429 réponses à ce sujet

[Kabraxal]

thats why i said in this day and age. if i want to use my imagination, why on earth would i play modern rpg and not pen and paper. your argument is a nonargument. we're discussing dai's ability to create visually a dynamic and believable world through side quests. so far you still havent address how scraps of note were able to do that, instead keep on insisting that if one use their imagination it will all make sense.

 

lol youre using your imagination wrong, which i didnt know was even possible. youre the one who control geralt's personality, he can do whatever you want. therere plenty of reasons why geralt would race or gamble during the main game. one would be that, as i have already said, it's a source of income, which helps him afford better equipment, which fits into the main game both within the narrative and as a player. really i dont even know why would anyone even argue this point. i dont know if there is a person other than you who doesnt want to do the sidequests in w3 to experience the story, which is, as you probably have already noticed, is the complete opposite with dai, where people have to be persuaded and cajoled and bargained into doing them.

 

I honestly have no idea how to intelligently respond to this post.  First you say you don't want to use your imagination, then you use your imagination to twist and warp a set personality (written and created in a set of books 20 years ago by the way) and then the rant about how I have to use my imagination for how an intricately detailed world with environmental storytelling in order to get the obvious of what that storytelling says, no imagination actually needed. 

 

The only place I use my imagination is in creating my character, creating that personality, and the roleplaying within that personality.  I am not imagining the results that are clear in the world.  I am not imagining the quests I am actually doing.  I am not imagining anything other than what my character is, the motivations that drive them, and the processes of reason or emotion that lead to the choices and actions they then take.  

 

I think you need to take a break, study up on what role playing actually is and then come back to discuss this.  Because your arguments are making less sense the more times you post.
 

[7twozero]

I have it from an inside source that the final game will have between zero and one billion quests, make of that what you will

[Kabraxal]

Geralt may be very loyal to those he cares about, but he doesn't necessarily track them down without pause.

 

Being a Witcher, Geralt's main source of income is doing all of those odd jobs around towns that nobody else wants to which can include the hunts, playing gwent, or racing horses. All of those things bring money, which Geralt needs to keep his equipment maintained as well as buy any supplies he might need. Unlike the Inquisitor, Geralt doesn't have an entire organization worth of resources as his disposal.

 

How much funding you need is up to you as a player, as the game does allow minor control over Geralt's character.

 

Not to mention if we're to be roleplaying a full proper day and night cycle like the game has, Geralt wont always be able to do anything at night and may need to wait for the next day in order for shops to open. In this case the game lets you fast forward with meditation simply so that the player doesn't have to wait it out, but it's not against Geralt's character to partake in some gwent during this time either.

 

I can understand some, but the sheer amount of hunts, gwent, and optional quests is counter the urgency of the main quest (though, at times that was beyond stupid with how many bloody fetch type quests you had to do to advance the main quest... only to find out your princess was in another castle.  Seriously, Dandelion's portion and having to find those dwarves on the isle were beyond irritating for a main quest progression). 

 

This isn't a case of Ciri being out and about and you can worry later... it is known the Wild Hunt is after her.  It is known they are actively on her trail and not too far behind.  As Geralt, that knowledge would drive him to quickly work to find her, especially given his history with TWH.  But the world and quests were designed around an open world concept instead of being designed within the framework of the narrative and Geralt's  personality in a way that melded with that open world.  Honestly, I would have ditched the awful main story line, created something that did allow for a more leisured approach that fit those sidequests at the very least.  Leaving out my preference for environmental story telling and RP abilities, the rather mechanical and generic design of the open world would have at least worked within that framework.   

[vnth]

Do not play TW games, but one is given the set character, and apparently has to watch scene after scene for most major and minor occuurences. I prefer to play a RPG; not watch an interactive film.

well thank you for giving your expert opinion on something you have no experience of.

[vnth]

I honestly have no idea how to intelligently respond to this post.  First you say you don't want to use your imagination, then you use your imagination to twist and warp a set personality (written and created in a set of books 20 years ago by the way) and then the rant about how I have to use my imagination for how an intricately detailed world with environmental storytelling in order to get the obvious of what that storytelling says, no imagination actually needed. 

