609 réponses à ce sujet

[Shechinah]

Because at the time you are not the Inquisitor but the herald and trying to expand the influence of the Inquisition, One way of reaching the masses is through their stomachs. Unless of course you choose to do the quest after reaching Skyhold.

 

Also an indication of what kind of character that your character is as they can decide to do this task so that the people do not starve and have the reason why they do it be simple kindness. 

 

I like to think it was small acts like this that brought a number of people to the Inquisition as the kindness made them believe that this person could be the Herald of Andraste sent to aid them in the darkest hour. Even if they do not believe, they still remember someone helping them and doing good in the middle of the bad and chaos around them.  
 

[robertthebard]

Right so in summary.

If it isn't lore-specific, make it tie to the larger quest at hand, and no, expecting me to hear it from someone I wasn't aware I could follow up with after doesn't count. Vice versa. At lease some closeups. Even nug wrangler got closeups. And nugs are DA-specific, and funny. Rams? I can find those in the middle east. So the direct impact? Influence points. Not very effective presentation. I'd rather there be simultaneous cinematic or in-game demonstration of that influence. Not just the fact I now have enough points to click the icon on the war table. :/

It wouldn't help you.  The ram meat and blankets for the people in the crossroads is tied to the plot, and you didn't get it.  It is part and parcel of what the Herald is supposed to be doing, drumming up support for the Inquisition.  Evidently, you're of the opinion that that leaving people hungry, because you can find it in Afghanistan, is the better way to go.  That's a hell of a way to drum up some good will in an Andrastian dominated society, for an organization that has been denounced by the Chantry.  You have taken great strides to proving that the Chantry is correct by ignoring the needs of these refugees.

[Addictress]

Cut scenes with a voiced protagonist is expensive. Why do that when you can drive home the point by other means? There were plenty of quests in DA:O that were just "go here, kill this, come back to collect your reward" mages collective comes to mind.

As I said, even nug wrangler and Slim Couldry got cut scenes. Then, look at TW3. So no, expensive isn't an excuse.

[Addictress]

It wouldn't help you. The ram meat and blankets for the people in the crossroads is tied to the plot, and you didn't get it. It is part and parcel of what the Herald is supposed to be doing, drumming up support for the Inquisition. Evidently, you're of the opinion that that leaving people hungry, because you can find it in Afghanistan, is the better way to go. That's a hell of a way to drum up some good will in an Andrastian dominated society, for an organization that has been denounced by the Chantry. You have taken great strides to proving that the Chantry is correct by ignoring the needs of these refugees.

I did get it. In fact I explained it to you. And I explained how the presentation fails, because even though it technically makes sense doesn't mean it lives up to minimum presentation and animation requirements as expected in a AAA game.

You completely misunderstand my reference to Afghanistan and how I compared it to Ortan Thaig. Read my posts.

[Addictress]

I've come across books that went on for much more than three-hundred pages and that I've considered terrible: the common reason being a lack of effort as well as missing in-depth thought about how in-universe elements worked.

 

 I've also come across booklets that were roughly five pages but because of the thought as well as effort put into it, they managed to convey so much more in such a better and more refined fashion than the aformentioned books attempted.

 

Basically, I'm in favor of judging books by their content, not by their page or word count.

Great, so you agree lack of content and failed presentation are bad quality, regardless of the pages.

[Addictress]

It wouldn't help you.  The ram meat and blankets for the people in the crossroads is tied to the plot, and you didn't get it.  It is part and parcel of what the Herald is supposed to be doing, drumming up support for the Inquisition.  Evidently, you're of the opinion that that leaving people hungry, because you can find it in Afghanistan, is the better way to go.  That's a hell of a way to drum up some good will in an Andrastian dominated society, for an organization that has been denounced by the Chantry.  You have taken great strides to proving that the Chantry is correct by ignoring the needs of these refugees.

