So as long as you suppress that compulsive perfectionist desire to explore every square inch of the map and complete every task on the way in an ironic display of gameplay that runs counter to actually role playing your character, you'll be fine.
I've played through DAI once. I did the bare minimum of grinding required to progress with the main story.
It was still boring. I shudder at the idea of doing even half of the optional content 
I don't like dumb fetch quests either. But for some reason, I enjoyed fetching pantaloons in DA2.
Go to Planet Burzurberuga and collect 5 blue stones on a planet of 99% grey stones and once done fly half-way across the star system to tell some guy you did that and get him as an agent for your cause who you will never speak with again.
I've played through DAI once. I did the bare minimum of grinding required to progress with the main story.
It was still boring. I shudder at the idea of doing even half of the optional content
In DAI most of the side quests were linear with zero branching / choices, no dialogues. Go there, find it, bring there, do this, do that, tadam, done, boooring. Don't know who thougth it would be a good idea to force it through the entire game, in all maps. ME1 had more branching sidequest than DAI, DA2 had more too, not to mention SWTOR.
I hope they go with the better quality and diversity than higher quantity. Sometimes DAI felt more like a tedious simpleton action game than a complex branching rpg. But the main quests had some excelent diversity: winter palace, templars / mages, wardens. Too bad those were limited only to the main quests. But again ME3 had more linear quests, than ME1 had, so i hope they move towards ME1 in that aspect.
I rather have fewer content, with higher replayability value, than more linear boring content.
DA:I feels like you're playing a MMO all by yourself. Grinding, grinding, grinding... Some other games do it better. Witcher, sure. But also Mass Effect in general. Just DA:I went way too far with the mindless fetching. So let's hope they don't copy it in this game.
The Myth of the Fetch and carry quests of DA:I is getting to the 'Zombie lie' stage to Quote Bill Maher. Doesn't matter how many times you use evidence people just keep recycling the myth.
Sooo.... Lets take Vanilla DA:O the much touted crown jewel of questing for the DA series and compare it to DA:I.
There are only 13 main quests in DA:Os of which 4 of them happen before the the tower at ostagar. If we include the tower then 5 of thirteen quests happen in the first chapter of the game if we view the origins as the prologue. That leaves 8 main quests post ostagar. You seriously telling me that these 8 quests are such a huge number compared to the side quests? DA:I has 12 main quests if we count the specialization quests as just one. (Which i think if fair as it is really all just one quest even if there are 4 listed in the journal). There isn't a large difference in the amount of main quests in both games.
Origins has 102 side quests and 6 companion quests. So the ratio of side to main quests+companion quests is 5.368 side quests to every main quest and companion quests. I did not include unmarked quests in this total of which there are 3 and i did not include DLC content. This is just vanilla origins.
So how does inquisition stack in terms of these ratios? DA:I has 12 main quests if you count all the specialization quests as 1 which I think is fair as they are really just one quest regardless how they are organized in the journal. There are 23 inner circle quests which are companion quests. There are 220 side quests in the journal. This gives us a ratio of 6.286. That's roughly 1 extra side quest to every companion and main quest that origins has (Its actually less than one.) That is hardly a huge difference that is being claimed AND you are able to skip more side quests in inquisition than you can in DA:O.
So this idea that there is a huge difference in the ratio of side quests to 'meaningful' quests in Origins compared to Inquisition is not factually based. it is cognitively biased based. Factually speaking the ratio of quests is a difference of 1, you are able to skip more quests in Inquisition and still be properly levelled for the challenges you will face means you can do even less side quests as a ratio to main/companion quests in DA:I than you could in Origins. This is the best of both worlds. You have the content for those who enjoy it and you can skip the content for those who don't enjoy it allowing you to get more into the parts of the game you like. Now if you have some personality trait that results in you refusing to skip content that's on you not bioware or anyone else.
