71 réponses à ce sujet

[Finw]

"May you find my wise goat for me, please?". When he asked that to me, the first thought I got is "of course not, I have more to do."

I don't reclain that quest is there, but we could say "no", "your problem" or "i don't care" for
secondary tasks. We are the Inquisitor, the head of Inquisition, we have that luxe.

Why just don't you do this? Refunsing the quest, it clean the map and put the task out on our journal. Organization. Maybe we lose power for many refusals.

A elf hard ever will be so solicituos one when a human ask a foolish task. The same to noble human when a elf ask the same thing.

[Dinkledorf]

Not clear whether you are making a statement, asking Bioware or asking players or ranting or ....

[Grieving Natashina]

I've been wanting a way to abandon quests for awhile now.  There are some quests that I either have no interest in, or I can't do to various other reasons.  For example, the requisition for the Ferelden cages.  A complete thorn in my mostly-completionist side since the drop rate for the keys are so terrible.  After three PTs of attempting to do this, I would just like to abandon the quest entirely if I get it.  I know I can skip the requisition quests, but I do enjoy most of them. 

 

Also, I figure if I drop any other sort of quest, they can put that handy-dandy exclamation point back on the map.  I can go back and do it later, or just ignore it.  

 

@Dinkle I think the OP was getting some frustrations out while offering their idea to the devs.  It's a little rambling, but I'm pretty sure that's the gist of it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Just don't do it.

Is this really just a complaint about bookkeeping?

[SwobyJ]

Just don't do it.

Is this really just a complaint about bookkeeping?

 

Guess so.

 

Personally, I'm SO glad that the game finally lets me 'decline' a quest while still phrasing things more in a 'okay, you don't want to do it, but just in case, here's the info' way. Much nicer RP for me.

[Lilithor]

Just don't do it.

Is this really just a complaint about bookkeeping?

It is about roleplaying. Making a statement. My character couldn't care less. Not doing is not the same than expressing it to the person that asked.

In real life it represents VERY distinct personalities. An evasive person may ignore without stating the refusal while other people would bluntly say to your face they won't help you or they do not agree with what you ask, or the reasons you are asking or your ideology and so on.
So your Inquisitior is either helpful or cowardly evasive because he just won't say NO, AND I HOPE YOU DIE FOR BEING SO WEAK AND UNABLE TO DO THAT, as much as you wanted to. And of course I'm not talking about the exact phrase but the meaning. In DAO (oh the perfection how I miss it) you could, in VERY harsh ways most of the time. Is it that hard to admit that game became more good axis centered? In DAO you could be evil with no purpose at all, just for fun, and deal with demons, and practice blood magic or just be a ****** jerk.

I get it you like Inquisition, but it doesn't matter if you like or dislike it it is a matter of reason realizing that the game offer less options. I'm not talking about consequences (specially because the concept is complex, for me consequences like Origins armies that affected gameplay are way above consequences in Inquisition that affect the world/lore, also choices in Origins also affected world/lore just not as much) but the choices, more choices mean a more meaningful gameplay/roleplay.
 

Can you at least agree that roleplay-wise it is very different to react passively ignoring the quest and react actively rejecting it? And of course, agree that allowing player to have this reactions will allow more roleplaying possibilities and styles?

[Regan_Cousland]

Just before an NPC opens his mouth to give me an inane task that no inquisitor would touch with a ten-foot spear, I'd like to be able to say this:

http://static.tumblr...00ggsckswkw.gif

[luism]

It is about roleplaying. Making a statement. My character couldn't care less. Not doing is not the same than expressing it to the person that asked.
In real life it represents VERY distinct personalities. An evasive person may ignore without stating the refusal while other people would bluntly say to your face they won't help you or they do not agree with what you ask, or the reasons you are asking or your ideology and so on.
So your Inquisitior is either helpful or cowardly evasive because he just won't say NO, AND I HOPE YOU DIE FOR BEING SO WEAK AND UNABLE TO DO THAT, as much as you wanted to. And of course I'm not talking about the exact phrase but the meaning. In DAO (oh the perfection how I miss it) you could, in VERY harsh ways most of the time. Is it that hard to admit that game became more good axis centered? In DAO you could be evil with no purpose at all, just for fun, and deal with demons, and practice blood magic or just be a ****** jerk.
I get it you like Inquisition, but it doesn't matter if you like or dislike it it is a matter of reason realizing that the game offer less options. I'm not talking about consequences (specially because the concept is complex, for me consequences like Origins armies that affected gameplay are way above consequences in Inquisition that affect the world/lore, also choices in Origins also affected world/lore just not as much) but the choices, more choices mean a more meaningful gameplay/roleplay.
 
