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.
No, they are labeled MMOs because people didn't want to type out the RPG, and everyone supposedly knows that RPG is implied. A fantasy MMO is still a fantasy game, it's not "well, it no longer fits into the fantasy genre because it's an MMO". Do tell, however, how adding (M)assively (M)ultiplayer (O)nline suddenly changes a game's genre? It can, and will change your RP experience, because people are people, but it's still going to be a ®ole (P)laying (G)ame.
What's apparently hard to comprehend is that a fetch quest is a fetch quest. They were in BG, and PnP games have them too, and had them decades before MMO became a household word. They had postal quests, they had escort missions, all of this is basic RPG material, and has nothing to do with taking from an MMO. As I said, MMO didn't invent any of these concepts, they merely used them, just like any other game with a quest structure. So what seems to be hard to comprehend is that 3 is irrelevant, because 4 is false. An RPG that uses fetch quests is doing what RPGs have been doing since there were RPGs. I'm not going to bend my understanding, or break it completely, of quest structure to suit someone's limited experience with gaming in general. Anyone that believes that MMO came first doesn't really have enough knowledge to try to debate quest structure.
So I have it straight, when are you going to catch up? When Kill X monsters and bring me Y can be both kill one dragon, and bring me it's head, or kill 10 rams and bring me the meat there is no "MMO specific" quest design to the quest. It is exactly the same, and it's exactly the same as killing rats in a pantry(Origins HN origin), bugs in a basement(IWD), spiders in a crypt(DDO) or rams in a field for meat(DA I). Check it out, it's the same quest 4 times, and only one example is an MMO. The only thing that could make it an MMO convention would be making it a daily quest, which means you can repeat it every day. So how many of these "MMO quests" in DA I are daily quests? As I said, I have it straight, when are you going to catch up?
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.
You are seen as the herald. A symbol to the people. Having some random Inquisition mook do it does not have the same effect nor spread influence as much. Being the herald is more than just closing rifts. The herald is suppose to inspire the masses. What better way to inspire the masses than to show them that the herald is willing to do all in his/her power to insure the safety of the people even if that means digging ditches or hunting ram meat. A leader should not be asking people do to something that the leader is not willing to do themselves.
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.
Actually a MMO is a rpg. MMO is a descendant of MUD (Multi-User Dungeon circa 1978) which is based mainly on the D & D ruleset and inspired by the Dungeon variant of Zork (circa 1977) which was based on Colossal Cave Adventure (circa 1975).
.
All of the so-called particularities of MMOs come from sp rpg games of the past. In fact early crpgs had no cutscenes or cinematics. BG series had no cutscenes and are still considered to be at the pinnacle of rpg goodness. Planescape Torment no real cutscene or (shot reverse shot cinematics) still considered one of the best (if commercially unsuccessful) rpgs.
So what particularities of the MMO are you specifically talking about that has crept it way in that was not present in many of the early crpgs?
Sylvius says that the cutscene determines what your character focuses on, and that's anti-RP.
Well, I can see that as an argument in concept, but not in practice. If we're talking about simple shot-reverse-shot, then the characters are looking at each other, which makes sense since they're having a conversation. Maybe Sylvius doesn't like making eye-contact
If we're talking about more involved cutscenes, then it's usually the same but with the PC's attention focusing on either the character they're talking to or an event that's happening. Again, I don't see the problem.
Or does Sylvius simply like control of the camera, not the character? In that case, I can see how DA:I's system would be more appealing, although it makes no difference to RP.
You are seen as the herald. A symbol to the people. Having some random Inquisition mook do it does not have the same effect nor spread influence as much. Being the herald is more than just closing rifts. The herald is suppose to inspire the masses. What better way to inspire the masses than to show them that the herald is willing to do all in his/her power to insure the safety of the people even if that means digging ditches or hunting ram meat. A leader should not be asking people do to something that the leader is not willing to do themselves.
I don't disagree at all, but that's why my suggestion is good for roleplaying. You can have the above attitude, or simply be extremely kind, and gather the meat yourself. Or, you could be more personally pragmatic, even if would not necessarily benefit the Inquisition or your image as much. Perhaps the influence for completing the quest would be lower if you chose this option.
-_-' do you honestly think that people who have criticisms of DA:I are just a bunch of meany-poops who are making things up for the sake of it? We couldn't possibly have loved BioWare previously and hope they'll hear some of our critiques and improve future games, that would be outrageous.
The Druffy quest wasn't made interesting by the fact that Druffy could attack demons any more than any other escort quest is made interesting by the thing you're escorting being able to attack enemies. It wasn't funny, it wasn't sweet, it wasn't tense or scary, it didn't give any interesting lore, it was just nothing.
Do you think the judgments being entirely in Skyhold was a good thing? Because I don't. We should have been able to make those choices in the field, separating it from the quest gives a big disconnect. Besides, there's what, 1 judgement per zone at most? It's not like these things are plentiful. My point wasn't that no quests had cinematics (companion quests do) it's that there is nothing I find fun or interesting in those big empty maps. Almost everything of any interest including the main plot is in Skyhold/Haven and self contained areas.
I don't know why some of you guys seem to take our criticisms of the game so personally. Like the game if you want, be entertained by the druffalo attacking enemies if you want, more power to you but that does nothing for us.
Any criticism of the game is because we hate everyone on the boards and Bioware. Oh, and of course Bioware can't win, because someone asked for X element after DA2 and now someone else is asking for Y element after DAI. CLEARLY it's a conspiracy by the exact same people, making sure "Bioware can't win."