If you don't like the game that is one thing but the game isn't what many people are claiming. It doesn't have a huge vast wasteland of meaningless side quests compared to other Bioware RPGs, the ratios are very close. They have almost the same number of main quests, and DA:I has significantly more companion quests than Origins. (Which one would expect with twice as many companions/advisors than origins.) The mechanics of the side quests are almost identical to both games. Now if you subjectively don't like things about Inquisition that is fine critique this, but get the facts correct.
Sources: journal from a complete game for DA:I and DA wiki for DA:O quests.
http://dragonage.wik...uests_(Origins)
http://dragonage.wik...uests_(Origins)
[edit] this is a copy of a post i did last year on the issue and yet again this false accusation levelled at DA:I. There is no factual evidence that DA:I was filled with fetch quests to any greater degree than any other title. Hell when compared to their most forum acclaimed RPG Origins it is near identical. The biggest fundamental difference is in past Bioware games you didn't have to make any effort to do side quests while doing the main quest BECAUSE the zones were so small. Now because teh zones are so huge it actually take time and effort to do said quests BUT you had the OPTION to not do them because out levelling the main quest is very easy.
@Gothfather: I agree with what you said.
But what I am curious about - is since it isn't actually that there are fetch quests, since all cRPGs have them, what about DA:I's fetch quests in particular leaves people unsatisfied?
I like the claim of distance. I think that's valid.
I think another is because so much the game has no direct tie to the narrative. Instead of having side quests appear "along the path" to achieving the main quest - they became mini-games unto themselves. Let's take the Hinterlands and Exalted Plains. The mage/templar war and the Orlesian civil war are too developed to feel like just side-quests... but not developed enough to be fully integrated into the main narrative.
Honestly - entire DA games could have been made about these conflicts - but in DA:I they are sidequests.
You get to "Kill Templar" and/or "Kill Mages" and "Chose Leader of Orlais".
I think the game would have been better if 1) they had tied all regions into the narrative forcibly (the feeling of accomplishment in game adds weight to the interactive narrative) or 2) removed all superfluous zones in favor of a stronger central story
Every rpg has fetch quests. Difference was DAI shoved them in your face and had little else to give, The fetch quests in ME1 you would barely know they were there unless you looked for them.
You mean like in all the fall outs and planescape torment and the witcher and almost every game ever made? (I can understand the dislike for 'fetch' quests but almost all games have them and they are not particular to any specific game.
The problem with fetch quests in DAI is that they took the place of actual content. There are almost no real sidequests, but there's a seemingly endless number of fetch quests.
...what about DA:I's fetch quests in particular leaves people unsatisfied? ...
I was generally ok with them, but they are fairly uninspired, linear and the poor camera angle / poor procedural animation means that you care less.
The ram meat quest could have been more meaningful if you could better see the starving / non-starving settlers,
but what you get is perhaps all that could be afforded, but it looks like filler.
There have been such quests in other BioWare games but they overwhelm less.
Also cut scenes for everything!
Do you like nice things? Then, in order to get mostly nice things, don't ask for the things that cost the most time and money to make. Ugh, people really don't understand the economics of game development at all. S*** ain't free!
The other problem with DAI's fetch quests is that the characters would make you feel guilty for not doing them. In the hinterlands you have to obtain those ten furs or refugees are going to die or starve, or something else equally traumatic.
In ME1 you can scan the keepers for a little money, or not. It doesn't really matter.
Of course it didn't matter either in DAI but that was another problem with the game entirely.
The other problem with DAI's fetch quests is that the characters would make you feel guilty for not doing them. In the hinterlands you have to obtain those ten furs or refugees are going to die or starve, or something else equally traumatic.
I mean, god forbid they make it such that characters who give out the sidequests act in character...
The problem with fetch quests in DAI is that they took the place of actual content. There are almost no real sidequests, but there's a seemingly endless number of fetch quests.
WARNING: I'm about to use the Game That Shall Not Be Named to illustrate a point. This is because, in spite of TGTSNBN being similar to DAI in that it was the third entry in a series trying to implement an open world where there were previously relatively small areas, the former was much better received than the latter and has often been pointed out as an example of how to do the open world "better" even by people who liked DAI. The point of this is not to bash Bioware or perform verbal fellatio on the developers of TGTSNBN.
