609 réponses à ce sujet

[vbibbi]

An interesting article discussing the current state of side quests in games like DAI, F4 and TW3.

http://www.pcgamesn....ter-side-quests

“You don’t have to do every quest.”

Oh, but I do. Have you met my obsessive brain? But even I didn’t have this relationship destroying sickness, it would maybe be nice to actually want to do every quest because they are good. And let’s not kid ourselves: game designers want us to play the entirety of their game. Of course they do. They’re not mad. Well, some of them are, but this is not an example of their madness.

[Dai Grepher]

I took Danny the Druffalo to fight the demons at the rift near the waterfall. He brutalizes them. Makes the side quest one of the best in the game.

[BansheeOwnage]

An interesting article discussing the current state of side quests in games like DAI, F4 and TW3.

http://www.pcgamesn....ter-side-quests

“You don’t have to do every quest.”

Oh, but I do. Have you met my obsessive brain? But even I didn’t have this relationship destroying sickness, it would maybe be nice to actually want to do every quest because they are good. And let’s not kid ourselves: game designers want us to play the entirety of their game. Of course they do. They’re not mad. Well, some of them are, but this is not an example of their madness.

I haven't read the article yet, so apologies if I'm getting the wrong idea, but from your quote, it doesn't seen that way.

 

I've always thought that argument was extremely stupid. As if optional content doesn't need to be well-done or interesting, just because it's not mandatory - even when it makes up for most of the game's content.

 

Besides which, I agree completely, as I'm a completionist. What's wrong with me wanting to do everything the game has to offer, and wanting it to be good? Why wouldn't a dev want me to?

[vbibbi]

I haven't read the article yet, so apologies if I'm getting the wrong idea, but from your quote, it doesn't seen that way.
 
I've always thought that argument was extremely stupid. As if optional content doesn't need to be well-done or interesting, just because it's not mandatory - even when it makes up for most of the game's content.
 
Besides which, I agree completely, as I'm a completionist. What's wrong with me wanting to do everything the game has to offer, and wanting it to be good? Why wouldn't a dev want me to?

Right, a developer should have pride in all of its content, not pride in the 100+ hours the game can cover. And why wouldn't players want to experience as much of the game world as possible?

[AlanC9]

Completionism is a terrible thing.

[Tidus]

When I buy a game its for the play value and not to rush through the game regardless how many times I played it simply because I usually find something I didn't know or as in DA:I new areas.

 

As a example.. Last week I was playing FF 12 while on a hunt I found a secrete room I never found before even after several dozen play throughs of that game.

[Nefla]

Great article it expresses the way I felt about the (non companion) sidequests in DA:I and Fallout 4 as well as other games It's especially disappointing when IMO BioWare and Bethesda used to make fun and engaging sidequests.

[BansheeOwnage]

Completionism is a terrible thing.

Why would wanting to get the most out of something be a terrible thing?

[BansheeOwnage]

I especially enjoyed this part of the article, because it seems to be a trend with established franchises+developers. It doesn't have to happen, and when it does, it happens to varying degrees. But it still happens.

 

"Perhaps, in games like Inquisition and Fallout 4, the developers have been working on these franchises and similar ones for so long that they possess a confidence that allows them to no longer second guess themselves. They need an editor, in that case. Someone who can ask simple questions like, “What does this actually add to the game?” Any quest, side or main, needs to be imbued with some kind of purpose beyond the mechanical. Does it tell a story that’s worth listening to? Does it flesh out a character or the world? Does it have the potential to affect the player? Anything is better than just making them a chore with a reward at the end."

[vbibbi]

I especially enjoyed this part of the article, because it seems to be a trend with established franchises+developers. It doesn't have to happen, and when it does, it happens to varying degrees. But it still happens.

 

"Perhaps, in games like Inquisition and Fallout 4, the developers have been working on these franchises and similar ones for so long that they possess a confidence that allows them to no longer second guess themselves. They need an editor, in that case. Someone who can ask simple questions like, “What does this actually add to the game?” Any quest, side or main, needs to be imbued with some kind of purpose beyond the mechanical. Does it tell a story that’s worth listening to? Does it flesh out a character or the world? Does it have the potential to affect the player? Anything is better than just making them a chore with a reward at the end."

