My opinion may differ form your and others; does not make it worth any more or less. And the MQ can be played in under 20 hrs, but so can some other titles, though I do not run speed runs through them either.
The quickest time I finished DAI was about 10 hours 20 minutes. That was on the ps3. Since I now have a ps4, I might try to see how fast I can finish the game.
I've finished each ME game in fast times. I don't mind doing that. Its a change of pace.
Nope, but you have right to be wrong if you wish. DAI is not my fave Bioware game, but is far better in RP and Player controls than so many others. Have no desire to play FO4 or GTA, and TW3 is filled with objectionable content and no Pause functionality, so I skip it, too.
I'm sorry but I genuinely have no idea what you mean... "I have a right to be wrong if I wish"?... 
I'm just saying that DAI had mediocre RP options and gameplay imo, compared to other existing RPGs in general, I don't think that comparing it to whatever other games came out in a given period of time is in any way proving that it's a good game. It didn't deliver on the points I wanted it to deliver on. I'm not a fan of FO4 but it still did some RPG things better than DAI, for me at least. Just my opinion.
I'm sorry but I genuinely have no idea what you mean... "I have a right to be wrong if I wish"?...
I'm just saying that DAI had mediocre RP options and gameplay imo, compared to other existing RPGs in general, I don't think that comparing it to whatever other games came out in a given period of time is in any way proving that it's a good game. It didn't deliver on the points I wanted it to deliver on. I'm not a fan of FO4 but it still did some RPG things better than DAI, for me at least. Just my opinion.
DAI is not perfect, but allowed for Player controlled options in gender, race, class, CC, weapon and armor crafting, dialogue choices, judgments, and whether or not to play side content. Player freedom > On the Rails cut-scene driven films called RPG's .
Have no desire to play FO4, even if it did win GOTY.
Well, that just means that GOTY is no indicator of good game design, which you seemed to imply before by saying things like "If by bad game design, you mean GOTY Award winning game design". It just means a game was fairly popular, for one reason or another. But a well selling game can still be a letdown for fans, and result in scepticism towards the next installment in the franchise.
Like I said, I didn't like FO4 all that much, but I still got more enjoyment out of playing it than I got out of DAI, precisely because I felt DAI was very much "on rails" for an RPG. FO4 was too, but to a lesser degree, so I liked it more.
Overall, it's a preference thing, but the point is GOTY does not equal quality.
No; it means that the GOTY Award still may not appeal to all gamers. The DICE Award apparently does mean quality to those in the industry, as it is one of their top awards.
Define "top award." I actually can't think of any award universally regarded as quality by those in the industry. Judging by previous winners of the DICE award, it looks like the judges mostly go for the most popular game rather than the most well-designed. The BAFTAs are actually the only awards ceremony that doesn't seem to get swept up in hype.
Regardless, I'm not seeing how anything you've said proves this statement: "If by bad game design, you mean GOTY Award winning game design." All you've proven is that game awards are, indeed, subjective and almost completely useless for determining the quality of a game's mechanics. More importantly, we don't even know why DA:I was chosen. It won the GOTY award, not the "best quest design" award. Even if GOTY awards were a perfect metric for design excellence, I see no reason to believe that DICE chose DA:I because of its quest design rather than in spite of it.
Go on about "well that's just your opinion man" all day. We don't need to go around in circles reviewing DA:I. What we're trying to do here is suss out the kind of quest design we'd like to see in ME:A, and even if you liked DA:I's quests, I find it incredibly hard to believe that you can't see anything that could be done to improve upon them. There's no reason to hamstring the future of BioWare's quest design just to validate your views of DA:I, because I know for a fact that there's a way to make quests that make everyone happy.
Don't forget to make sure you pick enough flowers to build a bowling alley in your castle. The future of Thedas depends on it! Only you, the Inquisitor, the Herald of Andraste, can be trusted with such an important task!
<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
LOL
I forgot about that one.
Define "top award." I actually can't think of any award universally regarded as quality by those in the industry. Judging by previous winners of the DICE award, it looks like the judges mostly go for the most popular game rather than the most well-designed. The BAFTAs are actually the only awards ceremony that doesn't seem to get swept up in hype.
Regardless, I'm not seeing how anything you've said proves this statement: "If by bad game design, you mean GOTY Award winning game design." All you've proven is that game awards are, indeed, subjective and almost completely useless for determining the quality of a game's mechanics. More importantly, we don't even know why DA:I was chosen. It won the GOTY award, not the "best quest design" award. Even if GOTY awards were a perfect metric for design excellence, I see no reason to believe that DICE chose DA:I because of its quest design rather than in spite of it.