 

The only place I use my imagination is in creating my character, creating that personality, and the roleplaying within that personality.  I am not imagining the results that are clear in the world.  I am not imagining the quests I am actually doing.  I am not imagining anything other than what my character is, the motivations that drive them, and the processes of reason or emotion that lead to the choices and actions they then take.  

 

I think you need to take a break, study up on what role playing actually is and then come back to discuss this.  Because your arguments are making less sense the more times you post.
 

it is truly amazing that your responses was not an argument to begin with yet somehow contain even less substance as you went on. a game needs to be judged on whether it was able to achieve what it set out to do, not by how much you were able to supplement its shortcomings, as you bizarrely suggested. video game is a visual media. it compensates the lack of freedom of pen and paper with more tangible visual images. the more advanced the game's technology get, the less you should use your imagination, otherwise what is the point? might as well go back to pen and paper. the da franchise in particular marketed itself on how your actions could impact the game's world. in past games, one could actually see how their actions have consequences through both the mainquests and sidequests. borrow a sword and later youll have a chance to give it back or pay for it. if you pay enough, other endings are unlocked. it's not perfect, but it's a neat way to create the illusion of reality. in dai, you have to assume everything when it comes to sidequests. npcs commented vaguely that do something in some areas and it will benefit the inquisition and...thats it. conquer all the forts or none of them, it doesnt matter. in fact, dont even do the areas quests and it would change a thing. youll have less power points, and that clearly makes all the difference in the world. do we actually get to see how our action affect the npcs or the inquisition? nope. the only thing it affect is the wartable minigame, which amazingly is even less connected to the main game than the sidequest. furthermore, the quests themselves are dull, monotonous, linear--in short, completely contradicted to the game's marketing point and a downgrade from previous games (yes, even da2).

 

as for w3, pls stop acting as if you "get" the game because the more you talk about it the more it reveals that you didnt. geralt's character is given but not his personality. depending on your choice, he can be either genuinely coldhearted or merely reserved. whether he is ruthless or amiable is up to you.

[Kabraxal]

it is truly amazing that your responses was not an argument to begin with yet somehow contain even less substance as you went on. a game needs to be judged on whether it was able to achieve what it set out to do, not by how much you were able to supplement its shortcomings, as you bizarrely suggested. video game is a visual media. it compensates the lack of freedom of pen and paper with more tangible visual images. the more advanced the game's technology get, the less you should use your imagination, otherwise what is the point? might as well go back to pen and paper. the da franchise in particular marketed itself on how your actions could impact the game's world. in past games, one could actually see how their actions have consequences through both the mainquests and sidequests. borrow a sword and later youll have a chance to give it back or pay for it. if you pay enough, other endings are unlocked. it's not perfect, but it's a neat way to create the illusion of reality. in dai, you have to assume everything when it comes to sidequests. npcs commented vaguely that do something in some areas and it will benefit the inquisition and...thats it. conquer all the forts or none of them, it doesnt matter. in fact, dont even do the areas quests and it would change a thing. youll have less power points, and that clearly makes all the difference in the world. do we actually get to see how our action affect the npcs or the inquisition? nope. the only thing it affect is the wartable minigame, which amazingly is even less connected to the main game than the sidequest. furthermore, the quests themselves are dull, monotonous, linear--in short, completely contradicted to the game's marketing point and a downgrade from previous games (yes, even da2).

 

as for w3, pls stop acting as if you "get" the game because the more you talk about it the more it reveals that you didnt. geralt's character is given but not his personality. depending on your choice, he can be either genuinely coldhearted or merely reserved. whether he is ruthless or amiable is up to you.

 

Considering how intricately designed Thedas is artistically, your banging this "visual" drum is strange. 

 

And if you had actually paid attention to my posts, let alone the game, you'd have seen the list of how your actions actually do lead to changes within the world. The fact that the companion quests and judgements are obvious ones and not the more subtle touches of finding travelers on the roads again, just makes your posts even more nonsensical.  Seeing these outcomes doesn't hinge on anyone's imagination... they are in game.  Again, creating a character and role playing within a personality is the only part to actually use imagination.  Seriously, please, learn what role playing is before you post anymore because you are embarrassing yourself.

