you have to do pointless stuff is an exaggeration. You really don't have to do many things you don't like. For those who enjoy the exploration you have a vast world to discover. I was able to scratch my exploration itch with DA:I without sacrificing a strong story. The bigger issue is not that if you choose to skip the majority of the minor quests and exploration to focus on story you can but rather if you choose NOT to skip the minor quests and exploration you are hugely over levelled for the game.

 

Open world design has been a huge fan favourite and its has gotten critical and popular acclaim from not just Skyrim, but Red dead Redemption in the RPG genre and Fry cry and GTA in the adventure genre. CD red projekt and bioware both saw how they could take open world and add strong narrative to this design element. Its not like Bioware came up with some weird ass, "who the hell would think to do this" design. It is a logical progression to world design. Open world was not possible to create for some style of games because of technology limitations. As these technology limitations are removed games will be designed to reflect this, open world is just one example. Sound and voice content is another, the idea of having voiced characters was just not possible until the 386 with a sound card days when games like wing commander II sold you voice packs with a dozen or so 3.5 inch floppies. It took consoles with a cd-rom to open voice content to the console market.

 

There is also a lot of selective memory going on, the much maligned get 10 ram meat quest to help the starving refugees is 100% exactly like the get me X spider poison glands for my traps quest in lothering. But people are SELECTIVELY remembering their experience with Origins, saying how all these quests in Inquisition are MMO-esque and lack the meaning to the side quests of origins. But origins quests were just as meaningless and where mechanically identical to Inquisition quests. Many of the Quests the people remember as side quests like the hermit and the talking tree in the forest are actually MAIN quests. You need to resolve that quests to get deeper in the woods to solve the dalish treaty quest.

 

You may not like some game features but games are not designed for one group or a single individual they are designed for a large group of divergent people so accept that some aspects of a game just are not going to be something you like but other people WILL like them.

[Lebanese Dude]

 

 the much maligned get 10 ram meat quest to help the starving refugees is 100% exactly like the get me X spider poison glands for my traps quest in lothering. 

Except it's not. The 10 ram meat is one of a few plot-related quests used to effectively stabilize the region and potentially gain the Refugee's assistance or gold. The style is rarely repeated if ever. I can count dozens of "fetch me 10 garnets' type quests in DAO with almost no context or RP value until a random trivial non-RP reward or a certain plot-irrelevant encounter climax at most.

 

Still I'm nitpicking your overwhelmingly awesome post so I'll shutup now.

 

---

Favorite Part:

 

Many of the Quests the people remember as side quests like the hermit and the talking tree in the forest are actually MAIN quests. You need to resolve that quests to get deeper in the woods to solve the dalish treaty quest.

 

 

[pdusen]

snip

 

You deserve an award. I am going to invent a forum award for you.

[Lebanese Dude]

O hey I have likes again.

[In Exile]

I don't think BG2 did nearly enough in terms of providing reasons to follow the plot.

Which made the limited travel even more jarring. If you didn't accept what the game told you, there was little left for you to do.

All Bioware games require you to buy into the premise. Even BG1 requires you to buy into "not raising enough money to flee from the Sword Coast".

[In Exile]

You know people open world exploration and strong story are not mutually exclusive. You got both in DA:I now if you don't like open world exploration you are not going to like that about DA:I, that doesn't mean its bad. If you don't like peaches that doesn't make peaches bad it just means it is a fruit you don't like. plenty of people like peaches.

The exploration aspects of DA:I can largely be avoided, it is extremely easy to out level the main quest so this idea you have to do pointless stuff is an exaggeration. You really don't have to do many things you don't like. For those who enjoy the exploration you have a vast world to discover. I was able to scratch my exploration itch with DA:I without sacrificing a strong story. The bigger issue is not that if you choose to skip the majority of the minor quests and exploration to focus on story you can but rather if you choose NOT to skip the minor quests and exploration you are hugely over levelled for the game.