Go on about "well that's just your opinion man" all day. We don't need to go around in circles reviewing DA:I. What we're trying to do here is suss out the kind of quest design we'd like to see in ME:A, and even if you liked DA:I's quests, I find it incredibly hard to believe that you can't see anything that could be done to improve upon them. There's no reason to hamstring the future of BioWare's quest design just to validate your views of DA:I, because I know for a fact that there's a way to make quests that make everyone happy.
And what way would that be? Because if it is the answer I think, I can already disprove that "everyone would be happy" with it.
And what way would that be? Because if it is the answer I think, I can already disprove that "everyone would be happy" with it.
I didn't say "everyone would think it's absolutely perfect," but there are ways to develop content such that fans would find the overall quest design acceptable. The question shouldn't be, for example, "do I want cutscenes or not?" it should be "would the addition of cutscenes (if I perceive that as a negative) be worth the inclusion of extra dialog/non-combat content?"
If you think DA:I's plethora of small fetch quests are good because they allow the player more chances to roleplay, then would fewer quests with more choices within them be an acceptable (if not superior) alternative?
I don't think any of us would object to the idea of letting our troops handle side quests for us. Nor would many have a problem with BioWare writing more quests with premises more interesting than "get me X item, I need it." I especially can't imagine anyone complaining about more contextual and lore-rich sidequests. Those just seems like a simple and universally positive additions.
I'll definitely argue that more cutscenes, when used effectively, will always be an improvement to a Mass Effect game, but there are plenty of improvements that BioWare could make that don't need to be split across party lines here.
And what way would that be? Because if it is the answer I think, I can already disprove that "everyone would be happy" with it.
It wouldn't be a big deal if the people who aren't happy with it are in the minority.
I didn't say "everyone would think it's absolutely perfect," but there are ways to develop content such that fans would find the overall quest design acceptable. The question shouldn't be, for example, "do I want cutscenes or not?" it should be "would the addition of cutscenes (if I perceive that as a negative) be worth the inclusion of extra dialog/non-combat content?"
If you think DA:I's plethora of small fetch quests are good because they allow the player more chances to roleplay, then would fewer quests with more choices within them be an acceptable (if not superior) alternative?
I don't think any of us would object to the idea of letting our troops handle side quests for us. Nor would many have a problem with BioWare writing more quests with premises more interesting than "get me X item, I need it." I especially can't imagine anyone complaining about more contextual and lore-rich sidequests. Those just seems like a simple and universally positive additions.
The divide is that what makes it more contextual? What makes it more lore-rich? I found the quests in DA:I to be quite rich in lore and contextual, others did not. THe typical quests people argue that were better in that regards typically involved cutscenes that simply hide the fact it is actually shallow in terms of lore and contextually, it is just repetitive filler. So already, there is a difference of opinion.
Would I like some more quests to be introduced? Yes, especially those that spin off from war table quest lines. But that is just a matter of me being greedy and wanting more. Inquisition met and exceeded almost any WRPG I can list in terms of optional content: heavy dose of companion content, war table, missions like Suledin keep or finding the letters that lead to judgment in that same region, judgments, customization that embarrasses almost all other WRPGs.... about the only thing I would say I would trade off would be the shard quest. But even then, the discovery of what those skulls are was quite sobering and would have been missed without what is most definitely the most optional of quests outside of requisitions. And not sure if leaving it out would leave enough time and money to actually give us even one more judgement, let alone a full quest.
This is the point some are making... some are trumpeting the side content as objectively inferior when that simply is not the truth, especially when there are those that do no agree with the examples of other games that "did it better". However, saying all that I do see the next Dragon Age and even Andromeda getting more quests akin to Judgements and Companion quests given that the new engine is now set and the effort, time, and money that were used to build it up from scratch for these games can now be shifted to other endeavors.
My opinion may differ form your and others; does not make it worth any more or less. And the MQ can be played in under 20 hrs, but so can some other titles, though I do not run speed runs through them either.
Tell me another AAA RPG and story driven game that can be finished in 20 hours. You're basically saying that everyone jump off the cliff, so why does it matter if Bioware does so as well? Short gameplay in other games don't excuse Bioware and especially for this supposed GOTY game you try to sell it at where it should be aimed to excel instead of staying mediocre.
Tell me another AAA RPG and story driven game that can be finished in 20 hours. You're basically saying that everyone jump off the cliff, so why does it matter if Bioware does so as well? Short gameplay in other games don't excuse Bioware and especially for this supposed GOTY game you try to sell it at where it should be aimed to excel instead of staying mediocre.