The reason I said 'you can find this quest in Afghanistan" is because the side quest in order to be relevant or useful in the game has to do one of several things to meet my expectations as a player who wants to be immersed in the world including:

 

* tie to main plot clearly. Re-enforce the relevance of the ram meat side quest by using the quest marker to lead the player to an additional cut scene after turning in the ram meat in which the local villagers apparently think higher of the Inquisition than before, or new agents are recruited (because the reason you're there in the first place is because you're trying to build influence). Just having a bar with points is a cheap way to demonstrate the gathering of influence. If everything else about the sidequest is interactive or cinematic, then the gained influence should also be interactive or cinematic - ie the Ortan Thaig dwarf shown standing at the Assembly, and the quest marker forcing you to meet her there to complete the quest so you definitely see the impact and the resolution to that quest 

* be lore-specific. In other words, you can find rams in the real world, you can find refugees in Afghanistan. How is this specific to Dragon Age? In the collection quests of previous games, such as the nugs and the Ortan records, you can't find those in the real world. They illustrate soemthing unique to Thedas which, although it is not directly tied to the main plot, still retains value to the player by immersing the player in the lore. This is also OK.

 

If you don't do any of these things, and you just have stiffly animated hunter who you click and give ram meat you collected, and there are no additional cut scenes, just a paltry sentence or two uttered in passing in the ambient atmosphere audio, and all you get are points in the bar, then what the hell immersion is this?

 

Now yes, if you think about it, and clearly you see the influence bar, you understand it's to build influence. But pray tell, in an interactive medium such as this game with cut scenes galore, animations, characters, everything, is this really the best way to drive that point home? Is this how you demonstrate the cause and effect of this quest?

[Nefla]

Ugh why is this even a debate? Those of you who found hunting rams for a nameless hunter or escorting a Duffalo engaging can continue to like those quests. No one is saying you suck for having that opinion. No one is saying those quests should be taken out. We are saying we want other quests that are more tailored to what WE like added alongside the finding rings and stuffing herbs in trees because a note on the ground told us to and escorting goats for the next game and we don't want to be forced to do quests we find boring and useless (power requirements). We wouldn't want YOU to be forced to do the quests WE enjoy either.

[BansheeOwnage]

So now it's "judgements don't count because they happen realistically in the throne toom like most judgements would!"? Man, missed some more terrible arguments it seems.

And like you and others say, these people have to ignore things to be able to make their point. Most of the judgements not only offer great roleplaying, but you can outright miss them or choose to ignore them as well. I didn't even know two judgements were possible because I missed one quest/item and did't complete the ball as needed.

A minor thing, but:

 

That point that you can ignore them for roleplay-value might have some weight if you could do it selectively. As it is, you can only do them in the order they were acquired, and that includes promoting Ser Barris. So, if you wanted to do that, but ignore judgements, you couldn't. If you wanted to judge Samson, but not Erimond, you can't. Etc.

[BansheeOwnage]

Also an indication of what kind of character that your character is as they can decide to do this task so that the people do not starve and have the reason why they do it be simple kindness. 

 

I like to think it was small acts like this that brought a number of people to the Inquisition as the kindness made them believe that this person could be the Herald of Andraste sent to aid them in the darkest hour. Even if they do not believe, they still remember someone helping them and doing good in the middle of the bad and chaos around them.  
 

All of that is exactly why I suggested a choice between doing it yourself and asking/ordering nearby Inquisition mooks to do it instead. Great for roleplaying. And as always, you could ignore it. But I think there can definitely be some room in between letting everyone starve and doing it all yourself when even as the Herald you should be closing rifts etc.

[robertthebard]

I did get it. In fact I explained it to you. And I explained how the presentation fails, because even though it technically makes sense doesn't mean it lives up to minimum presentation and animation requirements as expected in a AAA game.

You completely misunderstand my reference to Afghanistan and how I compared it to Ortan Thaig. Read my posts.

As expected by whom?  I didn't misunderstand your reference, I simply re-used it to point out how silly it really is in relation to a discussion of a video game.

 

But let's take a look at what the article's "golden boy" didn't have to worry about in order to bring you all these cinematic side quests:

 

How many hours of cinematics are tied to Sera?  How about Solas?  Cassandra?  Leliana?  Cullen?  Blackwall?  Do I need to go on?  So instead of all these NPC specific dialogs, you'd rather have a cutscene with a detailed explanation of why refugees need food, or blankets?  Now, take this attitude about cutscenes, and go read the DA 2 and ME 2 forums.  There, people complained about "losing control of their characters to cutscenes".  So a different approach was tried.  I liked it, we got cinematics for the vital things, even though a lot of people still didn't get "it".  However, in the article's "golden boy", there is one character, with one "class", one back story, one race and one gender.  No thanks, I'll take some conversations where I can still control my camera in exchange for being locked into being one character.

