122 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

I should mention that I'm not one to be overly susceptible to nostalgia goggles, so when I was followed by a nagging impression that DAO's main quests felt more natural than DAI's, I went back to check and tried to find out what was different that could acccount for such an impression.

 

The observation: In DAO, we effect different outcomes by doing different things. In DAI, we do all the same things and effect different outcomes only by making decisions in a dialogue at key points - usually the end of the quest. In DAI, the divergence is usually almost non-present in the game itself, except for very minor differences.

 

Example: consider DAO's quest "The Arl of Redcliffe". You have three main outcomes - Connor alive and free, Connor alive and possessed, or Connor dead. There are additional variations resulting in "Isolde is dead" or "Isolde is alive", depending on whether you called for the help of the Circle or not. The important thing here is this: while some of those outcomes are decided in dialogue, you actually do different things to make them happen: you kill connor, you go to the Circle for help, you let Isolde sacrifice herself, you either go into the Fade yourself or send one of your mages or Jowan into the Fade, playing as them.

 

Compare: DAI's Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts, the main quest with the most variable outcome. With no meta-knowledge, the first real decision you make in this quest comes immediately before the end, namely when you leave the Royal Wing. At that point, you'll have opened the halla door in the Servants' quarters to get Briala's stuff and the halla door to the lower level. You've also been in the trophy room to collect stuff on Gaspard. With no difference at all in what you actually did, you now have access to the three main outcomes - Celene, Gaspard alone and Gaspard/Briala through two decisions made in dialogue: let Celene die or not, and choose Briala or Gaspard if you let her die.

 

it's the same with other quests from DAO: Brecilian Forest - three main outcomes, you do different things: make peace, destroy the Dalish clan, destroy the werewolves. Captured: wait for your friends, break out through deception or break out through force (and hey, the optional seduction would never appear in DAI because it couldn't be made gender-neutral without looking silly). Orzammar: at least the first part has significant forks. Meanwhile, you make two decisions in Here Lies the Abyss but don't do anything different. You can do two different things in What Pride has Wrought but that doesn't affect the possible outcomes, which are, yet again, decided in a dialogue scene.

 

DAI's missions lack complexity. When you play for the first time, you won't notice that because the presentation is overwhelming and the emotional impact tends to make you not pay attention to complexity, but it becomes rather obvious in subsequent playthroughs.

 

In comparison, it becomes all too apparent that the mission designers created the main plot missions on the principle: How can we get significant divergence in the outcomes with an absolute minimum of differences in what players actually get to do? We have one point with a major fork that doesn't follow this principle: the mage/templar choice. However, the missions themselves are again, completely linear and lack complexity. Meanwhile, in DAO it feels more like the designers asked themselves what solutions would be possible considering the characters and the situation, and then implemented them through actual dialogue and gameplay. DAI's main plot missions feel artificially constrained, DAO's more naturally evolved.

 

Which means, I have to rescind the statement I made in my diary thread. In terms of quest design and complexity, DAO still reigns superior. I did not post about this earlier because I thought I suffered from nostalgia goggles. However, a look at both games from some emotional distance makes the differences obvious.

[Silcron]

It's not common for me to do this but with my best wishes: F*ck you Ieldra. I absolutely hate it when people do this to me when I ask for feedback but you've left me with nothing else to say.

It was a good read. You seem to be right and I liked it.

[PhroXenGold]

Wow...this wasn't something I had really noticed, other than a general feeling of "not quite sure why but the quests aren't as good as they could be" but now that you say it, I completely agree. Not really much more I can add though

[Teligth]

I should mention that I'm not one to be overly susceptible to nostalgia goggles, so when I was followed by a nagging impression that DAO's main quests felt more natural than DAI's, I went back to check and tried to find out what was different that could acccount for such an impression.

 

The observation: In DAO, we effect different outcomes by doing different things. In DAI, we do all the same things and effect different outcomes only by making decisions in a dialogue at key points - usually the end of the quest. In DAI, the divergence is usually almost non-present in the game itself, except for very minor differences.

 

Example: consider DAO's quest "The Arl of Redcliffe". You have three main outcomes - Connor alive and free, Connor alive and possessed, or Connor dead. There are additional variations resulting in "Isolde is dead" or "Isolde is alive", depending on whether you called for the help of the Circle or not. The important thing here is this: while some of those outcomes are decided in dialogue, you actually do different things to make them happen: you kill connor, you go to the Circle for help, you let Isolde sacrifice herself, you either go into the Fade yourself or send one of your mages or Jowan into the Fade, playing as them.

