292 réponses à ce sujet

[Bioware-Critic]

Absolutely - they can write whatever they want, and as a forum poster, I'm allowed to share my opinions as well. I haven't been impolite to the OP, I've only implied that I think their argument is fallacious. 

 

I also never stated that he was off topic. I implied that the nature of his posts were, at best, primarily ungrounded. What do we have to compare to DAI from TW3? A trailer? A list of settlements, with little to no details on how they are structured? To me, these do not make for a good comparison. The OP seems to have issues with DAI. That's totally fine, we're all entitled to our opinions. I just wish he'd post about what he thinks went wrong, and how they could improve, rather than continually post about how DAI doesn't compare to a game that has yet to be released to the public. 

 

I fully support open discussion, but I'm wary of discussion that tries to compare something we have solid evidence of, with something we've only seen glimpses of. I have no issues with the comparison of TW3 with DAI itself, but I believe many of these posts would be far more useful and constructive if the posters would wait until after the game they are trying to make comparisons off of was actually released.

 

I would ask that you take into consideration what I have mentioned.

 

Well, all the problems you have with his argumentation are, to me, basic problems we all have with the duscussions in the internet in generall.

All of this writing in postings is fairly limited - communication wise, I think.

 

I believe to try and understand what a person ment when he or she wrote it is far easier than to bring someone to write in a way you yourself would prefer. You can always try. But it will not always work out to be a smooth "transition". I find, to just ... "engage" ... in the discussion is easier than to criticise it all. Adding to the discussion solves a lot of problems, I find. People can read and try to understand where you are coming from and then react to it. That is much easier!

 

"Building a bridge" ... is easier than ... "burning one"!

 

Well ... in the internet at least .

 

LOL!

 

You know what I mean.

[Dutch]

So... side quests are pretty much every single mother loving quest that is not required to advance the main story, right? Well DAI is loaded with them and many of them are outstanding. Cassie's personal quest to Caer Oswin to investigate the Seekers? Yep, that's pretty much just putting flowers on a grave, I guess. Solas' heart wrenching mission to try to save a friend in the Exalted Plains? Easily comparable to finding a map and then finding a waterfall. Yep.

Mind you, for the record, I have no problem with putting flowers on a grave or returning a ring, etc etc etc. But to suggest that those are the only types of side quests in DAI is disingenuous at best.

Majority of the side content in DA:I is just that - Fetch quests. Don't be disingenuous.

[Dutch]

Absolutely - they can write whatever they want, and as a forum poster, I'm allowed to share my opinions as well. I haven't been impolite to the OP, I've only implied that I think their argument is fallacious.

I also never stated that he was off topic. I implied that the nature of his posts were, at best, primarily ungrounded. What do we have to compare to DAI from TW3? A trailer? A list of settlements, with little to no details on how they are structured? To me, these do not make for a good comparison. The OP seems to have issues with DAI. That's totally fine, we're all entitled to our opinions. I just wish he'd post about what he thinks went wrong, and how they could improve, rather than continually post about how DAI doesn't compare to a game that has yet to be released to the public.

I fully support open discussion, but I'm wary of discussion that tries to compare something we have solid evidence of, with something we've only seen glimpses of. I have no issues with the comparison of TW3 with DAI itself, but I believe many of these posts would be far more useful and constructive if the posters would wait until after the game they are trying to make comparisons off of was actually released.

I would ask that you take into consideration what I have mentioned.

To me, comparing a small menial sidequest in the witcher 3 that will be in the game to a small menial sidequest in DA: I is absolutely fair.

[Shechinah]

(to Dutch) But what if there is the possibility that this small menial sidequest is an exception to how the small menial sidequest in this installment of the "Witcher" will usually play out?

[Dutch]

(to Dutch) But what if there is the possibility that this small menial sidequest is an exception to how the small menial sidequest in this installment of the "Witcher" will usually play out?

There could be a possibility. It still doesn't change the fact that this little quest that I showed is superior to the all the hundreds of little side quests in DA:I.

[Xetykins]

Wow. I don't play Witcher, but this side quest is really well done.

[Bioware-Critic]

(to Dutch) But what if there is the possibility that this small menial sidequest is an exception to how the small menial sidequest in this installment of the "Witcher" will usually play out?

 

 

There could be a possibility. It still doesn't change the fact that this little quest that I showed is superior to the all the hundreds of little side quests in DA:I.