[In Exile]

Ugh why is this even a debate? Those of you who found hunting rams for a nameless hunter or escorting a Duffalo engaging can continue to like those quests. No one is saying you suck for having that opinion. No one is saying those quests should be taken out. We are saying we want other quests that are more tailored to what WE like added alongside the finding rings and stuffing herbs in trees because a note on the ground told us to and escorting goats for the next game and we don't want to be forced to do quests we find boring and useless (power requirements). We wouldn't want YOU to be forced to do the quests WE enjoy either.

The debate has value because it illustrates the fundamental problem with Bioware games. From the concept level, Bioware didn't approach side-quests differently. What they did, however, was remove the dialogue, keep a similar theme, and keep the same poor quest design they always used.

 

But it shows that without the dialogue, for many, the actual idea and design of the quest (and I largely include myself in this group) is not enough to feel satisfying. For Bioware to really address the criticism - rather than just blindingly throw cinematic resources at it - they have to invest in better development talent on the quest-design side. 

[BansheeOwnage]

As expected by whom?  I didn't misunderstand your reference, I simply re-used it to point out how silly it really is in relation to a discussion of a video game.

 

But let's take a look at what the article's "golden boy" didn't have to worry about in order to bring you all these cinematic side quests:

 

How many hours of cinematics are tied to Sera?  How about Solas?  Cassandra?  Leliana?  Cullen?  Blackwall?  Do I need to go on?  So instead of all these NPC specific dialogs, you'd rather have a cutscene with a detailed explanation of why refugees need food, or blankets?  Now, take this attitude about cutscenes, and go read the DA 2 and ME 2 forums.  There, people complained about "losing control of their characters to cutscenes".  So a different approach was tried.  I liked it, we got cinematics for the vital things, even though a lot of people still didn't get "it".  However, in the article's "golden boy", there is one character, with one "class", one back story, one race and one gender.  No thanks, I'll take some conversations where I can still control my camera in exchange for being locked into being one character.

There is still the glaring issue of people meaning different things by "cutscene" that I brought up, and had to bring up in pretty much every thread people where people had this debate. Shot-reverse-shot is not expensive at all compared to true cutscenes. As for people thinking shot-reverse-shot (not cutscenes) took control away from their characters, I'm stumped. How is standing around talking while zoomed out any better than standing around talking while zoomed-in?

[robertthebard]

There is still the glaring issue of people meaning different things by "cutscene" that I brought up, and had to bring up in pretty much every thread people where people had this debate. Shot-reverse-shot is not expensive at all compared to true cutscenes. As for people thinking shot-reverse-shot took control away from their characters, I'm stumped. How is standing around while zoomed out any better than standing around while zoomed-in?

What effect does it have on the dialog either way?  At the end of the day, I'd not want to trade a lot of cutscenes for being Hawke 2.0, w/out even a gender selection option.  All of that stuff costs money.  I'll take what we got over the TW3 any day.  That's why I still haven't purchased TW 3, well, actually it's because their fanbois do love to run down everything that isn't, but I'm sure CDPR wouldn't appreciate me pointing that out on their forums, even though I actually have an account, since I own the first two...

[In Exile]

It wouldn't help you.  The ram meat and blankets for the people in the crossroads is tied to the plot, and you didn't get it.  It is part and parcel of what the Herald is supposed to be doing, drumming up support for the Inquisition.  Evidently, you're of the opinion that that leaving people hungry, because you can find it in Afghanistan, is the better way to go.  That's a hell of a way to drum up some good will in an Andrastian dominated society, for an organization that has been denounced by the Chantry.  You have taken great strides to proving that the Chantry is correct by ignoring the needs of these refugees.

There's a deeper point here, which I forgot to make about the quest design. The ram meat quest isn't actually one quest - or rather, it wouldn't be one quest within the usual linear Bioware game. It's one part of one quest. 

 

The way the quest is supposed to work is that you go to Sergeant Vael, whom you have in-depth discussions with regarding the dire state of the Crossroads, then you help out with some of the refugees in different ways (e.g. get them food, among other things), and then the Crossroads is back up on its feet and you can decide how they help the Inquisition (including by getting an agent out of it). 

 

In a usual Bioware game, this would probably just be linear. You'd also have more dialogue. 

