215 réponses à ce sujet

[Al Foley]

Feedback are useless, i guess it's because goty are so much better

This is feedback too you know.  *dissapears back into the shadows*

[Steppenwolf]

So it's fair to assume that he thought the game lacked depth. Considering what DAI entailed, that notion is ridiculous as Cronodragon implied, but whatever.

The level and quality of depth to the story is really a matter of opinion. I don't think Inquisition displayed much depth of story. The villain's plan wasn't very logical or complex, the organization the game is named after never really takes center stage or accomplishes anything since our PC and a few companions do everything, most of the written content in the game is not connected to the story in a direct way, the actual plot content is very short when you take out gameplay contrivances, and I didn't find all of the main questlines to be very interesting.

No, it's not, as clearly displayed by the fact that you understood my sentence. You'll have to find some other way to spout hyperbole, I'm afraid.

In the absence of actual content in someone's post, I'll feel free to fill in the blanks wherever I like, in this case with how the discussion of Inquisition's story depth has usually been framed, which is as an issue of breadth.. If someone wants to correct me, they can.

 
It is gibberish. Those words are interchangeable in this context so they just serve as platitudes. I could argue that the breadth of the story eclipses the depth of the story because so much of content deals with lore and events that have nothing to do with the actual plot.

[LinksOcarina]

Well, the statement of having created the DLC according to fan feedback is true - as usual, sort of:

Scout Harding gets tons of interactions, there is a full blown new hub town with stores & crafting, closing rifts now yields tons of rewarding loot, there's new schematics etc. etc.

 

The problem is that one of the major complaints was not addressed.

 

I don't doubt that they started to work on it after the first patch wave for the vanilla game, but there has to have been a general plan for the DLC schedule way before, like any functioning company would have. They basically adressed whatever they could without changing "their" approach completely. I thoroughly enjoyed the DLC for being more of the good examples of DA:I's new approach, but I understand why some are confused (to say the least) about that statement.

 

You just don't feel equally as strong about item drops, than about narrative/exploration-weighting.

 

Ironic, for most early RPGs that was the focus until the advent of Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, narrative experiences were low when the monetary rewards for exploration and combat were the norm. 

 

BioWare is trying to blend the two, so there will likely be a give and take with all the DLC's at this point regarding story and experience. I would not be surprised if the next DLC was more narrative driven, but I do think that is a bit misguided to presume that the narrative is the only focus, or should be the only focus.

 

If BioWare is going to push more narrative into the game, it's going to be difficult because then folks will expect a full-fledged cutscene-style DLC like Mark of the Assassin or Citadel, but I have a feeling it will be more like what we see here, only with a half of dozen scenes added to it.

[CronoDragoon]

It is gibberish. Those words are interchangeable in this context so they just serve as platitudes. I could argue that the breadth of the story eclipses the depth of the story because so much of content deals with lore and events that have nothing to do with the actual plot.

You could if you wanted, sure, and that'd be an interesting conversation.

The words, however, are not interchangeable in this context.

[Steppenwolf]

The words, however, are not interchangeable in this context.

Define each of them in the context of Inquisitions' story without them being interchangeable then.

[CronoDragoon]

Define each of them in the context of Inquisitions' story without them being interchangeable then.

Sure.

Breadth refers to how much of the game's content contains what we might call "story," which is often identified here as quests that contain NPCs, dialogue, something happening or having happened. I'm not particularly enamored with that definition of story, but it appears to be the working one for critics of Inquisition's story content.

Depth refers to the quality of interpretation available given any one section of the story. How much is there to talk about with X? Is there a moral dilemma? To what degree does it reflect "truth" in the literary sense? Is there subtlety and nuance with the presented content? And so on.

If you want to bastardize it: depth is quality, breadth is quantity.

[Steppenwolf]

Sure.
Breadth refers to how much of the game's content contains what we might call "story," which is often identified here as quests that contain NPCs, dialogue, something happening or having happened. I'm not particularly enamored with that definition of story, but it appears to be the working one for critics of Inquisition's story content.
Depth refers to the quality of interpretation available given any one section of the story. How much is there to talk about with X? Is there a moral dilemma? To what degree does it reflect "truth" in the literary sense? Is there subtlety and nuance with the presented content? And so on.
If you want to bastardize it: depth is quality, breadth is quantity.