 

Compare: DAI's Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts, the main quest with the most variable outcome. With no meta-knowledge, the first real decision you make in this quest comes immediately before the end, namely when you leave the Royal Wing. At that point, you'll have opened the halla door in the Servants' quarters to get Briala's stuff and the halla door to the lower level. You've also been in the trophy room to collect stuff on Gaspard. With no difference at all in what you actually did, you now have access to the three main outcomes - Celene, Gaspard alone and Gaspard/Briala through two decisions made in dialogue: let Celene die or not, and choose Briala or Gaspard if you let her die.

 

it's the same with other quests from DAO: Brecilian Forest - three main outcomes, you do different things: make peace, destroy the Dalish clan, destroy the werewolves. Captured: wait for your friends, break out through deception or break out through force (and hey, the optional seduction would never appear in DAI because it couldn't be made gender-neutral without looking silly). Orzammar: at least the first part has significant forks. Meanwhile, you make two decisions in Here Lies the Abyss but don't do anything different. You can do two different things in What Pride has Wrought but that doesn't affect the possible outcomes, which are, yet again, decided in a dialogue scene.

 

DAI's missions lack complexity. When you play for the first time, you won't notice that because the presentation is overwhelming and the emotional impact tends to make you not pay attention to complexity, but it becomes rather obvious in subsequent playthroughs.

 

In comparison, it becomes all too apparent that the mission designers created the main plot missions on the principle: How can we get significant divergence in the outcomes with an absolute minimum of differences in what players actually get to do? We have one point with a major fork that doesn't follow this principle: the mage/templar choice. However, the missions themselves are again, completely linear and lack complexity. Meanwhile, in DAO it feels more like the designers asked themselves what solutions would be possible considering the characters and the situation, and then implemented them through actualy dialogue and gameplay. DAI's main plot mission feel artificially constrained, DAO's more naturally evolved.

 

Which means, I have to rescind the statement I made in my diary thread. In terms of quest design and complexity, DAO still reigns superior. I did not post about this earlier because I thought I suffered from nostalgia goggles. However, a look at both games from some emotional distance makes the differences obvious.

 

Agreed, I have yet to finish DAI, but from what i've seen and what I know about the Divine at the end it's mostly comes down to dialogue choices. I'm not particularly fond of this since we aren't made aware that's happening.  Another reason DAO feels more natural is that we follow a natural progression from area to area as the story takes us through Ferelden, nothing is superfluous and it makes sense to quite literally do everything. Not only did I have fun through it all, but it wasn't a struggle to try and do all the quests made available like in DAI. We have been taught from the last two titles to leave nothing behind, but now we have no choice but to if we have any hopes of actually beating the game. I also appreciate how you could play the areas in the order you preferred. I generally started with Redcliffe and then moved to the Circle, but the fact I could hit Orzammar or the Forest was pretty nice. It also helped vary playthroughs. I don't really feel like i'm making any real choices aside from the Mages or Templars, but from what i'm told we still have to fight Red Templars even if we save them. I'd at least appreciate running across mage abominations and such in their place. I'm also left pretty perturbed that the main quest doesn't link all of the quest areas together. It has left me with a really disjointed feeling thats a bit sad.

 

All that aside I still like DAI, but it doesn't feel a smooth to me. Hopefully in the DLC or future games it gets the formula right. They just have to look at DAO for some solid inspiration. 

[AlanC9]

DAI's missions lack complexity. When you play for the first time, you won't notice that because the presentation is overwhelming and the emotional impact tends to make you not pay attention to complexity, but it becomes rather obvious in subsequent playthroughs.

It's conceivable that Bio adopted this design strategy because they know that most players won't have subsequent playthroughs.
 
To some extent this reminds me of the Mass Effect design philosophy. You mostly have only one path through missions there too. (Noveria is an exception, but at the cost of the Peak 15 sequence verging on incoherence.)

[Ieldra]

Wow...this wasn't something I had really noticed, other than a general feeling of "not quite sure why but the quests aren't as good as they could be" but now that you say it, I completely agree. Not really much more I can add though

That's how I started as well - a nagging feeling that something intangible was missing from DAI's quests after the emotional high from the first playthrough had passed, something that make them feel inauthentic. Yeah, I think that's the best term to describe it: inauthentic.

 

BTW, all my criticism still comes from the baseline position that I like this game.

 

@AlanC9:
Indeed, I was unpleasantly reminded of the mission design in the ME trilogy. Also, I actually had the same feeling in the first playthrough once the emotional high had passed, only I couldn't put a finger on the reason and I *might* have missed something, so I thought it was just me.   

[Teligth]

It's conceivable that Bio adopted this design strategy because they know that most players won't have subsequent playthroughs.
 
To some extent this reminds me of the Mass Effect design philosophy. You mostly have only one path through missions there too. (Noveria is an exception, but at the cost of the Peak 15 sequence verging on incoherence.)

That makes no sense. If your game lacks re-playability, then what's the point? DAO wasn't hurt by this at all.

[Ieldra]

That makes no sense. If your game lacks re-playability, then what's the point? DAO wasn't hurt by this at all.