[In Exile]

There is still the glaring issue of people meaning different things by "cutscene" that I brought up, and had to bring up in pretty much every thread people where people had this debate. Shot-reverse-shot is not expensive at all compared to true cutscenes. As for people thinking shot-reverse-shot (not cutscenes) took control away from their characters, I'm stumped. How is standing around talking while zoomed out any better than standing around talking while zoomed-in?

 

Sylvius says that the cutscene determines what your character focuses on, and that's anti-RP.

[robertthebard]

There's a deeper point here, which I forgot to make about the quest design. The ram meat quest isn't actually one quest - or rather, it wouldn't be one quest within the usual linear Bioware game. It's one part of one quest. 

 

The way the quest is supposed to work is that you go to Sergeant Vael, whom you have in-depth discussions with regarding the dire state of the Crossroads, then you help out with some of the refugees in different ways (e.g. get them food, among other things), and then the Crossroads is back up on its feet and you can decide how they help the Inquisition (including by getting an agent out of it). 

 

In a usual Bioware game, this would probably just be linear. You'd also have more dialogue. 

This is true.  It's all part of building the Crossroads area and getting support, possibly even an Agent, for the Inquisition.  It seems, however, like the concept is lost on a lot of people that then want to critique what's good writing and what isn't.

[Nefla]

The debate has value because it illustrates the fundamental problem with Bioware games. From the concept level, Bioware didn't approach side-quests differently. What they did, however, was remove the dialogue, keep a similar theme, and keep the same poor quest design they always used.

 

But it shows that without the dialogue, for many, the actual idea and design of the quest (and I largely include myself in this group) is not enough to feel satisfying. For Bioware to really address the criticism - rather than just blindingly throw cinematic resources at it - they have to invest in better development talent on the quest-design side. 

I think in order to improve the structure of the quest, they'd need to add various game mechanics in as well as focusing more on cinematics/choices/story/etc...Things like stealth and other non combat skills and different ways to interact with the world. I dunno if they can do it, at least not without dedicating the majority of the game's development budget to that and neglecting story/characters/cinematics/roleplaying/etc...even more.

[Hiemoth]

The debate has value because it illustrates the fundamental problem with Bioware games. From the concept level, Bioware didn't approach side-quests differently. What they did, however, was remove the dialogue, keep a similar theme, and keep the same poor quest design they always used.

 

But it shows that without the dialogue, for many, the actual idea and design of the quest (and I largely include myself in this group) is not enough to feel satisfying. For Bioware to really address the criticism - rather than just blindingly throw cinematic resources at it - they have to invest in better development talent on the quest-design side. 

 

I've seen this point brought up before, even in this very thread, and was actually thinking on it recently. First I would argue that it isn't necessarily a Bioware problem so much as a general game problem as almost all games have poor side quest design when you break it down mechanistically. Even Witcher 3, which I did think had great side quests, also had mechanistically very repetetive side quests both in story and Witcher contract side quests. Although I guess to have this discussion we would first have to agree on a game that had great side quest design from a mechanistic pov and then even what that does that mean.

 

However, I think with DAI, for me the reason the side quests felt so hollow was that there really wasn't any real context for them, which admittadly had previously been provided by the cinematics and dialogue. It just felt the Inquisitor doing things without really any input and rarely even any real payoff. An example of a great side quests from the previous games for me would the Aveline courtship quest in DA2. Mechanistically it is simple, talk to someone, talk to someone else, repeat a couple of times and butcher a lot of enemies. Yet, by giving those scenes with Aveline and providing that context for the PC actions, it is probably one of my all-time favorite side quests with nothing in DAI coming even close.

 

The cinematic issue, by the way, for me wasn't so much in the dialogues, as that could have just been handled by beefing up the dialogue sections, but rather with how anti-climatic a lot of the big stuff felt in the game because of it. The biggest examples were closing the Lake rift and the Shard temple payoffs, which were literally a notice how the player has gotten some power.

[Addictress]

What effect does it have on the dialog either way?  At the end of the day, I'd not want to trade a lot of cutscenes for being Hawke 2.0, w/out even a gender selection option.  All of that stuff costs money.  I'll take what we got over the TW3 any day.  That's why I still haven't purchased TW 3, well, actually it's because their fanbois do love to run down everything that isn't, but I'm sure CDPR wouldn't appreciate me pointing that out on their forums, even though I actually have an account, since I own the first two...