Open world design has been a huge fan favourite and its has gotten critical and popular acclaim from not just Skyrim, but Red dead Redemption in the RPG genre and Fry cry and GTA in the adventure genre. CD red projekt and bioware both saw how they could take open world and add strong narrative to this design element. Its not like Bioware came up with some weird ass, "who the hell would think to do this" design. It is a logical progression to world design. Open world was not possible to create for some style of games because of technology limitations. As these technology limitations are removed games will be designed to reflect this, open world is just one example. Sound and voice content is another, the idea of having voiced characters was just not possible until the 386 with a sound card days when games like wing commander II sold you voice packs with a dozen or so 3.5 inch floppies. It took consoles with a cd-rom to open voice content to the console market.

There is also a lot of selective memory going on, the much maligned get 10 ram meat quest to help the starving refugees is 100% exactly like the get me X spider poison glands for my traps quest in lothering. But people are SELECTIVELY remembering their experience with Origins, saying how all these quests in Inquisition are MMO-esque and lack the meaning to the side quests of origins. But origins quests were just as meaningless and where mechanically identical to Inquisition quests. Many of the Quests the people remember as side quests like the hermit and the talking tree in the forest are actually MAIN quests. You need to resolve that quests to get deeper in the woods to solve the dalish treaty quest.

You may not like some game features but games are not designed for one group or a single individual they are designed for a large group of divergent people so accept that some aspects of a game just are not going to be something you like but other people WILL like them.

Here is the real issue with the ram meat quest: it's a subquest of a larger quest that would normally be given by Corporal Vale at the Crossroads. In DAI you can skip him entirely if you have 4 power because you can just leap to Val Royeaux or go do something else. But the way the quest is meant to work is:

1) Speak to Corporate Vale. He says the Crossroads need help and that the Inquisition can make something of them. He talks about the chaos in the region. He directs you to speak with some locals.
2) You get the ram quest, the cache quest, the find a healer quest and I think one more.
3) You do all of them and you can "recruit" the refugees (you get Vale's Irregulars) or you can get some other rewards like influence or gold.

That's a fully realised quest (bad quest design aside with the get 10 meats etc.) with investigate options, several end choices (but not moral ones) and multiple NPCs to speak with at the end.

It's just that you can skip Vale entirely.

[Nefla]

You know people open world exploration and strong story are not mutually exclusive. You got both in DA:I now if you don't like open world exploration you are not going to like that about DA:I, that doesn't mean its bad. If you don't like peaches that doesn't make peaches bad it just means it is a fruit you don't like. plenty of people like peaches.

 

The exploration aspects of DA:I can largely be avoided, it is extremely easy to out level the main quest so this idea you have to do pointless stuff is an exaggeration. You really don't have to do many things you don't like. For those who enjoy the exploration you have a vast world to discover. I was able to scratch my exploration itch with DA:I without sacrificing a strong story. The bigger issue is not that if you choose to skip the majority of the minor quests and exploration to focus on story you can but rather if you choose NOT to skip the minor quests and exploration you are hugely over levelled for the game.

 

Open world design has been a huge fan favourite and its has gotten critical and popular acclaim from not just Skyrim, but Red dead Redemption in the RPG genre and Fry cry and GTA in the adventure genre. CD red projekt and bioware both saw how they could take open world and add strong narrative to this design element. Its not like Bioware came up with some weird ass, "who the hell would think to do this" design. It is a logical progression to world design. Open world was not possible to create for some style of games because of technology limitations. As these technology limitations are removed games will be designed to reflect this, open world is just one example. Sound and voice content is another, the idea of having voiced characters was just not possible until the 386 with a sound card days when games like wing commander II sold you voice packs with a dozen or so 3.5 inch floppies. It took consoles with a cd-rom to open voice content to the console market.

 

There is also a lot of selective memory going on, the much maligned get 10 ram meat quest to help the starving refugees is 100% exactly like the get me X spider poison glands for my traps quest in lothering. But people are SELECTIVELY remembering their experience with Origins, saying how all these quests in Inquisition are MMO-esque and lack the meaning to the side quests of origins. But origins quests were just as meaningless and where mechanically identical to Inquisition quests. Many of the Quests the people remember as side quests like the hermit and the talking tree in the forest are actually MAIN quests. You need to resolve that quests to get deeper in the woods to solve the dalish treaty quest.

 

You may not like some game features but games are not designed for one group or a single individual they are designed for a large group of divergent people so accept that some aspects of a game just are not going to be something you like but other people WILL like them.