So what made TGTSNBN a better open world RPG, in my oh-so-humble opinion? Well, that game had three different kinds of sidequests: treasure hunts, contracts, and those properly dubbed sidequests. Treasure hunts were very similar to what is in DAI: repetitive, cinematic-less, fetch-questy... you name it. They even told stuff through letters and the like that sounded much more interesting than what you were actually doing; again, just like DAI. However, that game had more than just that. Contracts all followed more or less the same formula and got samey after a while. But they still had small characters and narratives woven in, as well as the occasional choice. Not to mention they played out like a detective story, with you having to solve a crime, figure out what kind of monster you were dealing with and then face it. This kept them fresh and entertaining even late into the game.
But there was more than even just that. The stars of the show were the sidequests themselves, which were often complex narratives with likable, nuanced characters you got to form all kinds of relationships with. Choice and consequence abounded in this area. Yeah, there were some that were kind of meh, but even those were a step above the stuff that you find in droves playing DAI.
And that is the latter game's problem. I don't think anyone is asking for every sidequest to be carefully crafted and brimming with interesting content. Some fetch quests are unavoidable due to genre, but that doesn't me they should constitute the entirety of the optional content. Moreover, the optional content should always be optional. TGTSNBN, and ME1 for that matter, allowed you to do and skip as much of it as you pleased. DAI forced you to go through a significant amount of it in order to progress with the main story, which in turn feels shorter than usual.
I have a feeling that half of our quest logs will be Collection quests.
x/25 unobtanium
x/10 greefer pets
x/30 eezo pods
...
and so on and so on
WARNING: I'm about to use the Game That Shall Not Be Named to illustrate a point. This is because, in spite of TGTSNBN being similar to DAI in that it was the third entry in a series trying to implement an open world where there were previously relatively small areas, the former was much better received than the latter and has often been pointed out as an example of how to do the open world "better" even by people who liked DAI. The point of this is not to bash Bioware or perform verbal fellatio on the developers of TGTSNBN.
So what made TGTSNBN a better open world RPG, in my oh-so-humble opinion? Well, that game had three different kinds of sidequests: treasure hunts, contracts, and those properly dubbed sidequests. Treasure hunts were very similar to what is in DAI: repetitive, cinematic-less, fetch-questy... you name it. They even told stuff through letters and the like that sounded much more interesting than what you were actually doing; again, just like DAI. However, that game had more than just that. Contracts all followed more or less the same formula and got samey after a while. But they still had small characters and narratives woven in, as well as the occasional choice. Not to mention they played out like a detective story, with you having to solve a crime, figure out what kind of monster you were dealing with and then face it. This kept them fresh and entertaining even late into the game.
But there was more than even just that. The stars of the show were the sidequests themselves, which were often complex narratives with likable, nuanced characters you got to form all kinds of relationships with. Choice and consequence abounded in this area. Yeah, there were some that were kind of meh, but even those were a step above the stuff that you find in droves playing DAI.
And that is the latter game's problem. I don't think anyone is asking for every sidequest to be carefully crafted and brimming with interesting content. Some fetch quests are unavoidable due to genre, but that doesn't me they should constitute the entirety of the optional content. Moreover, the optional content should always be optional. TGTSNBN, and ME1 for that matter, allowed you to do and skip as much of it as you pleased. DAI forced you to go through a significant amount of it in order to progress with the main story, which in turn feels shorter than usual.
That game also isn't objectively better at it... I found the quests in it repetitive, boring, and adding very little back into the lore or experience that wasn't already there from the main quest. Also, the companion content in Inquistion... from banter, to quests, to romances, to war table missions... were high quality optional content. The Judgements were high quality and extremely reactive and responsive to prior events and how the decisions play out. And following these "filler" quests in DA:I often led to discoveries that are quite impactful.