 

That or play Inquisition before talking about it.   Becoming quite clear you only saw The Witcher wasn't bowed to and worshipped and decided to rush in haphazardly in attempts to defend its honour. 
 

[Elhanan]

well thank you for giving your expert opinion on something you have no experience of.

No direct experience, but much like DAI, I watched trailers, reviews, and gameplay and LP vids before deciding to save my funds. In DAI, I did pre-order, but saw no need to cancel as I received what was expected and more.

And you are very welcome....

[Dutchess]

 

This isn't a case of Ciri being out and about and you can worry later... it is known the Wild Hunt is after her.  It is known they are actively on her trail and not too far behind.  As Geralt, that knowledge would drive him to quickly work to find her, especially given his history with TWH.  But the world and quests were designed around an open world concept instead of being designed within the framework of the narrative and Geralt's  personality in a way that melded with that open world.  Honestly, I would have ditched the awful main story line, created something that did allow for a more leisured approach that fit those sidequests at the very least.  Leaving out my preference for environmental story telling and RP abilities, the rather mechanical and generic design of the open world would have at least worked within that framework.   

 

The open world and exploration it offers are detrimental to the urgency posed by the main quest, yes. There's conflict between the two that can't easily be solved. But this same argument can be used against DA:I. The Inquisitor can wander large regions hunting rams and Corypheus will patiently sit on his hands and wait until he can be defeated and his plans folded again. As others have pointed out, the Inquisitor is the only one with the magic hand who can hope to close the Breach, yet they are the one to get sent out into dangerous areas with only a small group of fighters to support them, while Cullen's troops take hours to pick five elfroot. 

It's not an issue limited to TW3 or DA:I.

 

As for DA:I's supposed subtlety vs. TW3's "look at me, something's happening" which is apparently what you qualify as a cutscene, war and strife isn't always subtle. It's often the very opposite of subtle. Suffering and injustice can get in your face. That's what can make it difficult to choose whether to intervene or look the other way as well. A "subtle" note telling why this dead body is there doesn't bring any of the morality interactive scenes can have and can lose the tragedy which a more direct scene could contain as well. Although I suppose that's what you simply do not want to see.

[vnth]

 

And if you are also roleplaying the Inquisition as the arm of stability and bringing peace to the land, then easing the tensions of the various conflicts, helping to rebuild, and seeking the various diplomatic and merchant relations via the war table are perfectly reasonable quests to undertake.

this is exactly what i mean. do we really get to see any of that, nope, we didnt. we assumed that that was what happened because we did the quests, but did it? maybe. who on earth knows? thats masterful storytelling for you.

[vnth]

No direct experience, but much like DAI, I watched trailers, reviews, and gameplay and LP vids before deciding to save my funds. In DAI, I did pre-order, but saw no need to cancel as I received what was expected and more.

And you are very welcome....

so you still dont know but think you do. again, thank you.

[Elhanan]

The open world and exploration it offers are detrimental to the urgency posed by the main quest, yes. There's conflict between the two that can't easily be solved. But this same argument can be used against DA:I. The Inquisitor can wander large regions hunting rams and Corypheus will patiently sit on his hands and wait until he can be defeated and his plans folded again. As others have pointed out, the Inquisitor is the only one with the magic hand who can hope to close the Breach, yet they are the one to get sent out into dangerous areas with only a small group of fighters to support them, while Cullen's troops take hours to pick five elfroot. 
It's not an issue limited to TW3 or DA:I.

The Breach is closed fairly early in gameplay; tis closing rifts and building resources to utilize vs Cory after that. This can require exploration of various areas if one Player chooses to do so, or rushing to meet Cory's forces quickly depending on another Player's choice. Options again; a good thing.

In TW3, it seems like Gwent may be needed to find Ciri, as well as many cut-scenes depicting minor encounters. Pass.

[Elhanan]

so you still dont know but think you do. again, thank you.