And people who dismiss criticisms are doing so with strong arguments like "that article said the PC was Inquisitor by the point they were hunting for ram meat, which is false, so I won't even bother listening to any of the points raised in the article. Clearly the 'writer' didn't even play the game as they were too busy playing TW3."
Not to mention that if a comparison is made to TW3 it's automatically invalid because they: don't like TW3, never played TW3 but the fanbase is awful so anything involving TW3 is awful, the games are different in terms of PC, companions, combat, setting, so basic RPG elements like quest design and interactivity and choices and consequences aren't fair comparisons. Etc. etc.
Not to mention that no one has actually responded to the lists examples provided but keep making blanket statements without providing any details. Or asking "what would you do differently?" as if we haven't been saying that throughout the entire thread.
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.
To appease some those posters... without any guide in front of me, I can only think of two stand out quests from TW3 (baron and helping cerys) while the rest tend to be repititive and quite fetchy... fetch a goat (and this is tied to the main quest), fetch a pan, play errand boy for your "friends" (which is mostly fetching...), kill this group, follow senses and kill target, gather herbs, get tools and kill more things... TW3 is literally filled with the kind of quests some are slamming DA over. And that isn't even mentioning the awful and dull main quest that is one giant search/fetch extravaganza or the rather unrewarding and dull points of interest.
Comparing that to shards, murals, astrariums (o hey some puzzles to add variety), and a few quests like the goat meat and druffalo missions and suddenly TW3 isn't looking all that better from any objective front. They actually look quite equal.
I have no issue if someone did not like Inquisition's offerings. I mean, Outside of the Baron and the witcher drinking scene, TW3 was a dull, shallow slog in my opinion. But I can admit that the side quests aren't better or worse on any objective front in comparison to DA. I can only say the cliched dark fantasy workd bored me from the start and the content never enriched or drew me deeper into the world. So I say I didn't like the content, not that it was objectively bad.
With Inquisition, The world started out as something richer already (two games adding differing flavours to the history) and the content managed to add and enrich a deep world even more. I already enjoyed just walking the maps because they convey a sense of history before you read or hear about it. The fact the side quests often trickled more lore to me is why I tend to like them or give them a pass at worst. Again, no objective proclamation of quality.
Unlike some, I don't scream that TW3 has a filler problem and it needs to learn from game "x" when it is cleary a BS claim. I just admit that TW3 did not give me want I wanted instead of trying to spin and BS my way to a false claim that breaks under any scrutiny.
I really don't want this to turn into a DAI vs. TW3, as much as you seem to. But did you finish the game? The entire questline with Keira Metz in A Towerful of Mice, the assassination attempt of Radovid, searching for both Skellige heirs on different islands, the haunted house with Letho's cameo, the serial killer chase in Novigrad, the gwent tournament, Triss' side quest trying to smuggle the mage away, none of these optional side quests were memorable?
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.
It's not good writing that we are told to help the Crossroads, but then if we choose not to, nothing actually happens. And that it's either do the quest or don't. No variation in completing it, no way of declining it (we could say we're too busy trying to reach Val Royeux, not just say no to be an arse). And completing the various Crossroads quests to get Vale's agents makes zero change on the map or anywhere except for the number of agents.
Agents are a good way of showing the growth of the Inquisition. Having agents only affect the reduction of time on the war table and have them endlessly wander Skyhold (aren't the supposed to be in the field, being useful?) is not a good way of showing the Inquisition's power.
You are seen as the herald. A symbol to the people. Having some random Inquisition mook do it does not have the same effect nor spread influence as much. Being the herald is more than just closing rifts. The herald is suppose to inspire the masses. What better way to inspire the masses than to show them that the herald is willing to do all in his/her power to insure the safety of the people even if that means digging ditches or hunting ram meat. A leader should not be asking people do to something that the leader is not willing to do themselves.
This is one very narrow view of the Herald's actions in the Crossroads. This is supposed to be an RPG with different options of how to complete quests. If we're the Herald, why can't we inspire the soldiers to help us, and lead from the front? We're willing to do the dirty work, but not to the point of idiocy where we go into a war zone with three friends while there are dozens of troops sitting around. That's not inspiring, that would make me doubt the intelligence of the Inquisition's leadership.
"Wait, so the chosen of Andraste is running around looking for a lost ring and an inhaler while the Breach is always present? Their priorities seem off."
And I've said it repeatedly, I think a huge opportunity was missed when the Herald/Inquisitor was pigeonholed into fantasy!Jesus' will made manifest. We can reject the idea of being sent by Andraste, we can claim we're leading the Inquisition for our own personal power, but it's all empty air. We should have had the option to roleplay as more than the Herald who is willing to go along with whatever the Left and Right Hands tell them they have to.We should have had the option to rule the Inquisition through religious zeal and tyranny, being the only person who can close the hole in the sky so you'd better do what I say. It wouldn't require a completely new plotline, because really by the end of the game we are in effect a rogue nation camped out on the borders of two nations; Trespasser does portray the political danger the Inquisition poses, even though Teagan is an a$$ about it.
Nefla, Mr Fixit, BansheeOwnage et 3 autres aiment ceci
Any criticism of the game is because we hate everyone on the boards and Bioware. Oh, and of course Bioware can't win, because someone asked for X element after DA2 and now someone else is asking for Y element after DAI. CLEARLY it's a conspiracy by the exact same people, making sure "Bioware can't win."