Hell, in the Western Approach you come upon piles of bodies and notes that paint a gruesome picture. But it is told within the structure of actually reading and paying attention instead of dramatic cutscenes to yell "here I am!" at the player. Then there is the Still Ruins, Suledin Keep, the optional discoveries and ploys within main quests like the Winter Ball, the entirety of the swamps if you so choose to save your men.... there is a lot of meaty content that adds layers and layers to the world, it just is not presented via cutscene. It is presented in world through various means. In fact, the care and depth of that presentation created a much more realistic world that felt like it actually had a history than the other game could ever hope to achieve.
I mean, I just spent an hour last night intently looking at the new Serualt Glass windows... such a minor little optional customization that added a new flavor to the world just by intricate art design. Inquisition seems to be designed for the gamer with an eye for detail and appreciation of lore and world building. I just realised in this run that Solas wasn't oddly staring at a wall lost in some ancient thought... he was creating the painting in his mind that he would eventually turn that barren wall into a piece of the Inquisitor's story. Such a simple little moment but it was an amazing touch of detail. That is what DA:I's design does... it isn't about the cutscene, it's about the environment and character actions telling a story.
EDIT: or simple question... how many here know about The Ballad of Lord Woolsey? Just another throw away quest right? (yes, this is a loaded question).
That game also isn't objectively better at it...
If "objectively" better is the standard, we'll never going to get anywhere. Myself, I find so-called environmental storytelling to be complete rubbish most of the time. DAI is very far from being an exception 
The only thing we do agree on is that the companion content was pretty good overall. However, you must understand my unwillingness to slog through the other 95% of the game to experience that worthwhile 5% (and I feel like I'm being generous).
EDIT: If you'd like an example of what I think is a well implemented open world other than TGTSNBN, I'd nominate Kingdoms of Amalur, although that game was very lacking in some other respects.
Dear BioWare,
Please no stupid fetch quests like in DA: Inquisition.
Thank you!
SO, only smart fetch quests?
SO, only smart fetch quests?
That's... actually not a bad idea! 
You might as well ask them to cut off their hands and feet and develop the game blindfolded while you're at it.
If "objectively" better is the standard, we'll never going to get anywhere. Myself, I find so-called environmental storytelling to be complete rubbish most of the time. DAI is very far from being an exception
The only thing we do agree on is that the companion content was pretty good overall. However, you must understand my unwillingness to slog through the other 95% of the game to experience that worthwhile 5% (and I feel like I'm being generous).
EDIT: If you'd like an example of what I think is a well implemented open world other than TGTSNBN, I'd nominate Kingdoms of Amalur, although that game was very lacking in some other respects.
KoA was okay, but lacking in character depth and interaction. Potential that will never be fully realised sadly...
And for me, cinematic games can be fun, but they generally never hold the depth of a game that mixes cinematic cutscenes with environmental story telling. That is why Dragon Age is my favourite franchise. It takes a lot of lore building and great characters to break through to that level, something Mass Effect, Bethesda, and a few other games have managed (Tales of Vesperia, FFX, and such). Inquisition is a marvel in world design. Only Bethesda has crafted such a long historied and detailed world as Thedas (and beyond, given the hints in lore and supplemental material).
KoA was okay, but lacking in character depth and interaction. Potential that will never be fully realised sadly...
Yes, as I said, the game was very lacking in some ways. But the open world, the setting and the combat were all, in my opinion, pretty damn good. Can't say I'm too sorry it won't be continued, though, since it seems like it would just have been another MMO a dozen.
And for me, cinematic games can be fun, but they generally never hold the depth of a game that mixes cinematic cutscenes with environmental story telling. That is why Dragon Age is my favourite franchise. It takes a lot of lore building and great characters to break through to that level, something Mass Effect, Bethesda, and a few other games have managed (Tales of Vesperia, FFX, and such). Inquisition is a marvel in world design. Only Bethesda has crafted such a long historied and detailed world as Thedas (and beyond, given the hints in lore and supplemental material).