Yeah, I wonder if this ties into David Gaider's departure; maybe he felt this factor was affecting his work in the DA/Bioware sphere and needed a fresh perspective. I hope it does him well and that new writers for the DA can also help.

 

 

It's something all creative processes need, someone who takes a step back and asks how it all fits in the bigger picture. I'm sure it's difficult for writers and designers who have been working on the fine details of a game for 60+ hours a week to be able to objectively tell if a product needs tweaking or not.

[BansheeOwnage]

Yeah, I wonder if this ties into David Gaider's departure; maybe he felt this factor was affecting his work in the DA/Bioware sphere and needed a fresh perspective. I hope it does him well and that new writers for the DA can also help.

 

 

It's something all creative processes need, someone who takes a step back and asks how it all fits in the bigger picture. I'm sure it's difficult for writers and designers who have been working on the fine details of a game for 60+ hours a week to be able to objectively tell if a product needs tweaking or not.

I've always thought so too, and oddly enough, have always thought that's where my brother, my girlfriend, and myself would excel in a gaming company. I'm not great an creating original ideas, but I can work with what's there to improve it in many ways. Take a foundation and tweak it, make a lot of small changes, and some bigger ones, to perfect something (not usually script or anything, but mechanics, structure). I don't actually know if there are positions like that though.

[AlanC9]

Why would wanting to get the most out of something be a terrible thing?

Because it's the wrong "most". You're looking for the most enjoyment, but going after the most gameplay hours.

[BansheeOwnage]

Because it's the wrong "most". You're looking for the most enjoyment, but going after the most gameplay hours.

"Wrong" for you, I guess. It's a personality quirk, not a philosophy. Completionists don't want to do everything because they want the game to be longer, it's a combination of feeling compelled (a bit obsessive-compulsive) to do so and because we find it satisfying. Being a completionist is how I get the most enjoyment out of something.

[UniformGreyColor]

I took Danny the Druffalo to fight the demons at the rift near the waterfall. He brutalizes them. Makes the side quest one of the best in the game.

 

I've always done that quest as one of the last ones at hinterlands after I had already dealt with the fade rift for fear that Druffy would die and I would fail the quest.

[Dabrikishaw]

I'm no completionist, I started skipping the sidequests I didn't care for as soon as my second run of Inquisition. So, while I get the opinion that some of Inquisition's side quests aren't appealing I fail to see what it has to do with being one.

[Nefla]

I've always done that quest as one of the last ones at hinterlands after I had already dealt with the fade rift for fear that Druffy would die and I would fail the quest.

Pretty sure Druffy is immortal

[AlanC9]

"Wrong" for you, I guess. It's a personality quirk, not a philosophy. Completionists don't want to do everything because they want the game to be longer, it's a combination of feeling compelled (a bit obsessive-compulsive) to do so and because we find it satisfying. Being a completionist is how I get the most enjoyment out of something.

OK, but then how come I see so many completionists complaining about the results of their own playstyle? Say, requisitions, or hunting rams, or mosaics, etc.

[Nefla]

OK, but then how come I see so many completionists complaining about the results of their own playstyle? Say, requisitions, or hunting rams, or mosaics, etc.

It's not the playstyle itself. If the majority of the quests were fun and engaging or at least gave great rewards then you wouldn't see these kinds of complaints.

[Chiramu]

I took Danny the Druffalo to fight the demons at the rift near the waterfall. He brutalizes them. Makes the side quest one of the best in the game.

 

I've had my Druffalo bug out because I've cleared the area of demons and the Inqusition soldiers stand in his path. Have to completely reload the map to complete it >.>.

[AlanC9]

It's not the playstyle itself. If the majority of the quests were fun and engaging or at least gave great rewards then you wouldn't see these kinds of complaints.

This means that people are complaining about something that isn't their actual problem. The existence or nonexistence of those non-fun quests has no bearing on anything -- kill all of them and you don't even get one more (insert whatever TW3 example you like). I could do, for instance, My Lover's Phylactery in 5 minutes in NWN2, or DA:O, or whatever, and I doubt that the DAI toolset is much less efficient.

Just to be clear here, a completionist really does find it more fun to hunt down those rams than to not hunt down those rams, even when he's complaining about having to hunt down those rams?

[DomeWing333]

Just to be clear here, a completionist really does find it more fun to hunt down those rams than to not hunt down those rams, even when he's complaining about having to hunt down those rams?