And people who dismiss criticisms are doing so with strong arguments like "that article said the PC was Inquisitor by the point they were hunting for ram meat, which is false, so I won't even bother listening to any of the points raised in the article. Clearly the 'writer' didn't even play the game as they were too busy playing TW3."
Not to mention that if a comparison is made to TW3 it's automatically invalid because they: don't like TW3, never played TW3 but the fanbase is awful so anything involving TW3 is awful, the games are different in terms of PC, companions, combat, setting, so basic RPG elements like quest design and interactivity and choices and consequences aren't fair comparisons. Etc. etc.
Not to mention that no one has actually responded to the lists examples provided but keep making blanket statements without providing any details. Or asking "what would you do differently?" as if we haven't been saying that throughout the entire thread.
I really don't want this to turn into a DAI vs. TW3, as much as you seem to. But did you finish the game? The entire questline with Keira Metz in A Towerful of Mice, the assassination attempt of Radovid, searching for both Skellige heirs on different islands, the haunted house with Letho's cameo, the serial killer chase in Novigrad, the gwent tournament, Triss' side quest trying to smuggle the mage away, none of these optional side quests were memorable?
It's not good writing that we are told to help the Crossroads, but then if we choose not to, nothing actually happens. And that it's either do the quest or don't. No variation in completing it, no way of declining it (we could say we're too busy trying to reach Val Royeux, not just say no to be an arse). And completing the various Crossroads quests to get Vale's agents makes zero change on the map or anywhere except for the number of agents.
Agents are a good way of showing the growth of the Inquisition. Having agents only affect the reduction of time on the war table and have them endlessly wander Skyhold (aren't the supposed to be in the field, being useful?) is not a good way of showing the Inquisition's power.
This is one very narrow view of the Herald's actions in the Crossroads. This is supposed to be an RPG with different options of how to complete quests. If we're the Herald, why can't we inspire the soldiers to help us, and lead from the front? We're willing to do the dirty work, but not to the point of idiocy where we go into a war zone with three friends while there are dozens of troops sitting around. That's not inspiring, that would make me doubt the intelligence of the Inquisition's leadership.
"Wait, so the chosen of Andraste is running around looking for a lost ring and an inhaler while the Breach is always present? Their priorities seem off."
And I've said it repeatedly, I think a huge opportunity was missed when the Herald/Inquisitor was pigeonholed into fantasy!Jesus' will made manifest. We can reject the idea of being sent by Andraste, we can claim we're leading the Inquisition for our own personal power, but it's all empty air. We should have had the option to roleplay as more than the Herald who is willing to go along with whatever the Left and Right Hands tell them they have to.We should have had the option to rule the Inquisition through religious zeal and tyranny, being the only person who can close the hole in the sky so you'd better do what I say. It wouldn't require a completely new plotline, because really by the end of the game we are in effect a rogue nation camped out on the borders of two nations; Trespasser does portray the political danger the Inquisition poses, even though Teagan is an a$$ about it.
To me, no, most of TW3's weren't memorable or fun. Take your pick. Moat quests involved following someone or a trail, use witcher senses, then fight something. The few that changed it up tended to fall flat with me because the dark fantasy cliches bore me, especially when TW has never tried to be anything other than just another dark fantasy experience repeating the same tired tropes and cliches.
Does this mean TW3 has a filler problem? No. It just means that I didn't care for what was offered. The quests and one event I listed were the only two where I felt the devs took the setting and lore and actually used it to enrich and flesh out the experience. In comparison to just the companion quests, those quests you listed for TW3 don't even measure up in my opinion. And I still personally found the judgements, Suledin Keep, and even simple exploration more rewarding than what TW3 offered. It isn't a matter of objectively being better... Just that TW3 failed to engage me while Inquisition still draws me in.
The Witcher isn't offering anything special with its sidequests. In fact they are stock RPG quests including a lot of what some call 'filler'. I just take issue with those trying to claim it handles that content better as if it is fact. It isn't. It doesn't do anything objectively better except for day/night/weather cycles.
Any criticism of the game is because we hate everyone on the boards and Bioware. Oh, and of course Bioware can't win, because someone asked for X element after DA2 and now someone else is asking for Y element after DAI. CLEARLY it's a conspiracy by the exact same people, making sure "Bioware can't win."
And people who dismiss criticisms are doing so with strong arguments like "that article said the PC was Inquisitor by the point they were hunting for ram meat, which is false, so I won't even bother listening to any of the points raised in the article. Clearly the 'writer' didn't even play the game as they were too busy playing TW3."
Not to mention that if a comparison is made to TW3 it's automatically invalid because they: don't like TW3, never played TW3 but the fanbase is awful so anything involving TW3 is awful, the games are different in terms of PC, companions, combat, setting, so basic RPG elements like quest design and interactivity and choices and consequences aren't fair comparisons. Etc. etc.
Not to mention that no one has actually responded to the lists examples provided but keep making blanket statements without providing any details. Or asking "what would you do differently?" as if we haven't been saying that throughout the entire thread.
I really don't want this to turn into a DAI vs. TW3, as much as you seem to. But did you finish the game? The entire questline with Keira Metz in A Towerful of Mice, the assassination attempt of Radovid, searching for both Skellige heirs on different islands, the haunted house with Letho's cameo, the serial killer chase in Novigrad, the gwent tournament, Triss' side quest trying to smuggle the mage away, none of these optional side quests were memorable?