You've bastardized those terms to make them fit your assertion that the depth of the story is objectively good. If what one is looking for in the story is wide-ranging exploration of the franchise's lore then depth fits your definition of breadth. If what one is looking for is lots of dialogue options and character interaction in the main questline then breadth fits your definition of depth.
You tried to make your opinion into a fact using platitudes. It didn't work.

[CronoDragoon]

You've bastardized those terms to make them fit your assertion that the depth of the story is objectively good. If what one is looking for in the story is wide-ranging exploration of the franchise's lore then depth fits your definition of breadth. If what one is looking for is lots of dialogue options and character interaction in the main questline then breadth fits your definition of depth.

Depth is objectively good. That doesn't mean breadth is objectively bad, but it is not the same thing as depth, which is what you asked me.

Sometimes breadth can supplement depth, to be sure, but that isn't the same thing as being interchangeable terms.

[Steppenwolf]

Depth is objectively good. That doesn't mean breadth is objectively bad, but it is not the same thing as depth, which is what you asked me.

Sometimes breadth can supplement depth, to be sure, but that isn't the same thing as being interchangeable terms.

The quality of depth and breadth are not objectively quantifiable. You're still just trying to assert your opinions as facts. And you failed to counter my argument. The terms are interchangeable in the context of the game's story.

[CronoDragoon]

The quality of depth and breadth are not objectively quantifiable.

Such as it goes with discussing any story.

You're still just trying to assert your opinions as facts.

No, I'm not. I'm asserting my opinion without prefacing it as "IMO", which is what you're taught to do beginning Freshmen year of college, at the latest.

And you failed to counter my argument. The terms are interchangeable in the context of the game's story.

No, they aren't. In order to be interchangeable they need to be identical in all cases. It would make no sense to discuss the breadth of Cassandra's character potrayal as a conflicted woman of faith. It does make sense to discuss the depth of it. This isn't just according to my definitions: depth and breadth aren't interchangeable under the common dictionary definition, either.

[fizzypop]

Bioware why do you suck so bad?!

[WellBig D]

okay

[Steppenwolf]

Such as it goes with discussing any story.

So stop asserting otherwise.

No, I'm not. I'm asserting my opinion without prefacing it as "IMO", which is what you're taught to do beginning Freshmen year of college, at the latest.

What? You stated that the depth of the story is unquestionably good and that if anyone had a problem with the story it was with the depth. That's stating your opinion as a fact. It has nothing to do with anything one is taught in school.

No, they aren't. In order to be interchangeable they need to be identical in all cases. It would make no sense to discuss the breadth of Cassandra's character potrayal as a conflicted woman of faith. It does make sense to discuss the depth of it. This isn't just according to my definitions: depth and breadth aren't interchangeable under the common dictionary definition, either.

Now you're moving the goalposts. I explained exactly how the terms could be interchangeable in the context of what one might be looking for in the story of Inquisition and now you're trying to make it about individual aspects of the writing.

[CronoDragoon]

So stop asserting otherwise.

No. I will present my opinion without IMOs attached to every sentence. If you can't deal with that, you have no place in a debate.

Now you're moving the goalposts. I explained exactly how the terms could be interchangeable in the context of what one might be looking for in the story of Inquisition and now you're trying to make it about individual aspects of the writing.

My interest has never been about "what one is looking for in the story of Inquisition". You brought that to the table. It has, for my definition of depth, always been about the individual aspects of the writing. If anyone has moved the goalposts, it's you, since you've now changed your story from "the terms are interchangeable" to "the terms could be interchangeable" which are not interchangeable statements.

[wright1978]

Well i'm slightly more hopeful reading one of Mark's responses on the Kokaku Q &A thread.

 

"Can't go into too much detail on future DLC but we will be looking at more story heavy stuff"

[littlebrightpanda]

It's kind of interesting that some absolutely hate the Hissing Wastes and see it as completely empty, while it was my favorite story-heavish zone. Apart from the reason you go there (Venatori stuff) which wasn't really good, the dwarven ruins, the weird people you can meet, and the statue of emperor Florian made it a great experience to me, especially because I was the one putting the story together. 

 

Now, that's the problem with story-heavy. I thought the Hissings Wastes was story-heavy because it was lore-heavy. Other people think it's empty because there are no questgivers, cutscenes, or dialogue. Lore is undoubtedly part of the story, as it gives context and background for certain things. But story-execution is important as well. So what should they now focus on? The Hissing Wastes wouldn't have been that great if it would have been guided too much. You can never please everybody. 