A completionist feels the need to hunt down those rams. Whether or not he finds it fun depends on how the game requires him to execute that task and how it rewards his efforts.

 

Likewise, a non-completionist would skip that quest and move onto something else. And how that affects her enjoyment of the game would depend on how she is punished for failing to complete that task (for instance, being deprived of a cool weapon or interesting bit of character interaction).

[Nefla]

This means that people are complaining about something that isn't their actual problem. The existence or nonexistence of those non-fun quests has no bearing on anything -- kill all of them and you don't even get one more (insert whatever TW3 example you like). I could do, for instance, My Lover's Phylactery in 5 minutes in NWN2, or DA:O, or whatever, and I doubt that the DAI toolset is much less efficient.

Side quests never should have been an afterthought.

 

 

Just to be clear here, a completionist really does find it more fun to hunt down those rams than to not hunt down those rams, even when he's complaining about having to hunt down those rams?

I'm not a true completionist so I can't accurately answer for people that have a real compulsion but personally I will do a lot of un-fun quests that I would rather not do at all just in case they might lead to something better or turn out to be deeper than they appear, etc...Fallout 4 had me doing a ton of this because I thought I would eventually get to something good, that the faction questlines would be like the ones from Skyrim if I just got the crappy repetitive ones out of the way but little did I know they were randomly generated and utterly pointless.

[Darkstarr11]

Some of the quests in Inquisition were...tedious, I'll admit.  I skipped over some (Temple of Solasan, the Hissing Wastes) because it didn't really have an impact.  I usually get to a point, and decide...well, screw it, I have to kill something with a name and a cutscene.  So I move on.  BTW, loved Fallout 4...but I am SO SICK of saving settlements.  I armed them to the TEETH...walls, guns, MORE GUNS...can't they take care of that themselves?  Good gravy...which actually does get me back to Inquisition...after you BECOME the Inquisitor...I get leading from the front, but why does it feel like my army is actually HIDING behind me?  Seriously?  Three advisors, true...but can't I send out a COUPLE of agents to take care of stuff?  Josie has got to have more than one diplomatic team...and are all of Cullen's people so inept that he can't trust them to follow simple directions?  Or does he NEED them babysat so they don't accidentally impale themselves on their headgear or such?  Seriously...we should have been able to send out multiple missions per advisor.  

 

Still, twas fun.  Unlike DAO and DA2, leveling up was a bit better (for me, for me, another could have a totally different experience) so if I had the levels and power, I did story over...well, whatever that guy wanted me to pick up.  Asthma alchemy or something?  Seriously...I cleared the roads!  Just walk up to that place, talk to your dipstick kid himself!  It's like a five minute hike dude!

[In Exile]

An interesting article discussing the current state of side quests in games like DAI, F4 and TW3.

http://www.pcgamesn....ter-side-quests

“You don’t have to do every quest.”

Oh, but I do. Have you met my obsessive brain? But even I didn’t have this relationship destroying sickness, it would maybe be nice to actually want to do every quest because they are good. And let’s not kid ourselves: game designers want us to play the entirety of their game. Of course they do. They’re not mad. Well, some of them are, but this is not an example of their madness.

 

The "don't have to do every quest" argument is dumb. Because it conflates repetitiveness with bad design. 

[In Exile]

This means that people are complaining about something that isn't their actual problem. The existence or nonexistence of those non-fun quests has no bearing on anything -- kill all of them and you don't even get one more (insert whatever TW3 example you like). I could do, for instance, My Lover's Phylactery in 5 minutes in NWN2, or DA:O, or whatever, and I doubt that the DAI toolset is much less efficient.

Just to be clear here, a completionist really does find it more fun to hunt down those rams than to not hunt down those rams, even when he's complaining about having to hunt down those rams?

 

I think there's a difference between resource equivalence - a cheap quest cut only frees resources for another cheap quest - and coming up with creative cheap quests. One can argue that also has a cost - good designers that can come up with cheap quests might cost more, or it'll take more of their time to come up with a "creative" cheap quest. 

Bioware has constantly missed one important lesson: their fanbase, when they like their games, actively ignore their flaws. When Bioware makes changes that remove the rose tinted glasses, their poor design is exposed. DA2 did this, ME2 did this, and now DAI and ME3.