It's not good writing that we are told to help the Crossroads, but then if we choose not to, nothing actually happens. And that it's either do the quest or don't. No variation in completing it, no way of declining it (we could say we're too busy trying to reach Val Royeux, not just say no to be an arse). And completing the various Crossroads quests to get Vale's agents makes zero change on the map or anywhere except for the number of agents.
Agents are a good way of showing the growth of the Inquisition. Having agents only affect the reduction of time on the war table and have them endlessly wander Skyhold (aren't the supposed to be in the field, being useful?) is not a good way of showing the Inquisition's power.
This is one very narrow view of the Herald's actions in the Crossroads. This is supposed to be an RPG with different options of how to complete quests. If we're the Herald, why can't we inspire the soldiers to help us, and lead from the front? We're willing to do the dirty work, but not to the point of idiocy where we go into a war zone with three friends while there are dozens of troops sitting around. That's not inspiring, that would make me doubt the intelligence of the Inquisition's leadership.
"Wait, so the chosen of Andraste is running around looking for a lost ring and an inhaler while the Breach is always present? Their priorities seem off."
And I've said it repeatedly, I think a huge opportunity was missed when the Herald/Inquisitor was pigeonholed into fantasy!Jesus' will made manifest. We can reject the idea of being sent by Andraste, we can claim we're leading the Inquisition for our own personal power, but it's all empty air. We should have had the option to roleplay as more than the Herald who is willing to go along with whatever the Left and Right Hands tell them they have to.We should have had the option to rule the Inquisition through religious zeal and tyranny, being the only person who can close the hole in the sky so you'd better do what I say. It wouldn't require a completely new plotline, because really by the end of the game we are in effect a rogue nation camped out on the borders of two nations; Trespasser does portray the political danger the Inquisition poses, even though Teagan is an a$$ about it.
I agree with you on all points.
I'm still waiting for some videos of the quests out in the zones that are supposedly good and well done and the reasons people think they were well done. Maybe a detailed review of the quests they thought were well done in DA:I or a detailed critique of why they thought specific quests in TW3 fell short and what an ideal quest in DA4 would be like. Something tells me that's never going to happen...
I'm still waiting for some videos of the quests out in the zones that are supposedly good and well done and the reasons people think they were well done. Maybe a detailed review of the quests they thought were well done in DA:I or a detailed critique of why they thought specific quests in TW3 fell short and what an ideal quest in DA4 would be like. Something tells me that's never going to happen...
I can give you my review of TW 3 right now, no video required: CDPR failed to engage me in the first two games, so I didn't spend my money on the third. In that, DA I has TW series, not just 3, but the entire series beat. I've got 4 completions on DA I. So tell me, what is about my engagement with a series that I'm supposed to ignore to support your "TW is better?", that it couldn't even keep me engaged to finish the first two?
Gotta love the "Woe is me, they disagree with my criticisms, or some of them, so they're just hating to hate" crowd though. Is there a club for your pity party, or can anyone show up? Here's how it reads to me so far: "I didn't get enough cutscenes, and they should give me lots and lots of cutscenes because my imagination just doesn't work. If they're not spelling the entirety of the game out in so much detail that it could fill a volume of encyclopedias, they're doing it wrong". Hey, it doesn't cost money to produce those, they wouldn't have to change much, just make every Inquisitor into the next Geralt, and we're all golden, right? This is what it would take, after all, to provide the "Witcher Experience" in DA I. No companion interaction scenes, they eat up that side quest cut scene budget. No romances, that requires comp cutscenes after all. No races, no classes, everyone has to be the same, to get that "Witcher Experience".
In short, spare me the pity party. I disagree with some of your points, might even agree with others, if they weren't laced with so much hyperbole that I can't get through them w/out being completely boggled at the lack of understanding of basic gaming conventions displayed. In short, your misinformation doesn't help you case, and it doesn't have anything to do with "I'm critiquing, and they're hatin'", it has to do with your information being wrong. I realize that, being the BSN, all negative critique is supposed to be "the Golden Rule because EA", but frankly, I'm not buying it.
Any criticism of the game is because we hate everyone on the boards and Bioware. Oh, and of course Bioware can't win, because someone asked for X element after DA2 and now someone else is asking for Y element after DAI. CLEARLY it's a conspiracy by the exact same people, making sure "Bioware can't win."
And people who dismiss criticisms are doing so with strong arguments like "that article said the PC was Inquisitor by the point they were hunting for ram meat, which is false, so I won't even bother listening to any of the points raised in the article. Clearly the 'writer' didn't even play the game as they were too busy playing TW3."
Not to mention that if a comparison is made to TW3 it's automatically invalid because they: don't like TW3, never played TW3 but the fanbase is awful so anything involving TW3 is awful, the games are different in terms of PC, companions, combat, setting, so basic RPG elements like quest design and interactivity and choices and consequences aren't fair comparisons. Etc. etc.
Not to mention that no one has actually responded to the lists examples provided but keep making blanket statements without providing any details. Or asking "what would you do differently?" as if we haven't been saying that throughout the entire thread.
I really don't want this to turn into a DAI vs. TW3, as much as you seem to. But did you finish the game? The entire questline with Keira Metz in A Towerful of Mice, the assassination attempt of Radovid, searching for both Skellige heirs on different islands, the haunted house with Letho's cameo, the serial killer chase in Novigrad, the gwent tournament, Triss' side quest trying to smuggle the mage away, none of these optional side quests were memorable?