Have not done speed runs myself, but seem to recall that ME1 could be done, and have read the same of Skyrim's MQ.
I can beat all 3 Mass Effect games individually in under 20 hours, but that's also a BioWare game so it's hardly a good example.
Skyrim isn't a story driven RPG. It's a sandbox with an exploration focus. I'm not convinced Bethesda is aware that other types of games even exist.
The divide is that what makes it more contextual? What makes it more lore-rich? I found the quests in DA:I to be quite rich in lore and contextual, others did not. THe typical quests people argue that were better in that regards typically involved cutscenes that simply hide the fact it is actually shallow in terms of lore and contextually, it is just repetitive filler. So already, there is a difference of opinion.
Those opinions may differ, but there has to be a threshold that makes more people happy. Clearly, DA:I didn't land within it because so many of us here found it difficult to care.
The dragon slaying quests left me wondering where these dragons came from, why they're coming back now, how they were affecting their environment, what they ate, etc. I didn't find many answers (if any at all) Did we even figure out what a shard is and why they're keys to this temple and what that temple was? The game just doesn't give me enough information to care. And those are quests that actually have vaguely intriguing premises. Finding some old hag's ring won't be interesting at all without a narrative hook.
There's a quest in the Witcher 3 that starts when an old woman asks you to find a pan she lent to some stranger. It turns out that the stranger was a spy using the pan to make ink for letters which contained information on Nilfgaardian troop movements. And that's one of the smallest sidequests. This quick search for a pan (literally just hitting the interact button on a few highlighted items inside a small shack) became memorable because it has a distinct narrative arc, a clear place within the world, and wonderful presentation to top it off.
If you're tired of hearing about Witcher 3, then what about Pillars of Eternity? A man tells you of a bear in a nearby cave that killed his friend. He doesn't want you to confront the bear seemingly caring for your life, but you can decide to go kill the bear anyway. Upon examining the friend's body with your soul-seeing ability, you discover that the friend was betrayed by the man you spoke to and left to be killed by the bear. Confronting the man from earlier, you discover that he was cheating with his friend's wife. The wife, however, asks that you have mercy because her husband was a wild drunk and that her new love is helping her run away to live in the city. This single quest involving one simple combat encounter and some dialog not only provides an interesting narrative full of deceptively complex characters and plot twists, it offers great insight into the cultural dynamics of the village you're stuck in. More importantly, it has number of nuanced player decisions that allow far deeper roleplaying than simply "I want to help/I don't want to help."
In any event, I don't see how more lore and more context could be a bad thing.
Would I like some more quests to be introduced? Yes, especially those that spin off from war table quest lines. But that is just a matter of me being greedy and wanting more. Inquisition met and exceeded almost any WRPG I can list in terms of optional content: heavy dose of companion content, war table, missions like Suledin keep or finding the letters that lead to judgment in that same region, judgments, customization that embarrasses almost all other WRPGs.... about the only thing I would say I would trade off would be the shard quest. But even then, the discovery of what those skulls are was quite sobering and would have been missed without what is most definitely the most optional of quests outside of requisitions. And not sure if leaving it out would leave enough time and money to actually give us even one more judgement, let alone a full quest.
Sobering revelations can happen anywhere. I would much prefer that they were woven into shorter, more gratifying experiences than under a deluge of mindless scrounging.
This is the point some are making... some are trumpeting the side content as objectively inferior when that simply is not the truth, especially when there are those that do no agree with the examples of other games that "did it better". However, saying all that I do see the next Dragon Age and even Andromeda getting more quests akin to Judgements and Companion quests given that the new engine is now set and the effort, time, and money that were used to build it up from scratch for these games can now be shifted to other endeavors.
But those saying that it's objectively inferior have a point. Given the same base mechanics would you take shard or hide collecting or the pan mission? Your tolerance for a lack of lore and context may be higher than most, but I don't see how having more of it would make your experience any worse.
I can beat all 3 Mass Effect games individually in under 20 hours, but that's also a BioWare game so it's hardly a good example.
Skyrim isn't a story driven RPG. It's a sandbox with an exploration focus. I'm not convinced Bethesda is aware that other types of games even exist.
Those opinions may differ, but there has to be a threshold that makes more people happy. Clearly, DA:I didn't land within it because so many of us here found it difficult to care.
The dragon slaying quests left me wondering where these dragons came from, why they're coming back now, how they were affecting their environment, what they ate, etc. I didn't find many answers (if any at all) Did we even figure out what a shard is and why they're keys to this temple and what that temple was? The game just doesn't give me enough information to care. And those are quests that actually have vaguely intriguing premises. Finding some old hag's ring won't be interesting at all without a narrative hook.