If I am incorrect, I am certain someone shall inform me of such. But thus far, the advanced consumer info has been spot on; no Fishbowl vision required.

[Kabraxal]

this is exactly what i mean. do we really get to see any of that, nope, we didnt. we assumed that that was what happened because we did the quests, but did it? maybe. who on earth knows? thats masterful storytelling for you.

 

What in the hell are you babbling about?  As you complete quests and stabilize the Hinterlands and the Plains, you will find pockets of travelers and people that would not be there unless you have completed quests... you know,  showing that getting rid of dangers actually allows for safer travel.  As you choose between Templars/mages and how you deal with them, wardens, hessarian blades and Orlais, you will notice changes in Skyhold and patrols in regions. 

 

The fact you completely miss these is only proof of what I've been saying in this thread for some time.  This style of story delivery for many optional quests and even the consequences of choices from main quests is not for you.  Stick with the Witcher.  And hopefully Bioware continues to let those of us who enjoyed Inquisition have that still.   

[vnth]

Considering how intricately designed Thedas is artistically, your banging this "visual" drum is strange. 

 

And if you had actually paid attention to my posts, let alone the game, you'd have seen the list of how your actions actually do lead to changes within the world. The fact that the companion quests and judgements are obvious ones and not the more subtle touches of finding travelers on the roads again, just makes your posts even more nonsensical.  Seeing these outcomes doesn't hinge on anyone's imagination... they are in game.  Again, creating a character and role playing within a personality is the only part to actually use imagination.  Seriously, please, learn what role playing is before you post anymore because you are embarrassing yourself.

 

That or play Inquisition before talking about it.   Becoming quite clear you only saw The Witcher wasn't bowed to and worshipped and decided to rush in haphazardly in attempts to defend its honour. 
 

your post shows an insane lack of understanding of not just games but even basic reasoning. the visual aspect i referred to has nothing to do with artistic design. the mona lisa is suggestive of a story which requires imagination. video games, however, are expected to tell the whole story, not just suggesting one. if it fails to do so, it's not art, it's just a bad game.

 

companion quests arent the same as side quest. if you played the game, youd know which one is the side quest (hint: you get it from some note and it wants you to kill\get something). not every area quest gives you judgement. also, as i have already said, you dont even get to see the actual consequences. the only payoff is at the wartable. in dao, act dodgy in the dalish camp and the apprentice keep her eyes on you. in dai, kill gaspard himself and troops wouldnt even care. but whatever, i consider it passable. still, once again, they are not side quests which do not have the  generous-heavyhanded options of previous games and are insanely boring.

 

no, youre not seeing any outcome. close a thousand rifts and not a soul will say anything to you. "pacify" the entire area and no npc will comment anything on it.

 

right now im mostly concerned with the deteriorating quality of the da franchise, which is really bad because i do love bw.

[Kabraxal]

your post shows an insane lack of understanding of not just games but even basic reasoning. the visual aspect i referred to has nothing to do with artistic design. the mona lisa is suggestive of a story which requires imagination. video games, however, are expected to tell the whole story, not just suggesting one. if it fails to do so, it's not art, it's just a bad game.

 

companion quests arent the same as side quest. if you played the game, youd know which one is the side quest (hint: you get it from some note and it wants you to kill\get something). not every area quest gives you judgement. also, as i have already said, you dont even get to see the actual consequences. the only payoff is at the wartable. in dao, act dodgy in the dalish camp and the apprentice keep her eyes on you. in dai, kill gaspard himself and troops wouldnt even care. but whatever, i consider it passable. still, once again, they are not side quests which do not have the  generous-heavyhanded options of previous games and are insanely boring.

 

no, youre not seeing any outcome. close a thousand rifts and not a soul will say anything to you. "pacify" the entire area and no npc will comment anything on it.

 

right now im mostly concerned with the deteriorating quality of the da franchise, which is really bad because i do love bw.

 

First, that is an opinion of what a video game should be... not fact.  And Inquisition does tell the whole story.  You just don't like the delivery method.  Has nothing to do with it factually being terrible or non existent.  You just missed it. 