Can you at least agree that roleplay-wise it is very different to react passively ignoring the quest and react actively rejecting it? And of course, agree that allowing player to have this reactions will allow more roleplaying possibilities and styles?

[Darkly Tranquil]

Just before an NPC opens his mouth to give me an inane task that no inquisitor would touch with a ten-foot spear, I'd like to be able to say this:http://static.tumblr...00ggsckswkw.gif

This would be my preferred reaction:

You want me to do what?! GTFO!

[Sylvius the Mad]

It is about roleplaying. Making a statement. My character couldn't care less. Not doing is not the same than expressing it to the person that asked.
In real life it represents VERY distinct personalities. An evasive person may ignore without stating the refusal while other people would bluntly say to your face they won't help you or they do not agree with what you ask, or the reasons you are asking or your ideology and so on.
So your Inquisitior is either helpful or cowardly evasive because he just won't say NO, AND I HOPE YOU DIE FOR BEING SO WEAK AND UNABLE TO DO THAT, as much as you wanted to. And of course I'm not talking about the exact phrase but the meaning.

I'll concede that we can't do that, but I'm also aware that we can only say a finite number of things.

But more importantly, I'm trying to preserve tje disconnect between the dialogue and the quest.

I want to be able to do the quest without having committed to doing it, and I want to be able not to do it without explicitly refusing. Games that allow explicit refusal in dialogue tend not to give you a quest once you've refused it, and I don't like that.

Yes, ideally it would be better if we had more options available in dialogue, but I'm not willing to give up the other features in order to get it.

If I had to choose between the feature you're requesting and the one we have, I'd pick the one we have. All else being equal, having the feature you're proposing is better than not having it, but all else isn't equal.

[Magdalena11]

I'll admit to being obsessive at times and those open quest markers are annoying.  Especially those infinite requisitions.  One thing that's helping me overcome an urge to spend another 50 hours pinging hopelessly away for that buried treasure --  post-game play.  This won't work for inner circle stuff and some things aren't going to be the same post-game, but I've been able to let a few piddling things go this way.  Right, no more malachite in the game, anywhere?  OK, well, I'm sure it'll be on sale in Val Royeaux once Cory's gone.  I have about 300 power and am maxed out on influence.  Let's move on to the Final Piece already.

 

I also started filling all the requisitions either at Skyhold or somewhere other than where they originated.  That way there's no temptation to have open quests in areas you wouldn't be going back to otherwise.  It can be rationalized because if the required items were available, they wouldn't need to make them.

[Regan_Cousland]

This would be my preferred reaction:

You want me to do what?! GTFO!

 

 

 

"Inquisitor! My son has a cold. Please give him his favourite handkerchief. It's important."

"Important? This ... is ... BOOORRING!" 

*kicks NPC into hole/off a cliff/onto a crusty piece of elfroot, which impales him through the neck.*

Mine is the Paragon response, yours is the Renegade response. lol

[SwobyJ]

I really want a way to disable the map marker for requisition quests. Get that '!' OUT OF MY FACE. GAME DESIGN 101. I DON'T MEAN TO BE RUDE BUT THESE CAPS ARE NECESSARY.

[Lilithor]

I'll concede that we can't do that, but I'm also aware that we can only say a finite number of things.

But more importantly, I'm trying to preserve tje disconnect between the dialogue and the quest.

I want to be able to do the quest without having committed to doing it, and I want to be able not to do it without explicitly refusing. Games that allow explicit refusal in dialogue tend not to give you a quest once you've refused it, and I don't like that.

Yes, ideally it would be better if we had more options available in dialogue, but I'm not willing to give up the other features in order to get it.

If I had to choose between the feature you're requesting and the one we have, I'd pick the one we have. All else being equal, having the feature you're proposing is better than not having it, but all else isn't equal.