Ah, you've hit the nail in the head. I don't like Bethesda games. I tried Skyrim, played some of it, got bored and dropped it, telling myself I might try it again some time in the future. That was years ago and I still haven't even tried starting another game. So DAI is the antithesis of what I want in my RPGs, and if Bioware continues going that route I will sadly have to take my leave and not bother with their games again. I'd rather that didn't happen, subjective opinion or not.
@Gothfather: I agree with what you said.
But what I am curious about - is since it isn't actually that there are fetch quests, since all cRPGs have them, what about DA:I's fetch quests in particular leaves people unsatisfied?
I like the claim of distance. I think that's valid.
I think another is because so much the game has no direct tie to the narrative. Instead of having side quests appear "along the path" to achieving the main quest - they became mini-games unto themselves. Let's take the Hinterlands and Exalted Plains. The mage/templar war and the Orlesian civil war are too developed to feel like just side-quests... but not developed enough to be fully integrated into the main narrative.
Honestly - entire DA games could have been made about these conflicts - but in DA:I they are sidequests.
You get to "Kill Templar" and/or "Kill Mages" and "Chose Leader of Orlais".
I think the game would have been better if 1) they had tied all regions into the narrative forcibly (the feeling of accomplishment in game adds weight to the interactive narrative) or 2) removed all superfluous zones in favor of a stronger central story
I disagree 100% i think the worse thing about Bioware games where their on rails approach to zones. I think they made the right call by separating the zone from the story. In the sense that setting is alive in and of itself not because of some tie to the main story. I always felt confined and constrained by previous Bioware titles.
I think the difference is that if you do NOT like exploration and just travelling through beautiful landscapes but rather just want to advance the story then DA:I and likely ME:A are not the games for you. I like these activities so the distance and time it takes to travel from point a to B to solve quests be they side or not was not "down" time for me. The truth is AAA RPGs are at a convergence point that convergence is open world with strong narratively driven stores that has a relatively predefined character. If you don't like any of these aspects you are not going to like today's AAA RPGs. This is just the reality. The success of DA:I, witcher 3 and fallout 4 all point that there is zero reason for any other these studios to do a 180 from this position.
This is a subjective issue so my position isn't objectively right. I am just saying that it is unlikely that Bethesda, Bioware or CDPR are not going to build upon their successes vs doing a complete 180.
I think trying to ascribe anything else to DA:I quest wise then it simply took a hell of a lot longer to do a side quest than in previous titles is grasping at straws. I personally don't want to go backwards to the well we have 5 main parts to the main quests to lets make 5 main zones and the world is empty in between. I much prefer this world exists period and this is happening in the world while your main quest is happening. If you WANT to you can explore if you DON'T want to then don't. Seriously you could ignore most of the content in the game and just concentrate on the main quests hell some zones you never have to go to at all. players claim to want choice but I really question this with some players. Because when given a choice to do quests or not in DA:I some players seem to recent it.
Bioware's games are changing like they have since the beginning they have never been a stagnate company this means they ALWAYS leave some of their fans behind.
I have a feeling that half of our quest logs will be Collection quests.
x/25 unobtanium
x/10 greefer pets
x/30 eezo pods
...
and so on and so on
I didn't mind UNC Valuable Minerals so much simply because it just appears in the log and you can get the minerals for some cash or XP, or you can skip them.
DAI actually takes the somewhat opposite approach of giving you semi-decent tangible rewards for some of the fetch quests. Some of them are required to get agents, which in turn tangibly improve the player character. Or the neverending shard quest where you get to figure out how to climb a bunch of different rocks to collect all the damage resistance.
That game also isn't objectively better at it... I found the quests in it repetitive, boring, and adding very little back into the lore or experience that wasn't already there from the main quest. Also, the companion content in Inquistion... from banter, to quests, to romances, to war table missions... were high quality optional content. The Judgements were high quality and extremely reactive and responsive to prior events and how the decisions play out. And following these "filler" quests in DA:I often led to discoveries that are quite impactful.
You LIKED the War Table missions?
Nach oben