Personally it's not the open world that I don't like (Bethesda games are some of my favorites for example), it's how they fill it. Good or bad is of course subjective, but I personally don't like that:

 

1) There are no real towns or settlements, just wilderness. I likes me some hefty settlements with shops, lots of people to talk to, quests to get, some quests being entirely localized within that town, etc...They tried with Redcliffe but due to the shallowness of the NPCs in the game, it just felt empty and dead to me.

 

2) I don't like that the "fetch 10 garnets" type quests are almost the only side quests included. There are companion quests which are fun (but those were included in previous games as well and obviously there aren't that many) and there is one extra quest centered around Corypheus' advisor but that's it as far as variety. I'm not satisfied with such simple "tasks" that are so abundant in DA:I. That's not to say that there shouldn't have been any, but I miss also having longer side quests with these elements:

 

-NPCs that are interesting and given at least some development (the quest givers in DA:I often don't even get a name)

 

-Conversations with dialogue choices that lets me further define my character. I found a tiny portion of quests that let you say say something other than "here is your ___" "tell me what you want me to do" and "goodbye" (such as there was a Dalish woman who's brother's corpse you have to find and you can tell her about his death gently or agressively) but It was rare and I want that in almost every quest.

 

-Multiple ways to resolve a quest (ex: the quest with Ruck in Orzammar, you could kill him or leave him alive and then you could tell his mother that he died bravely long ago, or tell her the truth about him, you could get Camen and Gheyna together in a few different ways or you could break them up and potentially sleep with one to do it, etc...)

 

-Cutscenes or at least scripted scenes like in Bethesda games where something is actually happening. The existing quests have you standing there accepting a quest from someone and then picking something up for them off the ground, reading a bunch of notes, killing some bears, etc...I don't want to be told that something happened at one point, I want to see something happen. There was this quest in the emerald graves where you follow this guy's trail of notes and then find his body. It would have been much better imo if we had worked with that guy, taking him from rift to rift and getting to talk to him about his work and his theories but then he assures you that his theory for taming the demons is correct and you can choose to let him try going up to them or not and if he does then he's killed in a cutscene or scripted scene. I think this is also important when introducing a monster for the first time. In DA:I I thought darkspawn were soldiers in funny hats until I clicked on them and saw them labeled as hurlocks and such because the camera is too far away to see the details, and there are no cutscenes.

 

-Companion involvement: I want the companions to comment on what you're doing ex: Morrigan: "does anyone else feel the urge to vomit? No? 'Tis just me?" when you help Camen and Gheyna or Fenris squeezing peoples hearts for information, and I also want them giving their opinions on what you should do "we can't just leave these people here" things like that.

[Lebanese Dude]

bad quest design aside with the get 10 meats etc.) 

 

How else can you feed the refugees?

Kill bandits for their food stores?

Use the war table to bring food?

 

Just take the initiative and hunt the ram meat to let people know the Inquisition is going to help. 

It's no more different than having a trivial fetch quest integrated into the main plot for a story purpose. It has a purpose (assist refugees), using a method that is never repeated throughout the entire game (hunt animals for parts) except for that one bear skin quest (to introduce you to masterworks) and the elf aravel repair quest (for reputation and stuff).

[Fidite Nemini]

Open world designs are great for story telling. After all the point of it is that you can make a giant world to fill with story. You just got to do exactly that. Content you can explore in such a world has to add to the overarching story.

The mistake DAI made was it filled its world with too much stuff that is completely irrelevant to the story. Example: helping a settlement with hunting, supplies, rooting out bandits etc. is story relevant. Bringing back the favourite Ram of a random farmer for nothing more than monetary, experience and some minor influence (I'm sure the guy will be really grateful we got his Ram back ... but what's he going to do to help us, compared to when we had just saved the entire settlement? WHAT DOES HE ADD TO THAT???) is not story relevant.

 

DAI has so many irrelevant, trivial filler quest that it actually detracts from the experience because if you stick around to complete everything, you ruin the pacing. All of a sudden you don't just help a settlement in the process of getting a Chantry Revered Mother to join you, stabilizing a region to further your reputation and influence. Instead you go about catching Rams for farmers, placing flowers on a grave, killing bears for claws some dead dudes talked about, etc. pp.. It dilutes the story's urgency and you complete quests not to advance the story, but to advance that XP meter towards the next level.