Except that it probably cost more to make quests that way, counted by the standards of the time.

[Ieldra]

I should say something about DA2 in regard to this: DA2 didn't give me the same impression as DAI in spite of its quests being less complex, too, and that's because DA2's quests interacted more - or felt as if they interacted more because they played out closer together, I can't really tell how much of this is illusion. It didn't feel like I was playing a main quest and a few adjuncts, but rather many character and main quests combined into a whole that was more than the sum of its parts. The limitation of the setting worked to DA2's advantage. It's really a shame that DA2 was riddled by such blatant flaws like its combat encounter design and re-used environments. 

[chrcoluk]

defenitly origins is the better done game.

 

Inquistions visuals are lovely, larger areas.  But story, conversations, romance, the like/dislike system, game choices/plots, battle system, all in my opinion better in origins.

 

Inquisitions is a good game still, but origins is the better game.  Also a big failure in my view is not having a prequel story plot for your character like orgins had.

[AlanC9]

That makes no sense. If your game lacks re-playability, then what's the point? DAO wasn't hurt by this at all.

Like I said, most people don't replay the games. They just don't; the tracking data is absolutely unequivocal on this. Hell, a solid majority don't finish even once.

Therefore, if this problem only reveals itself on your second and subsequent playthroughs, most players will never experience it.

This doesn't mean that Bio shouldn't do such content -- if that was the rule then non-human PCs wouldn't have come back, since the tracking data also shows that the vast majority of players only play humans.

[Teligth]

Like I said, most people don't replay the games. They just don't; the tracking data is absolutely unequivocal on this. Hell, a solid majority don't finish even once.

Therefore, if this problem only reveals itself on your second and subsequent playthroughs, most players will never experience it.

This doesn't mean that Bio shouldn't do such content -- if that was the rule then non-human PCs wouldn't have come back, since the tracking data also shows that the vast majority of players only play humans.

That's pretty crappy considering people who tend to play Bioware games will replay them.

[Il Divo]

That's pretty crappy considering people who tend to play Bioware games will replay them.

 

What makes you say that? 

 

From the numbers I've heard (from Alan and others), indicate that these are people who play Bioware games and are subsequently not replaying them. 

[Teligth]

What makes you say that? 

 

From the numbers I've heard (from Alan and others), indicate that these are people who play Bioware games and are subsequently not replaying them. 

I've replayed KOTOR, ME1 and Origins a few times each. They are some of the very few games that I do replay.

[Wbino]

Its a matter of them knowing their numbers not knowing the audience.

 

Unfortunately as everything in life its the numbers$ that matter..........

[Karolis]

What bothers me the most about DAI, questwise, is its trouble integrating major questlines into something cohesive. DAO did this very simply: you have treaties, now go find these factions and convince them. From then on, every (major) action we take, we do for the purpose of furthering that goal.

 

By contrast, DAI seems fragmented, maybe even arbitrary. It often works backwards: hey, Wardens are disappearing. Find them, because Hawke said so. Oh wait, look! It was Cory all along!

 

DAO's structure is:

1) motivation (stop blight) leads to

2) goal (get mage support) leads to

3) major questline (fix tower) 

 

While in DAI: 

1) major questline (wardens gone)

2) goal (find/save them)

3) motivation (coincidentally, Corypheus!)

 

But, in the initial stages of Abyss, does the Inq really care about Wardens? Should they, even? (Clearly I as a player care immensely, because DAO + Hawke. But in-game justification?)

 

***

 

Speaking of DA2, I think it's a masterful piece of...literature isn't quite the word, but... structured, crafted media? Or something. It has a tight, people-centered plot, real-people characters, a well-done frame story, an often hilariously unreliable narrator (the scene where Varric destroys 8 billion dudes in Bartrand's place? OMG I love that part), and a bunch of slyly subverted fantasy tropes. All braided together and wrapped up.

 

As a video game? It was pretty good. I enjoyed playing it. But I really delighted in it as a well-crafted...thing...ness of it.

[Il Divo]

I've replayed KOTOR, ME1 and Origins a few times each. They are some of the very few games that I do replay.

 

Right, I do too. I figure a lot of people on here do, but the point is that how do the majority of gamers perceive the difference?

 

Alan's point is that most people who purchase Bioware games, contrary to how we might play, don't actually finish the experience, let alone go for a second play through. In that sense, much as alternate paths through a mission might be fun for replay value, they actually have little meaning for the average player. 

 

I mean, hell, I've beaten KotOR 18 times and that's actually nothing compared to some others on here. But it still would leave us as the minority of gamers. 

[Sunbrow]

OMG the OP is dead on.  You articulate what I have trying to put in words about the quests and just could not put my finger on it.  Couple this with the aborted storyline, playstation mechanics, bugs galore, and a Rift's mmo clone...You have DAI.