 

This example in the video is only important for the discussion worthy sidequests in DA:I - as far as this forum is concerned. Well, to me at least. How tW3 will turn out to be is not important for everyone who reads this thread. I for one want a better DA experience and to help getting this franchise closer to it's roots again. The franchise from the polish guys is not at all the major factor here for me. I can have both if I want to. But the question if someone plays both will have to be answered by every customer and fan seperately.

 

The point that dutch made is still standing!

[Winged Silver]

Well, all the problems you have with his argumentation are, to me, basic problems we all have with the duscussions in the internet in generall.

All of this writing in postings is fairly limited - communication wise, I think.

 

I believe to try and understand what a person ment when he or she wrote it is far easier as to bring someone to write in a way you yourself would prefer. You can always try. But it will not always work out to be a smooth "transition". I find, to just ... "engage" ... in the discussion is more easy than to criticise it all. Adding to the discussion solves a lot of problems, I find. People can read and try to understand where you are coming from and then react to it. That is much easier!

 

"Building a bridge" ... is easier than ... "burning one"!

 

Well ... in the internet at least .

 

LOL!

 

You know what I mean.

 

I can see what you mean I do sometimes takes things on the internet very literally, particularly when I am uncertain what context a poster is referencing. I shall try to keep that in mind in the future

[Shechinah]

(to Bioware-Critic) Ah, I see your point.

[Winged Silver]

To me, comparing a small menial sidequest in the witcher 3 that will be in the game to a small menial sidequest in DA: I is absolutely fair.

 

In which case, I agree, but I would think it would be really helpful - not just for me, who has a tendency to take things written over the web very literally, but for any Bioware employee who might stumble across this thread - to explain what aspects you think would really help out the DA quest building. I absolutely agree that they can stand some improvement, but I'll be the first to admit that my idea of 'improved' is probably very different from others. 

 

What sorts of things that you see in this sample of TW3's quests would you like to see in future DA titles? (asides from the multiple outcomes, which you mentioned in a post previously I believe)

[phaonica]

I just got finished playing DA2 and there seemed to be a lot of good side quests in it. The DA team knows how to do good side quests, they just didn't in DAI. I think their open world was actually too big for their narrative.

[Dutch]

In which case, I agree, but I would think it would be really helpful - not just for me, who has a tendency to take things written over the web very literally, but for any Bioware employee who might stumble across this thread - to explain what aspects you think would really help out the DA quest building. I absolutely agree that they can stand some improvement, but I'll be the first to admit that my idea of 'improved' is probably very different from others.

What sorts of things that you see in this sample of TW3's quests would you like to see in future DA titles? (asides from the multiple outcomes, which you mentioned in a post previously I believe)

Yes, I mentioned that and another poster mentioned that this quest used more than one game mechanic - like investigation, fighting, horse riding, cinematic conversations.

To it's core this quest is a fetch quest but do you see how vastly it differs to a fetch quest in DA:I?

If Bioware were to come across this thread then they just need watch the video I linked too. It's self explanatory with what CDPR did with this quest and how it should be done to what they did with their quests in DA:I where they did it wrong.

[Dutch]

I just got finished playing DA2 and there seemed to be a lot of good side quests in it. The DA team knows how to do good side quests, they just didn't in DAI. I think their open world was actually too big for their narrative.

I agree with that statement. The only fear I had with DA:I before it released is that they'd focus on quantity over quality because of the open world direction they went with - ubisofting it (adding cheap content to fill up the world). That and the story would be crap. My fear was met.

[phaonica]

I agree with that statement. The only fear I had with DA:I before it released is that they'd focus on quantity over quality because of the open world direction they went with - ubisofting it (adding cheap content to fill up the world). That and the story would be crap. My fear was met.

 

I was surprised, honestly, that they (imo) didn't utilize their open world as well as they could have. I think, though, that this is a complaint that could not possibly have gone unnoticed by them by now. I personally think that if the main story had led us through the side areas more, that the side content wouldn't seem so blatantly shallow. Maybe I'm wrong about that though.

[wright1978]

I just got finished playing DA2 and there seemed to be a lot of good side quests in it. The DA team knows how to do good side quests, they just didn't in DAI. I think their open world was actually too big for their narrative.

Yeah agree completely da2 is excellent in this regard. They seem to have veered far too far away from this in their pursuit of an open world.

[AppalachianApex]

Sorry. 12.5 hours of story. If you do the companion quests.

 

Lol. What game did you play? Because it clearly wasn't Inquisition.