There's a quest in the Witcher 3 that starts when an old woman asks you to find a pan she lent to some stranger. It turns out that the stranger was a spy using the pan to make ink for letters which contained information on Nilfgaardian troop movements. And that's one of the smallest sidequests. This quick search for a pan (literally just hitting the interact button on a few highlighted items inside a small shack) became memorable because it has a distinct narrative arc, a clear place within the world, and wonderful presentation to top it off.
If you're tired of hearing about Witcher 3, then what about Pillars of Eternity? A man tells you of a bear in a nearby cave that killed his friend. He doesn't want you to confront the bear seemingly caring for your life, but you can decide to go kill the bear anyway. Upon examining the friend's body with your soul-seeing ability, you discover that the friend was betrayed by the man you spoke to and left to be killed by the bear. Confronting the man from earlier, you discover that he was cheating with his friend's wife. The wife, however, asks that you have mercy because her husband was a wild drunk and that her new love is helping her run away to live in the city. This single quest involving one simple combat encounter and some dialog not only provides an interesting narrative full of deceptively complex characters and plot twists, it offers great insight into the cultural dynamics of the village you're stuck in. More importantly, it has number of nuanced player decisions that allow far deeper roleplaying than simply "I want to help/I don't want to help."
In any event, I don't see how more lore and more context could be a bad thing.
Sobering revelations can happen anywhere. I would much prefer that they were woven into shorter, more gratifying experiences than under a deluge of mindless scrounging.
But those saying that it's objectively inferior have a point. Given the same base mechanics would you take shard or hide collecting or the pan mission? Your tolerance for a lack of lore and context may be higher than most, but I don't see how having more of it would make your experience any worse.
And this is the attitude that is annoying. It is my "tolerance for a lack of lore and context" that is apparently fact instead of it merely being an opinion.
That sense of lore/context you got from that pan quest, I got from finding out how those occularum were built or the notes written by a dragon researcher that abruptly ended or the myriad of notes and items you find in the Hissing Wastes that reveal an aspect of history that was thought to be different. I did not get that feeling from the pan quest.. in fact, by that point I was already bored of the repetitive nature of talk to X, follow the Witcher sense, dust hands off in completion quest system and felt about that game what many feel about Inquisition.
But then, the Witcher is the king of cut and paste design overall... I was sick of the generic village with the generic quest giver with a repetitive completion mechanic. You people keep crying about how much more superior it was... all it did was cover repetition and its generic design up in cutscenes. If you like that style more, fine... but it is not objectively better.
Only using the examples I have read about, but if the ME series can be done like this and have not read about such before, they seem to be doing something correct.
And while Skyrim is my first sandbox title, it is a RPG with a story; the MQ I actually enjoy, esp Paarth.
The question was "Tell me another AAA RPG and story driven game that can be finished in 20 hours" which doesn't include Skyrim because that's not a story driven game. Bethesda doesn't put much effort into the MQ because that's not the main selling point of the series.
Admittedly bloodmage's question is kind of hard to give an answer to because of the inclusion of AAA in it, which basically means for RPGs you're looking at mostly just BioWare, CDPR, and Bethesda. Since Bethesda doesn't make story driven games that rules them out, which leaves just The Witcher.
Not sure where Pillars of Eternity sits since it was a kickstarter, but also priced as a full game if I remember right. I feel like I could probably rush the MQ in that in under 20 hours, especially on an easier difficulty.
The question was "Tell me another AAA RPG and story driven game that can be finished in 20 hours" which doesn't include Skyrim because that's not a story driven game. Bethesda doesn't put much effort into the MQ because that's not the main selling point of the series.
Admittedly bloodmage's question is kind of hard to give an answer to because of the inclusion of AAA in it, which basically means for RPGs you're looking at mostly just BioWare, CDPR, and Bethesda. Since Bethesda doesn't make story driven games that rules them out, which leaves just The Witcher.
Not sure where Pillars of Eternity sits since it was a kickstarter, but also priced as a full game if I remember right. I feel like I could probably rush the MQ in that in under 20 hours, especially on an easier difficulty.
...
But then, the Witcher is the king of cut and paste design overall... I was sick of the generic village with the generic quest giver with a repetitive completion mechanic. You people keep crying about how much more superior it was... all it did was cover repetition and its generic design up in cutscenes. If you like that style more, fine... but it is not objectively better.
What you are ignoring is that even the repetitive structure was a seamless part of the world, it made sense.