So it all comes down to "you belong to the loser team"? We had a feature, it was cut, **** the ones that liked it?
Well, no wonder forum becomes "unreasonable".
Just as a possibly final question: So this is what franchises should be? They do whatever they want, if you dislike you abandon them? No critic for lost features? "I like it it is good, too bad you don't"?
It is hard to have dialogue if that is how it is. Perhaps this should be a forum closed for people who love the game. Because the only point I see when people dislike the game is "too bad for you, it works for me". In fact your post was the less shallow, you at least said it in a proper civil way, at least you are not calling people lazy but seriously, after watching a lot of fights before registering I see no way of arguing without falling into drinquisition which is a cruel way of dismissing most of the main problems of this game.
Even people who are polite like Rawgrim have a hard time arguing anything without being made fun of. So what should I expect to be treated as proper critic? Is the only thing taken serious here the complete worship of the game?
Don't take me wrong, I make this post directed to you because you seem the more reasonable here (I mean, of the non haters)
But I did analyze A LOT before registering and I see no breach (LOL) to critic this game without starting a war
I tried with you because with other people here I wouldn't even try, I would just say something absurd
But again since you seem to be reasonable, what the hell can be criticized in this game without getting answers like "GET RID OF YOUR ROSE COLORED GLASSES" and things like that

[Sylvius the Mad]

So it all comes down to "you belong to the loser team"? We had a feature, it was cut, **** the ones that liked it?

How you get that from what I said, I have no idea.

Just as a possibly final question: So this is what franchises should be? They do whatever they want, if you dislike you abandon them? No critic for lost features?

If that were the case, I would have left long ago. BioWare has spent many years discarding features I value.

No, by all means, criticise the game where you think necessary. But saying only "I would like feature X" without any mention of what that feature might cost us isn't particularly helpful.

When BioWare brought in the voiced protagonist, I was very vocal in opposition to it. But I didn't just say we shouldn't have it. I listed all of the features it would preclude. Many of those were features we'd had before, and naturally when a developer announces a new feature they talk only about how good it is, and not what had to be sacrificed in order to make it happen.

So I talk about those sacrifices.

But asking for more dialogue options is just asking for more, and we all want more, but BioWare can only give us so much. So if you want more of something, I think you need to be prepared to have less of something else. More options generally leads to less reactivity. Is less reactivity okay?

[AlanC9]

Lilithor, what on earth are you talking about? Sylvius didn't talk about cutting a feature that was ever in the game, he said that a proposed change would make the game worse for him. You then went off on a big rant that you even admitted had nothing to do with Sylvius. I get that your feelings have been hurt and you want to vent, but why are you dragging Sylvius into it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lilithor, what on earth are you talking about? Sylvius didn't talk about cutting a feature that was ever in the game, he said that a proposed change would make the game worse for him.

In fact, if his proposal could be implemented at no cost, it would probably make the game better for me.

I just don't think it's a credible option.

[Lilithor]

How you get that from what I said, I have no idea.
If that were the case, I would have left long ago. BioWare has spent many years discarding features I value.

No, by all means, criticise the game where you think necessary. But saying only "I would like feature X" without any mention of what that feature might cost us isn't particularly helpful.

When BioWare brought in the voiced protagonist, I was very vocal in opposition to it. But I didn't just say we shouldn't have it. I listed all of the features it would preclude. Many of those were features we'd had before, and naturally when a developer announces a new feature they talk only about how good it is, and not what had to be sacrificed in order to make it happen.

So I talk about those sacrifices.

But asking for more dialogue options is just asking for more, and we all want more, but BioWare can only give us so much. So if you want more of something, I think you need to be prepared to have less of something else. More options generally leads to less reactivity. Is less reactivity okay?

Of course it is. And of course for you it is not.
And that how it leads to all I said. The person who liked your post is one who likes Inquisition, the other one that posted below too.
There is no point in arguing if the ones that are happy with the state the game is in are just going to say EXACTLY what I said in my post: "I'm happy with it"

Perhaps I should say it translated to your language: "If they have to choose based on resources I like the choices they made"
Well I don't.

Now, please tell me where to go from here that does not lead to drinquisition or war.
Because as far as I know it seems like people like me have to understand that you are happy with their direction, not in a sense that the game is perfect but that you like the way the game is with the limitations they had, but people like you are unable to be empathic to people who would prefered if they went more like Origins or DA2 or even older games.