[Terodil]

What sorts of things that you see in this sample of TW3's quests would you like to see in future DA titles? (asides from the multiple outcomes, which you mentioned in a post previously I believe)

Well, taking a step back from TW for a moment, there have been numerous suggestions about what constitutes a good quest. But such is the nature of forums -- suggestions and criticism form sediments which at some point take archaeologists to unearth

For me, a good (side or main, doesn't matter) quest ideally involves several if not all of the following:

• emotional involvement (can be achieved by affection towards the questgiver, empathy towards his/her need, or inherent conflict)
• several options to solve w.r.t. results (comply, offer an alternative solution, 'inverse' solution, ...)
• several options to solve w.r.t. means (combat only as ONE option besides skills (athletics, diplomacy, ...) or character attributes (cunning, strength, vitality))
• ethical dilemma (at least a 'good' and an 'evil' option, ideally some gray in between too)
• involvement of party members (voicing opinions, refusing to go along, pushing the protagonist in one direction)
• impact (be it simple and personal (guilt, pride) or larger (changing the world a little, e.g. watchtower quest))
• surprises (e.g. quest giver is a con, or something else entirely, e.g. in SWTOR, there is a quest to save some dude's 'beloved ones', who turn out to be this grown man's childhood toys)
• meaningful rewards (helpful schematics, truly unique items, stat boosts etc. -- just no RNG crap stuff)

... probably a few more things but can't think of them now.

[Bioware-Critic]

Well, taking a step back from TW for a moment, there have been numerous suggestions about what constitutes a good quest. But such is the nature of forums -- suggestions and criticism form sediments which at some point take archaeologists to unearth

For me, a good (side or main, doesn't matter) quest ideally involves several if not all of the following:

• emotional involvement (can be achieved by affection towards the questgiver, empathy towards his/her need, or inherent conflict)
• several options to solve w.r.t. results (comply, offer an alternative solution, 'inverse' solution, ...)
• several options to solve w.r.t. means (combat only as ONE option besides skills (athletics, diplomacy, ...) or character attributes (cunning, strength, vitality))
• ethical dilemma (at least a 'good' and an 'evil' option, ideally some gray in between too)
• involvement of party members (voicing opinions, refusing to go along, pushing the protagonist in one direction)
• impact (be it simple and personal (guilt, pride) or larger (changing the world a little, e.g. watchtower quest))
• surprises (e.g. quest giver is a con, or something else entirely, e.g. in SWTOR, there is a quest to save some dude's 'beloved ones', who turn out to be this grown man's childhood toys)
• meaningful rewards (helpful schematics, truly unique items, stat boosts etc. -- just no RNG crap stuff)

... probably a few more things but can't think of them now.

 

 

THIS!

 

 

Absolutely clear and on point. Thank you This is what a normal RPG gamer expects - PERIOD!

There is no "grey area" here or any "mystical mumbo jumbo" or some other BS when it comes to what we want  ...

 

BioWare knows all to well what we want. They just "gutted it" for ... "reasons"! (Meaning: "Business decisions"! )

 

 

Terodil ... Thank you, you rock

 

 

Spoiler

P.s.:

 

As an additional statement of sorts for this thread ...

 

"Fetch-Quests" don't belong in SP-RPG's really. They are an abomination of sorts and are basically "trash-quests" invented to allow VG-characters to level-up for the purpose of leveling-up and other minor things ...

In Pen&Paper games for example one will never encounter those "little buggers". Because ... the very roots of RPG-VG's ... never had those adventures planed to be a quest for "leveling-purposes"! It is supposed to be a world of wonders where you can do anything    But not for the sake of doing just "randomly anything" - I believe

Well, the "suits" of this world wouldn't know the first thing about culture ... if you cannot buy it with money, I guess.
They just know ... "When they can make the monkeys put their dollars in that slot-machine - they get rich!"

[berelinde]

I'd say that we could talk about how The Witcher handles character customization while offering a choice of multiple races, backgrounds, and genders... except I can't. The Witcher is a straight male human. Always. Sorry, it's going to take more than an interesting side quest or two to make that idea palatable.

[Winged Silver]

Yes, I mentioned that and another poster mentioned that this quest used more than one game mechanic - like investigation, fighting, horse riding, cinematic conversations.

To it's core this quest is a fetch quest but do you see how vastly it differs to a fetch quest in DA:I?

If Bioware were to come across this thread then they just need watch the video I linked too. It's self explanatory with what CDPR did with this quest and how it should be done to what they did with their quests in DA:I where they did it wrong.