 

Playing DAI for its story pretty much requires to not play half the game as it just distracts the player with triviality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

All Bioware games require you to buy into the premise. Even BG1 requires you to buy into "not raising enough money to flee from the Sword Coast".

But it allows a broader range of activities without and prior to buying in (as do some others). And also, buying in shouldn't be difficult to justify.

I've complained before about the initial plot hook in Oblivion. The mental gymnastics required to have the PC even begin that plot are beyond me. I think the barrier to entry to BG2's plot is much higher than it is for BG, or NWN, or KotOR, or even DAO or DAI. DA2 was probably BioWare's low-water mark on this, but BG2 isn't much better.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Playing DAI for its story pretty much requires to not play half the game as it just distracts the player with triviality.

I don't think DAI's story is urgent throughout. There's urgency early on, but once you close the breach things calm way down. And even after getting to Skyhold I don't see tons of urgency in the main plot. Some of the side quests, sure. But you actually have to advance the main plot before it presents any urgency.

[Ashagar]

But it allows a broader range of activities without and prior to buying in (as do some others). And also, buying in shouldn't be difficult to justify.

I've complained before about the initial plot hook in Oblivion. The mental gymnastics required to have the PC even begin that plot are beyond me. I think the barrier to entry to BG2's plot is much higher than it is for BG, or NWN, or KotOR, or even DAO or DAI. DA2 was probably BioWare's low-water mark on this, but BG2 isn't much better.

 

I guess this is must be one of those things where people's mileage may vary sort of thing, as to me, BG,  BG2 and Jade Empire had some of the strongest motivators out of any Bioware's titles.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I guess this is must be one of those things where people's mileage may vary sort of thing, as to me, BG,  BG2 and Jade Empire had some of the strongest motivators out of any Bioware's titles.

Jade Empire doesn't even really belong in the discussion, I think, because there was literally nothing else available to do.

[Gothfather]

Personally it's not the open world that I don't like (Bethesda games are some of my favorites for example), it's how they fill it. Good or bad is of course subjective, but I personally don't like that:

 

1) There are no real towns or settlements, just wilderness. I likes me some hefty settlements with shops, lots of people to talk to, quests to get, some quests being entirely localized within that town, etc...They tried with Redcliffe but due to the shallowness of the NPCs in the game, it just felt empty and dead to me.

 

2) I don't like that the "fetch 10 garnets" type quests are almost the only side quests included. There are companion quests which are fun (but those were included in previous games as well and obviously there aren't that many) and there is one extra quest centered around Corypheus' advisor but that's it as far as variety. I'm not satisfied with such simple "tasks" that are so abundant in DA:I. That's not to say that there shouldn't have been any, but I miss also having longer side quests with these elements:

 

-NPCs that are interesting and given at least some development (the quest givers in DA:I often don't even get a name)

 

-Conversations with dialogue choices that lets me further define my character. I found a tiny portion of quests that let you say say something other than "here is your ___" "tell me what you want me to do" and "goodbye" (such as there was a Dalish woman who's brother's corpse you have to find and you can tell her about his death gently or agressively) but It was rare and I want that in almost every quest.

 

-Multiple ways to resolve a quest (ex: the quest with Ruck in Orzammar, you could kill him or leave him alive and then you could tell his mother that he died bravely long ago, or tell her the truth about him, you could get Camen and Gheyna together in a few different ways or you could break them up and potentially sleep with one to do it, etc...)

 

-Cutscenes or at least scripted scenes like in Bethesda games where something is actually happening. The existing quests have you standing there accepting a quest from someone and then picking something up for them off the ground, reading a bunch of notes, killing some bears, etc...I don't want to be told that something happened at one point, I want to see something happen. There was this quest in the emerald graves where you follow this guy's trail of notes and then find his body. It would have been much better imo if we had worked with that guy, taking him from rift to rift and getting to talk to him about his work and his theories but then he assures you that his theory for taming the demons is correct and you can choose to let him try going up to them or not and if he does then he's killed in a cutscene or scripted scene. I think this is also important when introducing a monster for the first time. In DA:I I thought darkspawn were soldiers in funny hats until I clicked on them and saw them labeled as hurlocks and such because the camera is too far away to see the details, and there are no cutscenes.