A Witcher's first job is to hunt monsters and look for weird jobs on the town/village notice board.
It is repetitive because it is an accepted system that works within the world and the general concept of a character like a Witcher.
The fact that many of those quests received additions of interesting plot twists, little surprises, and short yet immersive cut scenes, is an added bonus.
"Covering repetition and generic design" with the above techniques, is what separates a well made side quest from the trashy MMO style.
What you are ignoring is that even the repetitive structure was a seamless part of the world, it made sense.
A Witcher's first job is to hunt monsters and look for weird jobs on the town/village notice board.
It is repetitive because it is an accepted system that works within the world and the general concept of a character like a Witcher.
The fact that many of those quests received additions of interesting plot twists, little surprises, and short yet immersive cut scenes, is an added bonus.
"Covering repetition and generic design" with the above techniques, is what separates a well made side quest from the trashy MMO style.
And yet that repetitive structure was on top of generic design with cut and paste application that was only covered by cutscenes... if that is your thing, have at it. I will take the companion quests, the judgements, the astrariums, the discoveries of notes, ruins, and objects, the customization of Skyhold and my character, and the war table missions. I'll take variety over a system that is not only built on repetition of the exact same beats, but are built from cut and paste design so everything feels like the game got stuck in loops.
The variety in Inquisition was far more intriguing and engaging to me than The Witcher. Maybe you preferred the Witcher's style, but it is not objectively better in any sense of the word, no matter how much you are desperately trying to say it is.
And yet that repetitive structure was on top of generic design with cut and paste application that was only covered by cutscenes... if that is your thing, have at it. I will take the companion quests, the judgements, the astrariums, the discoveries of notes, ruins, and objects, the customization of Skyhold and my character, and the war table missions. I'll take variety over a system that is not only built on repetition of the exact same beats, but are built from cut and paste design so everything feels like the game got stuck in loops.
The variety in Inquisition was far more intriguing and engaging to me than The Witcher. Maybe you preferred the Witcher's style, but it is not objectively better in any sense of the word, no matter how much you are desperately trying to say it is.
Dragon Age Inquisition was just as repetitive in it's quest design.
And yet that repetitive structure was on top of generic design with cut and paste application that was only covered by cutscenes... if that is your thing, have at it. I will take the companion quests, the judgements, the astrariums, the discoveries of notes, ruins, and objects, the customization of Skyhold and my character, and the war table missions. I'll take variety over a system that is not only built on repetition of the exact same beats, but are built from cut and paste design so everything feels like the game got stuck in loops.
The variety in Inquisition was far more intriguing and engaging to me than The Witcher. Maybe you preferred the Witcher's style, but it is not objectively better in any sense of the word, no matter how much you are desperately trying to say it is.
There were not just cut scene, in some of the mission you can spear the monster (or the people) if they give you a reason to do it or kill them anyway. Also, some of them have short histories, is not just "go to kill this monster" , in some you can let the one who hired you keep the money if you wnat, like you can tell a man that keep his money after you defet a monster because he is going to look after to the son of the man the monster kill. There are not just "cut scene", they let you choose things and give you short histories.
I will take the companion quests, the judgements, the astrariums, the discoveries of notes, ruins, and objects, the customization of Skyhold and my character, and the war table missions.
Given that out of everything you described companion quests are the only thing that can even possibly be argued as been done better in DA:I, I'm not really impressed by your comparison.
Companion quests: You have quite a few quests you do for your friends / companions in TW3, many of those quests are longer and arguably more meaningful than the average DA:I companion quest.
Judgements: Meh. Aside from the funny parts I didn't really care about it.
Astrariums: ... Is this really supposed to be something DA:I did better than TW3?... Seriously?
Notes, ruins, objects: There are actually some very interesting examples of exploration of ancient ruins in TW3. More things of this nature were added in the latest expansion. But yes, I would agree that generally, Dragon Age games go deeper into the Lore than TW, which is a real shame because the world of TW is no less interesting IMO.
Customization of Skyhold: You mean perhaps the parts that ended up being cut from the game?
Because as far as I remember, the upgrades are linear and are barely noticed even after the fact.
War table: It was mildly interesting. Very few missions really caught my attention. Certainly nothing to write home about.
Customization of character: Admittedly I would have liked the option to play the Witcher game as one of a few completely different archetypes of characters - like Mage, Witcher, fighter, Alchemist, Druid, Archer, but I'm not really feeling too let down by the inability to do so.
The game held its own beautifully as it is, and in a way the limitations of character allowed for the game to react much more naturally to your character and choices, despite having RPG elements.
Retour en haut