It's not good writing that we are told to help the Crossroads, but then if we choose not to, nothing actually happens. And that it's either do the quest or don't. No variation in completing it, no way of declining it (we could say we're too busy trying to reach Val Royeux, not just say no to be an arse). And completing the various Crossroads quests to get Vale's agents makes zero change on the map or anywhere except for the number of agents.
Agents are a good way of showing the growth of the Inquisition. Having agents only affect the reduction of time on the war table and have them endlessly wander Skyhold (aren't the supposed to be in the field, being useful?) is not a good way of showing the Inquisition's power.
This is one very narrow view of the Herald's actions in the Crossroads. This is supposed to be an RPG with different options of how to complete quests. If we're the Herald, why can't we inspire the soldiers to help us, and lead from the front? We're willing to do the dirty work, but not to the point of idiocy where we go into a war zone with three friends while there are dozens of troops sitting around. That's not inspiring, that would make me doubt the intelligence of the Inquisition's leadership.
"Wait, so the chosen of Andraste is running around looking for a lost ring and an inhaler while the Breach is always present? Their priorities seem off."
And I've said it repeatedly, I think a huge opportunity was missed when the Herald/Inquisitor was pigeonholed into fantasy!Jesus' will made manifest. We can reject the idea of being sent by Andraste, we can claim we're leading the Inquisition for our own personal power, but it's all empty air. We should have had the option to roleplay as more than the Herald who is willing to go along with whatever the Left and Right Hands tell them they have to.We should have had the option to rule the Inquisition through religious zeal and tyranny, being the only person who can close the hole in the sky so you'd better do what I say. It wouldn't require a completely new plotline, because really by the end of the game we are in effect a rogue nation camped out on the borders of two nations; Trespasser does portray the political danger the Inquisition poses, even though Teagan is an a$$ about it.
I can give you my review of TW 3 right now, no video required: CDPR failed to engage me in the first two games, so I didn't spend my money on the third. In that, DA I has TW series, not just 3, but the entire series beat. I've got 4 completions on DA I. So tell me, what is about my engagement with a series that I'm supposed to ignore to support your "TW is better?", that it couldn't even keep me engaged to finish the first two?
Gotta love the "Woe is me, they disagree with my criticisms, or some of them, so they're just hating to hate" crowd though. Is there a club for your pity party, or can anyone show up? Here's how it reads to me so far: "I didn't get enough cutscenes, and they should give me lots and lots of cutscenes because my imagination just doesn't work. If they're not spelling the entirety of the game out in so much detail that it could fill a volume of encyclopedias, they're doing it wrong". Hey, it doesn't cost money to produce those, they wouldn't have to change much, just make every Inquisitor into the next Geralt, and we're all golden, right? This is what it would take, after all, to provide the "Witcher Experience" in DA I. No companion interaction scenes, they eat up that side quest cut scene budget. No romances, that requires comp cutscenes after all. No races, no classes, everyone has to be the same, to get that "Witcher Experience".
In short, spare me the pity party. I disagree with some of your points, might even agree with others, if they weren't laced with so much hyperbole that I can't get through them w/out being completely boggled at the lack of understanding of basic gaming conventions displayed. In short, your misinformation doesn't help you case, and it doesn't have anything to do with "I'm critiquing, and they're hatin'", it has to do with your information being wrong. I realize that, being the BSN, all negative critique is supposed to be "the Golden Rule because EA", but frankly, I'm not buying it.
Yeah that's a position of objectivity and maturity there, glad you're here to set the record straight. You have made some thoughtful posts in the past but this is nonsensical. Because you didn't like two games in a series you can determine objectively that the game you didn't play is bad? Does that actually sound logical to you? I could say the exact same thing about DA in reverse, that since I liked the first two games so much I didn't even need to play DAI to know it is a "better" series. And then I would have played DAI and had to change my opinion.
I didn't play TW1 or 2. I watched YouTube videos and neither of them appealed to me so I didn't bother. But I heard a lot of good things about Tw3 and bought a used copy months after it released. I have only played it once and will wait to replay until the next DLC comes out. It's not a game I want to play dozens of time. I've played DAI through six complete playthroughs. What is your point here? To me, DA is a more replayable game because of multiple PC options and the companions. That doesn't mean DAI's side quests are better, or that it's a better game. Or that Tw3 is a better game.
You really aren't reading the posts here if you think everyone is saying TW3 is a better game. And your post shows that you are automatically defensive and close minded to opposing ideas since you are just broadly painting this thread as "DAI sucks and Tw3 is the best game ever." And your "summary" is the definition of hyperbole you're accusing us of.
And again someone criticizes criticism without actually addressing it or offering counterpoints. Just trying to simplify the points as childish whining. Which I don't need to point out is ironic.
Yeah that's a position of objectivity and maturity there, glad you're here to set the record straight. You have made some thoughtful posts in the past but this is nonsensical. Because you didn't like two games in a series you can determine objectively that the game you didn't play is bad? Does that actually sound logical to you? I could say the exact same thing about DA in reverse, that since I liked the first two games so much I didn't even need to play DAI to know it is a "better" series. And then I would have played DAI and had to change my opinion.