[pasmith31]

I thought the main issue with the DLC was the price, not the content itself. The content is solid. The plot is good, we get some lore and we get tough enemies but for 15USD from Bioware, gamers expect more, and by more I mean Citadel-DLC level more. 

I agree, I was on the fence about getting this DLC as I am one of those people that am not happy with most of what DA:I did differently compared to the other DA games. Anyway I popped over to Origin to have a closer look at it and to my shock saw a price of $25 for 5 to 10 hours of fetch quests and a bit of story, needless to say I'm no longer on the fence. Even if everyone here was praising this DLC I'd be hard pressed paying that sort of money for DLC and not feeling like I just got ripped off.

 

They are asking almost full expansion prices for a 1/10 of the content, no wonder they don't want to do expansions anymore.

[NessCraig]

I finished the DLC yesterday. (shirtless aavar... yes)

 

I had a random thought and question after reading this forum:

 

For those of you who fall into the "hey that was fun... now where is wolf hunt" camp...

 

Do you think these "Bioware sucks this is the worst game ever omg wtf" folks work for other companies? This hatred/vitriolic comments yet continual decisions to come back to the forums to discuss it continues to surprises me.

If I don't like a game - I don't go on to forums day in and day out to talk to people about it.

 

[Nefla]

I finished the DLC yesterday. (shirtless aavar... yes)

 

I had a random thought and question after reading this forum:

 

For those of you who fall into the "hey that was fun... now where is wolf hunt" camp...

 

Do you think these "Bioware sucks this is the worst game ever omg wtf" folks work for other companies? This hatred/vitriolic comments yet continual decisions to come back to the forums to discuss it continues to surprises me.

If I don't like a game - I don't go on to forums day in and day out to talk to people about it.

 

Letting go is a long and difficult process for me. I used to love BioWare's games but each one gets worse than the one before it (according to my tastes). They just don't make games that I like anymore but a part of me doesn't want to feel that way. A part of me clings to the hope that it will get better but that part gets smaller and smaller as time goes by.  Hopefully soon instead of feeling heartbroken I just wont care anymore and will be able to leave BioWare behind without that pang of regret.

[Eelectrica]

I actually didn't mind the DLC. Not saying it's the greatest thing ever and it still had more than its share of pointless plant the flag, follow the dot quests, but having a few more people with dialogue elevated it for me.

Also I felt exploring was rewarded a little more. As in if you find something a little off the beaten track the DLC rewards you with more than just a level 1 Raider great sword or something equally useless that happened in the main game.

 

Learning more about the Avar was kind of fun.

 

If they can keep improving and build off this future DLC could be worth the effort - if they decide to sell it on your platform of course.

I don't know, Maybe I've become indoctrinated. is there a test for that?

[TaHol]

They won't. The toxic people on this forum like to think they are speaking for everybody.

You see toxic people because you are a toxic person. You can't see in others something you don't have in you. I rarely see toxic people anywhere. I might see people who are bit lost, not so mature (they might even be young who guessed I was young once too), not very concious of themselves and some might not even know they are born at all. You seem to like very much word "Toxic" so that is a hint for you, from yourself.

[AWTEW]

What's so funny? 

It's true. The Templars vs Mages questline and the In Your Heart Shall Burn sequence, both the Grey Warden and Winter Palace arcs were extremely well refined, as well as Temple Of Mythal and the plot twist in the post credits scene. These things received a heck ton of praise as far as I know. 

 

I'll only concede to the winter palace, and mythal arcs. The rest? Bleh The  Templars Vs Mages issue was  swept under the rug, and barely touched on.

 

The depth of Inquisition's story is impressive. You may be thinking of breadth.

 

Nope, I'm not.

 

The level and quality of depth to the story is really a matter of opinion. I don't think Inquisition displayed much depth of story. The villain's plan wasn't very logical or complex, the organization the game is named after never really takes center stage or accomplishes anything since our PC and a few companions do everything, most of the written content in the game is not connected to the story in a direct way, the actual plot content is very short when you take out gameplay contrivances, and I didn't find all of the main questlines to be very interesting.

 
It is gibberish. Those words are interchangeable in this context so they just serve as platitudes. I could argue that the breadth of the story eclipses the depth of the story because so much of content deals with lore and events that have nothing to do with the actual plot.

 

What this guy/girl said^

[Mr Walker]

So when they make DLC that ties into the story line, people complain that it should have been included as part of the game, and when it doesn't tie into the main story, people still complain.  Can't win.

[TMA LIVE]

Nothing about that quote says its based on users feedback. Just that it was made after the fact.