 

For the rest of that jumble of a post:

 

- Companion quests are optional content.  Thus, like anything other than the main quest, the label of side quest is fitting.  And in these, they directly show you many of the outcomes in the cutscenes after choices, though some are further down the line such as Cullen and the lyrium. 

 

- Pacify and area and there actually is talk from those groups of people that show up directly proving that point wrong.  Again, play the game and pay attention next time before trying to make a point and utterly failing

 

- Complete the quests to quell the undead and help both outposts of Orlesians and you find patrols wandering around

 

It's fine if you don't like the method of delivery.  I was bored and frustrated with TW3's incessant need to bash me in the face with cutscenes.  I understand being unimpressed with a style.  But when you are rambling on about points that are so easily proven wrong and then crying that your preference is fact... that is what I'm actually taking issue with as I've taken issue with the posters that have repeated the same claims before.  Your opinion is not fact... deal with it.
 

[Cyonan]

I can understand some, but the sheer amount of hunts, gwent, and optional quests is counter the urgency of the main quest (though, at times that was beyond stupid with how many bloody fetch type quests you had to do to advance the main quest... only to find out your princess was in another castle.  Seriously, Dandelion's portion and having to find those dwarves on the isle were beyond irritating for a main quest progression). 

 

This isn't a case of Ciri being out and about and you can worry later... it is known the Wild Hunt is after her.  It is known they are actively on her trail and not too far behind.  As Geralt, that knowledge would drive him to quickly work to find her, especially given his history with TWH.  But the world and quests were designed around an open world concept instead of being designed within the framework of the narrative and Geralt's  personality in a way that melded with that open world.  Honestly, I would have ditched the awful main story line, created something that did allow for a more leisured approach that fit those sidequests at the very least.  Leaving out my preference for environmental story telling and RP abilities, the rather mechanical and generic design of the open world would have at least worked within that framework.   

 

Sure it's ridiculous, but if we're being honest so was Inquisition if you do absolutely everything. Most of the things that help you in Inquisition help you in a similar way that they help you in The Witcher 3: By providing you with more resources. The main quest is still trying to give a sense of urgency in both games, though.

 

Not that it's not a valid complaint mind you, just that it can also be applied to Inquisition.

 

Personally I enjoyed both games for what they were.

[vnth]

What in the hell are you babbling about?  As you complete quests and stabilize the Hinterlands and the Plains, you will find pockets of travelers and people that would not be there unless you have completed quests... you know,  showing that getting rid of dangers actually allows for safer travel.  As you choose between Templars/mages and how you deal with them, wardens, hessarian blades and Orlais, you will notice changes in Skyhold and patrols in regions. 

 

The fact you completely miss these is only proof of what I've been saying in this thread for some time.  This style of story delivery for many optional quests and even the consequences of choices from main quests is not for you.  Stick with the Witcher.  And hopefully Bioware continues to let those of us who enjoyed Inquisition have that still.   

yes and crestwood no longer look like a wet dump. how many areas are there in total? do the rest have some sort of changes as well? im genuinely asking because i might very well have missed it. the last i remember emprise du lion didnt look any different after getting the keep, except for, of course, the keep itself. or how about stormcoast? no one is living there (that i can recalled) but shouldnt there be some kind of betterment for the people elsewhere because of the demons you fought there? instead you get the ability to unlock a cave to get to an island to kill a dragon. what a great way for the inquisition to spend its resources. also, how about the rest of the sidequests, where you have to read mountains of text for virtually no consequences?

 

in the hinterland, theres a quest involve a scout that, if youre invested enough, will find out that she's a lesbian and was having a date with a mage. finally therere some sort of judgement involved. if only this level of detail (it's not even that great really) was apply to the rest of the sidequests, and not just kill random stuff in exchange for power and xp.

[Kabraxal]

Sure it's ridiculous, but if we're being honest so was Inquisition if you do absolutely everything. Most of the things that help you in Inquisition help you in a similar way that they help you in The Witcher 3: By providing you with more resources. The main quest is still trying to give a sense of urgency in both games, though.

 

Not that it's not a valid complaint mind you, just that it can also be applied to Inquisition.