 

-Companion involvement: I want the companions to comment on what you're doing ex: Morrigan: "does anyone else feel the urge to vomit? No? 'Tis just me?" when you help Camen and Gheyna or Fenris squeezing peoples hearts for information, and I also want them giving their opinions on what you should do "we can't just leave these people here" things like that.

Many points you make are suffering from subjective memory. Two I think are spot on with regards to issues.

 

So many quests in origins had ZERO interaction, you pick up a quest from a chantry board or a mercenary barrel or a mage's bag and you complete the quest and then return to get your reward. And you have these types of quests, in Inquisition, except now you find a note in a hut or a body in the wilderness and you can investigate what happened. Conversation to express yourself, I don't know what game you played but i got LOTS of opportunities to express myself in different ways. Granted for trivial quests I got as much conversation options as Origins gave me. This is the whole issue of selective memory you only remember the memorable parts of origins after all these years and lets face it get me X spider glands to poison my traps isn't all that memorable, nor are the mercenary, mages' guild and chantry board quests. These quests were mostly fetch and carry quests or go kill x quests. They had almost zero interaction and zero impact on the plot and most are unmemorable because they were just content fillers. But there are other quests the do provide interaction and meaning, in both DA:O & DA:I.

 

Companion involvement level is a direct result of the fact that we have so many companions/advisors 12 in total. There is a very limited dialogue budget and when that gets divided 12 different voice actors it eats up your budget, the fewer companions means deeper dialogue. The community was rather critical of bioware for having only a few companions in ME3 compared to ME2 but there is a tangible gameplay cost to having more choice in companions and that is they are less involved because they have to divide the total dialogue budget between more characters. Its rather simple maths. And no they can't just increase the budgets there is a finite number of resources to make a game. Asking to play multiple races means you get less of other things. Asking for more companions means you get less of depth to your companions, same content amount but it will feel like less because its spread over many more companions. I'm not saying what the right choice is, I am simply saying that these choices are a zero sum game, make something more in one area means something else needs to be less.

 

As to the cutscenes I can't recall many cutscenes in Bethesda games except for the main quest and the faction quests. i can't think of a single side quest that had a cutscene. Which isn't to say there are none only that I can't think of them they all seemed to be faction quests, DLC quests or main quests. I recall many cutscenes for Inquisition with the main quests and companion quests. So I am not sure what the issue is you seem to have the same type of cutscene priority with both developers.

 

Multiple ways to complete a quest - I think you have a point it would be nice to see more of those but they were extremely rare and NOT the norm in Origins, same with Skyrim. Most games regardless of genre do not craft quests with multiple solutions. It is a general failing of the industry in Quest design. But you have this in Inquisition the mercs in the storm coasts can be slaughtered or you can fight for the leadership is but one example.

 

I agree they did a p!ss poor job with their settlements in the game. The best settlement they made was in the Dales which was abandoned can't recall the zone. There was no city in the game just a crappy tiny zone that was really poorly designed. It felt like no one spent any time on Val royeaux, It was terribly designed it did not feel like a capital city of an Empire.  Hell Denerim felt more majestic and urban then Val Royeaux because it felt like it was a bloody city not some "phoned in" level design.  I hope that bioware does some head hunting for level designers that know how and have experience designing open world games because they do lack experience and skills, especially when it comes to urban design. I tend to blame (rightly or wrongly) SW:TOR for this, as it seems all the people who knew how to design open regions got sucked into that development team. The settlements in SW:TOR for the most part felt like settlements.  DA:O also did a hell of a lot better job with redcliffe, lothering and the village Shale was in. In this area I agree completely, in DA:I settlements sucked.

[Nefla]

Many points you make are suffering from subjective memory. Two I think are spot on with regards to issues.