 

I would vote for you to be queen at the landsmeet. Anora to the tower with you.

 

Finally someone else gets it.

 

Time for my happy dance...       

[Wbino]

What I dont understand as a DAO player, who SHOULD have been the perfect demographic to buy DA2 and DAI....

 

     Is why they went with this Inquisitor? 

  Everyone know Wardens and Templars.......to go with this Inquisitor and not the known is like Star Wars without mentioning Jedi's......

[PhroXenGold]

Regarding the "people replaying the game", I seem to remember reading somewhere that, for Steam games that give achievements for getting through the tutorial or completing the first mission or similar, on average about 15-20% of people who own the games don't even have those achievements. So basically, a not insignificant chunk of the income the devs/publishers will get from a games actually come from people who don't even play it. Those who will go as far as to play it more than once are in a definite minority....

[Sunbrow]

Regarding the "people replaying the game", I seem to remember reading somewhere that, for Steam games that give achievements for getting through the tutorial or comlpeting the first mission or similar, on average about 20% of people who own the games don't have those achievements. So basically, a not insignificant chunk of the income the devs/publishers will get from a games actually come from people who don't even play it. Those who will go as far as to play it more than once are in a definite minority....

So be it. They won't make a dime off me for any DLC with this way of thinking.  Next game I will wait and not pre-order, for the bargain bin. I will treat them like creative assembly and not even consider a game until its out over a year.  Release slop you get the chop.

[Realmzmaster]

The gamers who replay games are in the minority (Unless you are talking multiplayer). Most gamers may complete a game once.  Let's face it most cRPGs require a large time investment. DAO,DA2. or DAI require a time investment of upwards of 60-100 hours to complete. For whatever RL issues or game issues (gamers moving on to other games they bought) gamers may not make a second playthrough. That is assuming they get through the first playthrough.

 

Some gamers abandon the first playthrough for a variety of reasons.

 

For example, I am on my second playthrough, but this time it will take me longer to complete it because I am also playing Wasteland 2. Others simply move on to other games.

[the Dame]

*shortened for convenience*

 

DAI's missions lack complexity. When you play for the first time, you won't notice that because the presentation is overwhelming and the emotional impact tends to make you not pay attention to complexity, but it becomes rather obvious in subsequent playthroughs.

 

In comparison, it becomes all too apparent that the mission designers created the main plot missions on the principle: How can we get significant divergence in the outcomes with an absolute minimum of differences in what players actually get to do? We have one point with a major fork that doesn't follow this principle: the mage/templar choice. However, the missions themselves are again, completely linear and lack complexity. Meanwhile, in DAO it feels more like the designers asked themselves what solutions would be possible considering the characters and the situation, and then implemented them through actual dialogue and gameplay. DAI's main plot missions feel artificially constrained, DAO's more naturally evolved.

 

Which means, I have to rescind the statement I made in my diary thread. In terms of quest design and complexity, DAO still reigns superior. I did not post about this earlier because I thought I suffered from nostalgia goggles. However, a look at both games from some emotional distance makes the differences obvious.

 

Very well put (IMO).

 

While I played DAI I constantly had the feeling of borders around a real possibilities for Player. 

It's felt like Writing Team intentionally chose to create the image of freedom for player's actions with no significant impact with future DA games in mind, so they won't be followed and limited by some choices made by Players in previous games. 

It's not necessary bad, but feeling 'restrained' is not what I used to have in BW games. 

 

 

And I do replay my favs games.

And as often as I want (and can) =))

[Nomen Mendax]

Great post - like Alan said this design philosophy makes (financial) sense for Bioware but results in games that are much less interesting. It also makes everything you do - except for dialogue choices - almost entirely meaningless which is somewhat disappointing. I've noticed (and been irritated by) this since ME2 where your companions can die due to decisions you make but cannot actually die in combat which seems absurd. Since the majority of the gameplay in Bioware's games is combat it would make the game much more involving if what you did in combat actually mattered.

[Zatche]

Good point, OP.

I think some of this has to do with the idea of "big, world changing decisions and the fate of nations." It seems difficult to make the a decision, like the one as to whether or not to kick out the Wardens, a reactive, in the field decision. I can't think of any way to make this decision other than a dialogue choice at the end (unless maybe you have to fight the Wardens to kick them out? I'm not sure they'd put up a fight after everything that happened. Plus the climax of the quest already happened with the fight with the Nightmare demon...still would've been cool, though).

It would explain why my favorite role playing in DAI opportunities are the ones they are. Even though some of the consequences in DAI are huge, these consequences end up happening off screen, with a codex entry or a war table mission, so they don't "feel" as meaningful. I ended up enjoying the option to solve the puzzles or follow Sampson/Calpernia more, even though it probably had less of an impact on the world.