 

Personally I enjoyed both games for what they were.

 

I felt the sense of urgency was more ambiguous in Inquisition in comparison to TW3.  Unlike in TW3, in which Geralt knows of the Wild Hunt and knows Ciri is on the run from them (not ambiguously, but actively fleeing), the Inquisition's main mission builds to close the rift, only to find out the true nature of the events and then from there it is about building the organization and weeding out the enemy.  The first few main missions post Haven do not have the sense of urgency of an active pursuit ala TW3, but of the fact finding missions and research as you get organized. 

 

But there are some quests that aren't so easily rolled into any roleplay until the post game... the druffalo, the shards, the mosaics, and the bottles of Thedas, Lord Woolsey (though that one is eye opening in whole new ways than I would have expected... talk about a ****** moment)... those are a little hard to fold into building an organization or tracking the enemy. Which is why they usually end up post game, pre Tresspasser if they ever get done for an RP. 

[Kabraxal]

yes and crestwood no longer look like a wet dump. how many areas are there in total? do the rest have some sort of changes as well? im genuinely asking because i might very well have missed it. the last i remember emprise du lion didnt look any different after getting the keep, except for, of course, the keep itself. or how about stormcoast? no one is living there (that i can recalled) but shouldnt there be some kind of betterment for the people elsewhere because of the demons you fought there? instead you get the ability to unlock a cave to get to an island to kill a dragon. what a great way for the inquisition to spend its resources. also, how about the rest of the sidequests, where you have to read mountains of text for virtually no consequences?

 

in the hinterland, theres a quest involve a scout that, if youre invested enough, will find out that she's a lesbian and was having a date with a mage. finally therere some sort of judgement involved. if only this level of detail (it's not even that great really) was apply to the rest of the sidequests, and not just kill random stuff in exchange for power and xp.

 

You repair towers in the Emprise region near the dragons with a quest.  Obviously the bridge to get to that area as well.  As you reclaim the camps, the red Templar threat lessens and they have a far lesser presence. 

 

For Stormcoast, if you were Mercy's Crest, you can get the Blades as agents and they will patrol the Storm Coast.  Several war table missions open up that cave ruin and allow you to close off darkspawn tunnels.  But that area of the storm coast is generally uninhabited and not as travelled as the Hintertlands or Exalted Plains. 

 

You also get another agent in the Hinterlands for completing the refugee and farm related quests.  And, after progression or completion of the rogue mage and Templar quests, the region is populated mostly by bandits or bears for enemies. 

 

In terms of choices or differences in each run, there are multiple different runs with a multitude of different consequences and changes even in vanilla Inquisition.  Add The Descent and Jaws and it ramps up even more... then exponentially when you reach Trespasser and see how two years have affected the organisation, characters, and then the extended epilogue slides.

[vnth]

First, that is an opinion of what a video game should be... not fact.  And Inquisition does tell the whole story.  You just don't like the delivery method.  Has nothing to do with it factually being terrible or non existent.  You just missed it. 

 

For the rest of that jumble of a post:

 

- Companion quests are optional content.  Thus, like anything other than the main quest, the label of side quest is fitting.  And in these, they directly show you many of the outcomes in the cutscenes after choices, though some are further down the line such as Cullen and the lyrium. 

 

- Pacify and area and there actually is talk from those groups of people that show up directly proving that point wrong.  Again, play the game and pay attention next time before trying to make a point and utterly failing

 

- Complete the quests to quell the undead and help both outposts of Orlesians and you find patrols wandering around

 

It's fine if you don't like the method of delivery.  I was bored and frustrated with TW3's incessant need to bash me in the face with cutscenes.  I understand being unimpressed with a style.  But when you are rambling on about points that are so easily proven wrong and then crying that your preference is fact... that is what I'm actually taking issue with as I've taken issue with the posters that have repeated the same claims before.  Your opinion is not fact... deal with it.
 

fact...you keep throwing this word around and i dont think you understand what it means. people dont argue over facts but over what they represent. technology was used to compensate for imagination=fact. da selling point was an engrossing world where your actions matter=fact. based on these, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that players should see the consequences of their actions in all quests without assuming or imagining anything. the fact that this is presented in the main quests but not the side quests further points to the inadequacy of the side quests.