 

So many quests in origins had ZERO interaction, you pick up a quest from a chantry board or a mercenary barrel or a mage's bag and you complete the quest and then return to get your reward. And you have these types of quests, in Inquisition, except now you find a note in a hut or a body in the wilderness and you can investigate what happened. Conversation to express yourself, I don't know what game you played but i got LOTS of opportunities to express myself in different ways. Granted for trivial quests I got as much conversation options as Origins gave me. This is the whole issue of selective memory you only remember the memorable parts of origins after all these years and lets face it get me X spider glands to poison my traps isn't all that memorable, nor are the mercenary, mages' guild and chantry board quests. These quests were mostly fetch and carry quests or go kill x quests. They had almost zero interaction and zero impact on the plot and most are unmemorable because they were just content fillers. But there are lots of other quests that do provide

 

Companion involvement level is a direct result of the fact that we have so many companions/advisors 12 in total. There is a very limited dialogue budget and when that gets divided 12 different voice actors it eats up your budget, the fewer companions means deeper dialogue. The community was rather critical of bioware for having only a few companions in ME3 compared to ME2 but there is a tangible gameplay cost to having more choice in companions and that is they are less involved because they have to divide the total dialogue budget between more characters. Its rather simple maths. And no they can't just increase the budgets there is a finite number of resources to make a game. Asking to play multiple races means you get less of other things. Asking for more companions means you get less of depth to your companions, same content amount but it will feel like less because its spread over many more companions. I'm not saying what the right choice is, I am simply saying that these choices are a zero sum game, make something more in one area means something else needs to be less.

 

As to the cutscenes I can't recall many cutscenes in Bethesda games except for the main quest and the faction quests. i can't think of a single side quest that had a cutscene. Which isn't to say there are none only that I can't think of them they all seemed to be faction quests, DLC quests or main quests. I recall many cutscenes for Inquisition with the main quests and companion quests. So I am not sure what the issue is you seem to have the same type of cutscene priority with both developers.

 

Multiple ways to complete a quest - I think you have a point it would be nice to see more of those but they were extremely rare and NOT the norm in Origins, same with Skyrim. Most games regardless of genre do not craft quests with multiple solutions. It is a general failing of the industry in Quest design. But you have this in Inquisition the mercs in the storm coasts can be slaughtered or you can fight for the leadership is but one example.

 

I agree they did a ****** poor job with their settlements in the game. The best settlement they made was in the Dales which was abandoned can't recall the zone. There was no city in the game just a crappy tiny zone that was really poorly designed. It felt like no one spent any time on Val royeaux, It was terribly designed it did not feel like a capital city of an Empire hell. Denerim felt more majestic and urban then Val Royeaux because it felt like it was a bloody city not some "phoned in" level design.  I hope that bioware does some head hunting for level designers that know how and have experience designing open world games because they do lack experience and skills, especially when it comes to urban design. I tend to blame (rightly or wrongly) SW:TOR for this, as it seems all the people who knew how to design open regions got sucked into that development team. The settlements in SW:TOR for the most part felt like settlements.  DA:O also did a hell of a lot better job with redcliffe, lothering and the village Shale was in. In this area I agree completely, in DA:I settlements sucked.

I never said there weren't trivial task quests in Origins, I said I wish those weren't the only type of non companion side quest in DA:I. I'm curious which side quests you got in DA:I that gave you multiple dialogue options? The only ones I ever found were the one where you find the Dalish woman's brother, and the one where you activate the elven artifact the first time with Solas and that other Dalish woman. Of the two, the Dalish woman and her brother had an interesting idea behind it but would have been much better if it had been fleshed out in my opinion. The other one was kind of "meh" to me. I must have missed any others?

 

As for the character interaction thing, I personally would have preferred fewer characters and fewer romances in order for the ones that were left to be deeper and more interactive. I also think having 4 voices for the inquisitor instead of two was unnecessary.

 

When I brought up Bethesda, I didn't mean that they have an abundance of scripted scenes, just that the way they do it would probably have been quite a bit cheaper than actual cutscenes if BioWare had gone that route. I would have preferred that to the lack of action or interaction we got in DA:I.

 

As for my "selective memory" you're assuming I haven't played the game in a long time, I played it right before DA:I came out, and have played it regularly since it was released. Some quests I will list off the top of my head that were just short little quests but had dialogue choices and different ways to end the quest and really enhanced the feeling of life and sometimes added to the culture of each place:

 

-Telling the elven children in the alienage a made up story on the spot so they can have an elven hero (I thought this was such a cute touch)