I didn't play TW1 or 2. I watched YouTube videos and neither of them appealed to me so I didn't bother. But I heard a lot of good things about Tw3 and bought a used copy months after it released. I have only played it once and will wait to replay until the next DLC comes out. It's not a game I want to play dozens of time. I've played DAI through six complete playthroughs. What is your point here? To me, DA is a more replayable game because of multiple PC options and the companions. That doesn't mean DAI's side quests are better, or that it's a better game. Or that Tw3 is a better game.
You really aren't reading the posts here if you think everyone is saying TW3 is a better game. And your post shows that you are automatically defensive and close minded to opposing ideas since you are just broadly painting this thread as "DAI sucks and Tw3 is the best game ever." And your "summary" is the definition of hyperbole you're accusing us of.
And again someone criticizes criticism without actually addressing it or offering counterpoints. Just trying to simplify the points as childish whining. Which I don't need to point out is ironic.
...and here we are with the hyperbole again? Where did I say it was bad? I said I didn't play it, and that due to the failure of the first to games to make me want to. I then went on to say that DA I had that over the entire series, not TW 3 exclusively, but the entire series. If they couldn't engage me enough to finish the first two, why should I give them the benefit of the doubt on the third? I bought the Enhanced editions of both, but felt like I was forcing myself to play them. Isn't it the least bit ironic that saying that about DA I means it's bad, but when it comes to the Witcher, it's nonsensical?
I've responded multiple times to the criticisms, here's a post from this very page where I did just that. I've responded to them so many times that most of them are rote. Nefla asked for an opinion, and I gave one and it's both nonsensical and childish whining? Sorry, I wasn't passing out invites to any pity parties. I didn't feel the need, when a position is based entirely on misinformation, or misinterpretation of information, or simply not knowing what one is talking about "but I have this made up definition that I'm using, and you have to use it too". Sorry, MMOs didn't come first, so claiming MMO style quests, unless, as I asked in the post I linked, you can show me some daily quests in DA I? Take your time, I'll wait.
Any criticism of the game is because we hate everyone on the boards and Bioware. Oh, and of course Bioware can't win, because someone asked for X element after DA2 and now someone else is asking for Y element after DAI. CLEARLY it's a conspiracy by the exact same people, making sure "Bioware can't win."
And people who dismiss criticisms are doing so with strong arguments like "that article said the PC was Inquisitor by the point they were hunting for ram meat, which is false, so I won't even bother listening to any of the points raised in the article. Clearly the 'writer' didn't even play the game as they were too busy playing TW3."
Not to mention that if a comparison is made to TW3 it's automatically invalid because they: don't like TW3, never played TW3 but the fanbase is awful so anything involving TW3 is awful, the games are different in terms of PC, companions, combat, setting, so basic RPG elements like quest design and interactivity and choices and consequences aren't fair comparisons. Etc. etc.
Not to mention that no one has actually responded to the lists examples provided but keep making blanket statements without providing any details. Or asking "what would you do differently?" as if we haven't been saying that throughout the entire thread.
I really don't want this to turn into a DAI vs. TW3, as much as you seem to. But did you finish the game? The entire questline with Keira Metz in A Towerful of Mice, the assassination attempt of Radovid, searching for both Skellige heirs on different islands, the haunted house with Letho's cameo, the serial killer chase in Novigrad, the gwent tournament, Triss' side quest trying to smuggle the mage away, none of these optional side quests were memorable?
It's not good writing that we are told to help the Crossroads, but then if we choose not to, nothing actually happens. And that it's either do the quest or don't. No variation in completing it, no way of declining it (we could say we're too busy trying to reach Val Royeux, not just say no to be an arse). And completing the various Crossroads quests to get Vale's agents makes zero change on the map or anywhere except for the number of agents.
Agents are a good way of showing the growth of the Inquisition. Having agents only affect the reduction of time on the war table and have them endlessly wander Skyhold (aren't the supposed to be in the field, being useful?) is not a good way of showing the Inquisition's power.
This is one very narrow view of the Herald's actions in the Crossroads. This is supposed to be an RPG with different options of how to complete quests. If we're the Herald, why can't we inspire the soldiers to help us, and lead from the front? We're willing to do the dirty work, but not to the point of idiocy where we go into a war zone with three friends while there are dozens of troops sitting around. That's not inspiring, that would make me doubt the intelligence of the Inquisition's leadership.
"Wait, so the chosen of Andraste is running around looking for a lost ring and an inhaler while the Breach is always present? Their priorities seem off."
And I've said it repeatedly, I think a huge opportunity was missed when the Herald/Inquisitor was pigeonholed into fantasy!Jesus' will made manifest. We can reject the idea of being sent by Andraste, we can claim we're leading the Inquisition for our own personal power, but it's all empty air. We should have had the option to roleplay as more than the Herald who is willing to go along with whatever the Left and Right Hands tell them they have to.We should have had the option to rule the Inquisition through religious zeal and tyranny, being the only person who can close the hole in the sky so you'd better do what I say. It wouldn't require a completely new plotline, because really by the end of the game we are in effect a rogue nation camped out on the borders of two nations; Trespasser does portray the political danger the Inquisition poses, even though Teagan is an a$$ about it.
Willing to do the dirty work is what inspires soldiers and the masses. A person is inspired (IMHO) far more by someone who is willing to do than someone who is only saying. It is easy to talk the talk, but do you walk the walk.