 

dai doesnt tell the whole story. what happened if you kill gaspard before going to the dales? his soldiers werent even aware that he died, you the player is forced to use your own asumption and imagination in order to address the game's shortcoming. what happened if you close all the rift? once again you have to assume that people werent getting killed by demons because the npcs were completely oblivious of rifts.

 

you can called it whatever you want and it would still be the same. want to lump companion quests with sidequest? fine, the sidequests that arent companions quests are insanely boring and lack any sort of uniqueness. read all you want, they only tangibly related to the lore. worse still, storywise, there are no observable payoff. usually the reward is arbitrary points and the best you can expect is an agent. i have played the game three times. not too many true and admittedly after the second time i was extremely wearied of how boring the side quests were that i blanked out on most of them, but then if you were given three chance to hit someone with a hammer but failed, there might be something wrong with the hammer. in every single time i captured all the camps and couldnt spot a single npc who gives a crap. if you say they exists ill take your word for it. as for "pockets of travelers," yes i did see them and im almost certain they dont have any unique dialogue. and even if they somehow do, that still does not excuse the rest of the random stuffs that made up 70% of the game.

 

once again taste isnt the same as accuracy. your insistence that dai's fetch quests were somehow on the same level of w3 is an insane idea that needs to be addressed immediately for the good of da4.

[Cyonan]

I felt the sense of urgency was more ambiguous in Inquisition in comparison to TW3.  Unlike in TW3, in which Geralt knows of the Wild Hunt and knows Ciri is on the run from them (not ambiguously, but actively fleeing), the Inquisition's main mission builds to close the rift, only to find out the true nature of the events and then from there it is about building the organization and weeding out the enemy.  The first few main missions post Haven do not have the sense of urgency of an active pursuit ala TW3, but of the fact finding missions and research as you get organized. 

 

But there are some quests that aren't so easily rolled into any roleplay until the post game... the druffalo, the shards, the mosaics, and the bottles of Thedas, Lord Woolsey (though that one is eye opening in whole new ways than I would have expected... talk about a ****** moment)... those are a little hard to fold into building an organization or tracking the enemy. Which is why they usually end up post game, pre Tresspasser if they ever get done for an RP. 

 

I feel like the urgency ramped up in DA:I after you get to Sky Hold because now you know what you're up against. Especially if you took the mage route in the first act, you literally know what's going to happen if you don't get there in time. Maybe not as much against Corypheus, but in stopping the assassination of the Empress and the corruption of the Grey Wardens.

 

If we're gonna say that some stuff can be shifted to post game in DA:I then we ought to do the same for TW3, since as I recall it also has a post game mode.

[Meof]

The only reason I want no fetch quests is cause literally. In DA:I you where a powerful figure, doing fetch quests for irrelevant people. you felt like the errand boy instead of a powerful leader which was annoying.

[Elhanan]

I feel like the urgency ramped up in DA:I after you get to Sky Hold because now you know what you're up against. Especially if you took the mage route in the first act, you literally know what's going to happen if you don't get there in time. Maybe not as much against Corypheus, but in stopping the assassination of the Empress and the corruption of the Grey Wardens.
 
If we're gonna say that some stuff can be shifted to post game in DA:I then we ought to do the same for TW3, since as I recall it also has a post game mode.

Not quite; one knows what will occur if they get there unprepared and in time. This can mean varied things for each Player.

[XxFAMOUSxX]

What?! I live for fetch quests! How else would I have found all those mosiac pieces.

[Elhanan]

The only reason I want no fetch quests is cause literally. In DA:I you where a powerful figure, doing fetch quests for irrelevant people. you felt like the errand boy instead of a powerful leader which was annoying.

The question I have is Why? As a Player, one had the choice whether to do said content or not, so if it felt like work to do said quests, as there are plenty of options in which to gather XP, gold, and Power, why choose the annoying option?

As for me, I was able to RP three varied characters over three different campaigns.