You didn't play TW3?

[AlanC9]

Ugh why is this even a debate? Those of you who found hunting rams for a nameless hunter or escorting a Duffalo engaging can continue to like those quests. No one is saying you suck for having that opinion. No one is saying those quests should be taken out. We are saying we want other quests that are more tailored to what WE like added alongside the finding rings and stuffing herbs in trees because a note on the ground told us to and escorting goats for the next game and we don't want to be forced to do quests we find boring and useless (power requirements). We wouldn't want YOU to be forced to do the quests WE enjoy either.

Well, you're also asking for something along the lines of cutting a couple of areas or a couple of companions out of the game, unless we're talking about a fantasy budget.

Nothing wrong with asking for that, of course. So, what would you have cut?

[Nefla]

Well, you're also asking for something along the lines of cutting a couple of areas or a couple of companions out of the game, unless we're talking about a fantasy budget.

Nothing wrong with asking for that, of course. So, what would you have cut?

Yes, I would rather have the next game focus on fewer and more fleshed out areas and have the main plot more integrated into the zones rather than being in self contained zones. I also think not having to switch engines between games and thus make new assets, a new combat system, mount system, crafting and war table mechanics, etc...will save a lot of resources. Even if being able to carry over all the resources and systems made for DA:I saved no money, I think it would be reasonable if the MMO-style quest fans got some quests they liked and the conversation-heavy/choice based/whatever quest fans got some quests they liked rather than the MMO-style being the only one present out in the zones.

[robertthebard]

Yes, I would rather have the next game focus on fewer and more fleshed out areas and have the main plot more integrated into the zones rather than being in self contained zones. I also think not having to switch engines between games and thus make new assets, a new combat system, mount system, crafting and war table mechanics, etc...will save a lot of resources. Even if being able to carry over all the resources and systems made for DA:I saved no money, I think it would be reasonable if the MMO-style quest fans got some quests they liked and the conversation-heavy/choice based/whatever quest fans got some quests they liked rather than the MMO-style being the only one present out in the zones.

Here's that argument again, and it's getting really stale:

 

MMORPGs borrow from RPGs, not the other way around.  As I said the last hundred times people threw this out there as some kind of valid complaint:  These exact kinds of quests existed in PnP games, they were in Baldur's Gate, IWD et al, NWN, etc etc.  People need to lose this mentality of "SP games are taking things from MMOs".  It's quite literally the other way around.

[Addictress]

Here's that argument again, and it's getting really stale:

MMORPGs borrow from RPGs, not the other way around. As I said the last hundred times people threw this out there as some kind of valid complaint: These exact kinds of quests existed in PnP games, they were in Baldur's Gate, IWD et al, NWN, etc etc. People need to lose this mentality of "SP games are taking things from MMOs". It's quite literally the other way around.

Goddamit Robert, get it straight.


1.MMO's come from RPG's
2. MMO's became its own genre with its particularities. That's why they're explicitly labeled as MMOs.
3. Some people don't like these MMO particularities.
4. An RPG can induct MMO particularities back into SP games.

Why is that so hard to comprehend? 4 is taking from 3, and it doesn't cancel out the fact 2 came from 1.

[Nefla]

Here's that argument again, and it's getting really stale:

 

MMORPGs borrow from RPGs, not the other way around.  As I said the last hundred times people threw this out there as some kind of valid complaint:  These exact kinds of quests existed in PnP games, they were in Baldur's Gate, IWD et al, NWN, etc etc.  People need to lose this mentality of "SP games are taking things from MMOs".  It's quite literally the other way around.

Calm it down, I never said SP RPGs got that kind of quest from MMO's. It's simply that those kind of quests are extremely abundant in MMOs and are usually the ONLY kind of sidequest there included in the MMO. SP games normally have more fleshed out quests alongside the fluff/filler. DA:I feels like an MMO because like an MMO the zones are big empty spaces filled only with shallow grindy fetch quests/collections/etc...

[Realmzmaster]

Great, so you agree lack of content and failed presentation are bad quality, regardless of the pages.

 

It is your opinion that it is failed presentation because it lacks a cutscene. The ram meat quest gets across the point of the quest and is presented in a manner that works for me.  Cut scene is not needed in my opinion. But YMMV.