I also have no problem with a herald or inquisitor being a tyrant or a milk toast as long as the inherent consequences go along with it. I would have like to see if the Inquisitor is a milk toast that the Inquisition starts losing influence and status. If the Inquisitor is a tyrant that assassination attempts would happen with increasing frequency and influence would be lost and more resistance to the herald's demands would happen. The tyrant would gain power.
The "I am the only one who can close rifts so you better do as I say" card can only be played for so long until someone decides that the masses may be better off without the herald.
...and here we are with the hyperbole again? Where did I say it was bad? I said I didn't play it, and that due to the failure of the first to games to make me want to. I then went on to say that DA I had that over the entire series, not TW 3 exclusively, but the entire series. If they couldn't engage me enough to finish the first two, why should I give them the benefit of the doubt on the third? I bought the Enhanced editions of both, but felt like I was forcing myself to play them. Isn't it the least bit ironic that saying that about DA I means it's bad, but when it comes to the Witcher, it's nonsensical?
I've responded multiple times to the criticisms, here's a post from this very page where I did just that. I've responded to them so many times that most of them are rote. Nefla asked for an opinion, and I gave one and it's both nonsensical and childish whining? Sorry, I wasn't passing out invites to any pity parties. I didn't feel the need, when a position is based entirely on misinformation, or misinterpretation of information, or simply not knowing what one is talking about "but I have this made up definition that I'm using, and you have to use it too". Sorry, MMOs didn't come first, so claiming MMO style quests, unless, as I asked in the post I linked, you can show me some daily quests in DA I? Take your time, I'll wait.
Saying you have no interest in a game, and that's your "review" of it, based on how much you disliked the first two games...and you're claiming you don't assume TW3 is bad? And "I'll take what we got over the TW3 any day." is nonsensical since you're comparing a product you have experienced to a product you have not, but making an "informed" value judgement. My point is that I liked the first two DA games but if I just assumed I would automatically like DAI because of the first two games, I would be making an assumption, not a logical conclusion. And that is confirmed by the fact that I enjoyed DAI significantly less than the previous two. You can't assume TW3 is going to be more of the same of the first two games, because it's an entirely different game in the same way DAI is very different from its predecessors. So yes, your judgement of a game you haven't played is irrelevant.
Also funny that you've now posted about invitations to pity parties twice in a short span of time but don't see how it can be considered childish whining. I didn't realizing telling someone of a differing opinion that they're having a pity party is mature.
So you're stating that MMO's are identical to RPG's, but then try to show that DAI is an RPG and not "MMO-like" because it doesn't have daily quests like only MMOs do? Can you stick with a position? Also, I would consider the requisition quests and repeatable war table quests as the equivalent to daily quests. They are infinitely repeatable to farm gold, crafting resources, and influence. That's the same result as those daily quests, right? Or because the structure is slightly different it's not a valid comparison?
Willing to do the dirty work is what inspires soldiers and the masses. A person is inspired (IMHO) far more by someone who is willing to do than someone who is only saying. It is easy to talk the talk, but do you walk the walk.
I also have no problem with a herald or inquisitor being a tyrant or a milk toast as long as the inherent consequences go along with it. I would have like to see if the Inquisitor is a milk toast that the Inquisition starts losing influence and status. If the Inquisitor is a tyrant that assassination attempts would happen with increasing frequency and influence would be lost and more resistance to the herald's demands would happen. The tyrant would gain power.
The "I am the only one who can close rifts so you better do as I say" card can only be played for so long until someone decides that the masses may be better off without the herald.
Yeah I gave the option that the Herald could lead from the front, not stand behind troops and order them. There's a difference between being on the front lines and still being a commander, and being on the front lines...but being the only one there. Wouldn't it be more effective if the troops were with the Herald, witnessing him/her fight demons and help the little people, rather than him/her going off with three companions and coming back later and telling the troops what happened? Yes the Herald could still be fighting and not safe behind walls, but that doesn't negate anyone else in the Inquisition being active.
I think an Inquisitor playing the Anchor trump card would be tolerated until the Breach was closed, and then assassination attempts might occur. Yes, there could be people so desperate and afraid that they're willing to try to kill the only person known to close rifts, but that seems counter intuitive. I think people would rather kidnap the tyrant and use them as a puppet than kill them. Because if they kill the Inquisitor and then no one else is able to close the Breach, the world ends.
Saying you have no interest in a game, and that's your "review" of it, based on how much you disliked the first two games...and you're claiming you don't assume TW3 is bad? And "I'll take what we got over the TW3 any day." is nonsensical since you're comparing a product you have experienced to a product you have not, but making an "informed" value judgement. My point is that I liked the first two DA games but if I just assumed I would automatically like DAI because of the first two games, I would be making an assumption, not a logical conclusion. And that is confirmed by the fact that I enjoyed DAI significantly less than the previous two. You can't assume TW3 is going to be more of the same of the first two games, because it's an entirely different game in the same way DAI is very different from its predecessors. So yes, your judgement of a game you haven't played is irrelevant.
Also funny that you've now posted about invitations to pity parties twice in a short span of time but don't see how it can be considered childish whining. I didn't realizing telling someone of a differing opinion that they're having a pity party is mature.
So you're stating that MMO's are identical to RPG's, but then try to show that DAI is an RPG and not "MMO-like" because it doesn't have daily quests like only MMOs do? Can you stick with a position? Also, I would consider the requisition quests and repeatable war table quests as the equivalent to daily quests. They are infinitely repeatable to farm gold, crafting resources, and influence. That's the same result as those daily quests, right? Or because the structure is slightly different it's not a valid comparison?