 

The only reason I'd think it'd be a good idea to specify is that otherwise, it sounds like all that's really wanted is Witcher style missions. Which is cool, and would be an improvement to the current set up. Though I would be a little sad if Bioware couldn't at least try to find their own style. 

 

I don't know, when they were talking about Skyrim, I couldn't help but just think "If I wanted an exploration style game, I'd go play an exploration style game". I suppose not being specific and just saying "The Witcher" makes me a little apprehensive, as I fear they'll look at what TW3 has to offer, and then try to emulate the wrong things, or at least the things that just won't work outside of the TW3. That is, at least, one of the major areas that went wrong I think. That's why I'm something of a stickler for specifics.

[Auztin]

I'm all for better side quests but going"this is how it is done!" with a "screw you Bioware" tone as a title I wouldn't even dare jumping in this thread as a dev.Then again people have pointed out that this is pre-release stuff subject to change.

[mjb203]

I'd say that we could talk about how The Witcher handles character customization while offering a choice of multiple races, backgrounds, and genders... except I can't. The Witcher is a straight male human. Always. Sorry, it's going to take more than an interesting side quest or two to make that idea palatable.

So, you don't have anything to dispute the way fetch quests are being done, but instead bring up a criticism you have with The Witcher? Poor form! If you've got a problem with that, take it over to their message boards and let CDPR know you'd like them to make a game with a customizable protagonist.

One of my favorite fetch quests in DA:O was Topsider's Honor. It helped encourage exploration of the Deep Roads and had a good story attached to it. Could it have been done better? Yes. But still an example of a fetch quest done right. Good story and an awesome reward. In DAI, we maybe get 30 influence and +1 power, and a bit of exp.

[mjb203]

I'm all for better side quests but going"this is how it is done!" with a "screw you Bioware" tone as a title I wouldn't even dare jumping in this thread as a dev.Then again people have pointed out that this is pre-release stuff subject to change.

Fair point on the tone. It certainly could've been worded better. However, bringing up examples of a pre-release fetch quest are fair, as it's only providing an example as to HOW to make them better. If Bioware isn't able to do it bc of technical limitations, no worries. But what's the harm in giving examples, whether pre-release or not?

[Rawgrim]

I can see it but also glad Dragon Age had so many optional and different ways of doing things in its gameplay.  A lot of games do not have you different things throughout the game, or worse, they force you to do something you do not want to do to advance.  Sure, you may just give up the game, but DA I you can have your pie, eat it to, or jsut ignore the pie entirely.  

 

You don't know all the side quests are truly optional untill you beat the game. So you are pretty much forced to do them the first time you play it. You need power points, and you have no idea how many you will need to unlock main quests in the future.

 

+ Bioware said every area in the game would feature a lot of story based quests, and that choices would affect the area. Going by that, its no wonder people get forced to do all the fetch quests. The player has no idea if those would unlock a larger quest, or branch out into a larger quest.

 

That goes for the keeps too. The devs were, up untill 2 days before the game hit the stores, talking about how capturing keeps were really important. That they could be attacked etc. and that you could modify them to be military keeps, trading keeps, etc.

 

So yeah....DA:I pretty much forced the player to do all the empty side quests in the game. the devs said they were important, so you can add trickery to that bit too.

[mjb203]

Well, taking a step back from TW for a moment, there have been numerous suggestions about what constitutes a good quest. But such is the nature of forums -- suggestions and criticism form sediments which at some point take archaeologists to unearth

For me, a good (side or main, doesn't matter) quest ideally involves several if not all of the following:

• emotional involvement (can be achieved by affection towards the questgiver, empathy towards his/her need, or inherent conflict)
• several options to solve w.r.t. results (comply, offer an alternative solution, 'inverse' solution, ...)
• several options to solve w.r.t. means (combat only as ONE option besides skills (athletics, diplomacy, ...) or character attributes (cunning, strength, vitality))
• ethical dilemma (at least a 'good' and an 'evil' option, ideally some gray in between too)
• involvement of party members (voicing opinions, refusing to go along, pushing the protagonist in one direction)
• impact (be it simple and personal (guilt, pride) or larger (changing the world a little, e.g. watchtower quest))
• surprises (e.g. quest giver is a con, or something else entirely, e.g. in SWTOR, there is a quest to save some dude's 'beloved ones', who turn out to be this grown man's childhood toys)
• meaningful rewards (helpful schematics, truly unique items, stat boosts etc. -- just no RNG crap stuff)

... probably a few more things but can't think of them now.

Excellent points! All are much better than the typical 30 influence, +1 power we get from current ones.