- the sick Mabari

- the hungry deserter

- the Orzammar scribe that was writing slanderous things about a noble

- the bandits on the road to Lothering

- the elven family who had been robbed

- the greedy shopkeeper in Lothering

- the lost little boy

- Helping Orta prove she was part of a noble house

- The thief who stole from the shaperate

- Zerlinda's woe

- The Ruck quest

- Brother Burkel's chantry

- Finding Bevin and dealing with him and his sister in Redcliffe

- Helping Bella in Redcliffe

- All the little side things you could do to help Redcliffe prepare to fight the undead (I especially liked that you could make Lloyd fight and if he survived the village thought of him as heroic lol)

- Camen and Gheyna

- Finding Danyla

- Dealing with the sick Halla

- The crime wave questline (I think it was this questline that let me lie to a warrior and tell her she was sick so she would give me her armor and then pay her for the diagnosis XD priceless)

- Dealing with Ser Landry

- The elven beggars lol

- The quests for the captain of the guard

- The haunted orphanage

 

Those are the ones I can think of right now, but even the smallest and simplest ones had choice in dialogue and most had multiple ways to resolve. Those elements: longer conversations, multiple dialogue choices (aside from tell me more/ goodbye) multiple outcomes, cutscenes, etc...just help breathe so much life into a game for me. Even just the little details such as Ruck's mother knelt down in prayer for her son or the emotions on the different characters faces that you are able to see with the close up conversations goes a long way in my eyes.

 

I love SWtOR

[In Exile]

How else can you feed the refugees?

Kill bandits for their food stores?

Use the war table to bring food?

 

Just take the initiative and hunt the ram meat to let people know the Inquisition is going to help. 

It's no more different than having a trivial fetch quest integrated into the main plot for a story purpose. It has a purpose (assist refugees), using a method that is never repeated throughout the entire game (hunt animals for parts) except for that one bear skin quest (to introduce you to masterworks) and the elf aravel repair quest (for reputation and stuff).

 

I didn't say the idea behind it was bad. But "go kill 10 of X", as is "go find 10 of X" aren't particularly interesting quests.  It's meant to be something you can check off as part of your usual exploration, but it has no meat to it (pardon the pun). There are other ways to get at the same thing (e.g. discover a new hunting ground where sheep are plentiful, help our hunters set up a camp, etc.)

 

But it allows a broader range of activities without and prior to buying in (as do some others). And also, buying in shouldn't be difficult to justify.

I've complained before about the initial plot hook in Oblivion. The mental gymnastics required to have the PC even begin that plot are beyond me. I think the barrier to entry to BG2's plot is much higher than it is for BG, or NWN, or KotOR, or even DAO or DAI. DA2 was probably BioWare's low-water mark on this, but BG2 isn't much better.

 

I agree. I'm just saying that every game has to have a buy-in, because there are some things that you cannot do. I agree that BG2 has a very high barrier to entry character wise, though I would say that in some ways DAO is an even worse offender because it has multiple points early on where it can break your character if you don't buy into the automatic premise that (1) you will want to be a GW, if not immediately (2) you will want to adopt the identity and mission of the GWs and (3) you will want to save Ferelden in particular rather than Thedas as a whole. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree. I'm just saying that every game has to have a buy-in, because there are some things that you cannot do. I agree that BG2 has a very high barrier to entry character wise, though I would say that in some ways DAO is an even worse offender because it has multiple points early on where it can break your character if you don't buy into the automatic premise that (1) you will want to be a GW, if not immediately (2) you will want to adopt the identity and mission of the GWs and (3) you will want to save Ferelden in particular rather than Thedas as a whole.

I'll concede #2, certainly. And #3, as well, I suppose, though it never troubled me.

But I would dispute #1. I don't agree that the Warden needs to willingly consent to the Joining, nor think that becoming a Grey Warden is a good idea, nor accept the supposed costs of being a Warden.

[In Exile]

I'll concede #2, certainly. And #3, as well, I suppose, though it never troubled me.

But I would dispute #1. I don't agree that the Warden needs to willingly consent to the Joining, nor think that becoming a Grey Warden is a good idea, nor accept the supposed costs of being a Warden.

 

If it seemed like with #1 I implied any of the inferences you drew, then I apologize for my lack of clarity. In hindsight everything I wanted to say with #1 I actually said in #2 with far greater precision, making #1 superfluous for my intended meaning and confusing in practice. Consider it struck as inaccurate.

 

You're right to be confused and to point out the confusion.