If it is everyone out for themselves, which shouldn't be a surprise, why the hell have the possibility of disagreement as a reasonable thing?

If it will all come down to "if you dislike the game you are butthurt, whining, bitching etc let' go drinquisition"?

Seriously, is there any way to argue anything? Because it is been months now that I read things here and in the end they could all be summed by "I like the game" or "I don't like the game", since these two seem to not be able to relate.

I didn't even thought I would ever talk about it, initially I just planned on light-trolling since I had no hopes for a dialogue. I see members trying their best to voice their contrary opinions even making serious long topics but it is a bar brawling by the end of the day...

See, what dialogue I could possibly have with you or AlanC9? Would you accept anything I say against the game? Or it is just that? you like it, I don't and if I dislike it I'm childishly nostagialting? Because as much as you denied my "exaggeration" in the end you just repeated it "I like the way they went" as in "Yes, ideally it would be better if we had more options available in dialogue, but I'm not willing to give up the other features in order to get it."

Or in other words, what is not childish? What is not nostalgia? I sincerely would like to hear from you what would you accept as a valid critic. What is for you, not only you, ALL Bioware-Defenders, what is acceptable to critic. What are people allowed to like or dislike without being considered massive ****. I would like to make some real critic, but what is the point if the result will ALWAYS be the same? The same people critic the same things and the same people praise the same things. So for now I decided to not make a review and just play the part in this division, being one of the butthurt ones. But only because I see no place for common ground (someone please bring Josephine here)

[AlanC9]

@ Sylvius the Mad: True. I should have qualified that.

[AlanC9]

Perhaps I should say it translated to your language: "If they have to choose based on resources I like the choices they made"
Well I don't.

It's not really clear to me what you mean by "I don't." Is it that you'd rather they just went ahead and cut the functionality Sylvius likes, or that you'd like to see them divert resources from other features to satisfy everyone with the quest structure? Or are you opposed to the concept of thinking about resources?

Because as far as I know it seems like people like me have to understand that you are happy with their direction, not in a sense that the game is perfect but that you like the way the game is with the limitations they had, but people like you are unable to be empathic to people who would prefered if they went more like Origins or DA2 or even older games.

What are you actually asking Sylvius for? Whether he ostentatiously displays empathy or not -- however he's supposed to do that -- what would change? He still wouldn't think that the OP's proposed change was a good idea at the existing resource levels.

See, what dialogue I could possibly have with you or AlanC9? Would you accept anything I say against the game?

You could actually try to have a dialogue and find out. Make a suggestion or two and see what happens. Or just complain about something. PsychoBlonde and I were just agreeing that the Power mechanic doesn't really work. Unfortunately, neither of us had any idea that would really improve the system, short of just giving up on the idea that sidequests should have anything to do with the main plot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I sincerely would like to hear from you what would you accept as a valid critic.

I'm fairly confident I just did that.

[Nefla]

This thread has the right idea! More murder-knifing and kicking into pits for people who ask you to do stupid tasks!

 

Really though I miss having conversation and dialogue options with NPCs and quest givers. I also miss the option to be evil or at least a complete dick.

[Nefla]

How you get that from what I said, I have no idea.
If that were the case, I would have left long ago. BioWare has spent many years discarding features I value.

No, by all means, criticise the game where you think necessary. But saying only "I would like feature X" without any mention of what that feature might cost us isn't particularly helpful.

When BioWare brought in the voiced protagonist, I was very vocal in opposition to it. But I didn't just say we shouldn't have it. I listed all of the features it would preclude. Many of those were features we'd had before, and naturally when a developer announces a new feature they talk only about how good it is, and not what had to be sacrificed in order to make it happen.

So I talk about those sacrifices.

But asking for more dialogue options is just asking for more, and we all want more, but BioWare can only give us so much. So if you want more of something, I think you need to be prepared to have less of something else. More options generally leads to less reactivity. Is less reactivity okay?

DA:I's "reactivity" mainly consists of text telling you that something happened so...yes?

[BSpud]

I'm glad there was a refuse option for Vivienne (recruiting and personal quest).

[AlanC9]

DA:I's "reactivity" mainly consists of text telling you that something happened so...yes?

Didn't ME3 (pre-EC) try this already? IIRC it didn't go over well.