Really? That's not a review because I'm basing it on my experience with the previous two games? So they changed the basic layout of the protagonist in 3, and you didn't have to play as Geralt? Of course not, he's the focal point of the story. So yes, over being a fixed PC, I'll take what we got in DA every day. Again, let's ignore salient points to claim childish or immature? Look, I'm sorry that your arguments for "good or bad" or "good quest/bad quest" are falling so flat that you first had to resort to this post. Specifically that first paragraph, you know, where you plant yourself so firmly on the pity pot that I'm surprised you were able to get up. Perhaps, instead of resorting to that, you should have evaluated what it was about your position that people weren't agreeing with? I guess knowing who you're in dialog would help you too, because believe you me, as a PC gamer, I was not happy about a lot of things in this game's development. I railed hard against the hotbar limitations, and again off and on about the KB/M controls, and feeling like a console port, instead of a game developed for PC gamers by PC gamers.
However, here, I can't find that passion to claim that it's "poorly presented". I read the text that was provided, I engaged in the conversations, and I took the time to understand what they meant, and why I might want to do them, instead of putting on blinders and claiming "It sucked because I didn't get a real cutscene dialog". I didn't try to pretend that the subtext of what I was doing wasn't there. I guess I should first say that I actually managed to realize that there was subtext to be picked up on, instead of missing it, and going "see, not cutscene, so bad". I've never tried to put the cart before the horse with "MMO style quests" because I knew which came first, I should, I've played games that came out decades before MMO was anything like a common phrase, and, amazingly enough, all those quest archetypes existed way back then: Fetch quests, postal quests, kill x quests, all of them existed before there were MMOs. Falling back to MMO style quests doesn't sound witty, or intelligent, it straight out says "my first game was WoW", or insert some other MMO, and so it sounds like the poster has no idea what they're talking about, but they have that "made up definition that everyone must use, because (insert excuse for lack of knowledge here)". Then when someone calls them on it, we get something like this. What is it that you expected to happen, everyone jumping on the bandwagon? Hey, a couple of people did just that, primarily the ones trying to stick to that "Made up definition that everyone must use", but hey, you got a couple, right?
I stated that MMOs are MMORPGs. I stated that MMORPGs get their RPG elements from RPG games that existed before they did. I know it's confusing to think that a concept can be so wrong w/out being so contradictory, but claiming the SP RPGs are borrowing/stealing/using elements of MMOs is just that, wrong. I have stated that RPGs are being RPGs, just like they have been being RPGs for 40 some odd years. What MMO was it that DnD stole these quest archetypes from, exactly? Since MuD games were based on DnD, we once again see that people claiming SP games are stealing/borrowing/whatever word makes you feel better about your lack of understanding the order of operations here from MMOs are putting the cart before the horse, and then can't figure out why the horse can't pull it, aka "argument falling flat". It's easy to attempt to twist what someone else says to fit an agenda, but when that fails, it's not childishness on the part of the person that catches you out, it's just people looking at the reality of the situation and saying "Nope". This, of course nets this pity party post. People can't be disagreeing with you because you're wrong, after all, it has to be because
Any criticism of the game is because we hate everyone on the boards and Bioware. Oh, and of course Bioware can't win, because someone asked for X element after DA2 and now someone else is asking for Y element after DAI. CLEARLY it's a conspiracy by the exact same people, making sure "Bioware can't win."
I can give you my review of TW 3 right now, no video required: CDPR failed to engage me in the first two games, so I didn't spend my money on the third. In that, DA I has TW series, not just 3, but the entire series beat. I've got 4 completions on DA I. So tell me, what is about my engagement with a series that I'm supposed to ignore to support your "TW is better?", that it couldn't even keep me engaged to finish the first two?
So you haven't actually played it and yet you rail on about how much better or equivalent the quests in DA:I are. When did anyone ever say "TW as a series is better than DA as a series?" TW3 has better sidequests than DA:I(yes, including the companion quests and judgements) and MUCH better sidequests than what is present in the zones which you would know if you'd actually played it. You'll also note that the comparisons made are almost exclusively between DA:I and TW3 not TW1(which I never played and don't presume to comment on) or 2 (which I found OK but not magnificent). I don't really care if you liked the first two or not, they are irrelevant to whether the sidequests of DA4 should take note of the ones from TW3 or not.
Gotta love the "Woe is me, they disagree with my criticisms, or some of them, so they're just hating to hate" crowd though. Is there a club for your pity party, or can anyone show up? Here's how it reads to me so far: "I didn't get enough cutscenes, and they should give me lots and lots of cutscenes because my imagination just doesn't work. If they're not spelling the entirety of the game out in so much detail that it could fill a volume of encyclopedias, they're doing it wrong". Hey, it doesn't cost money to produce those, they wouldn't have to change much, just make every Inquisitor into the next Geralt, and we're all golden, right? This is what it would take, after all, to provide the "Witcher Experience" in DA I. No companion interaction scenes, they eat up that side quest cut scene budget. No romances, that requires comp cutscenes after all. No races, no classes, everyone has to be the same, to get that "Witcher Experience".
You're the one getting flippant and emotional while refusing to detail what you liked about DA:I's sidequests and claiming things about a game you've never played. I think you're more than happy with your own pity party. TW3 doesn't have combat companions and yet it has a cast of well developed supporting characters with plenty of conversations, personal quests, and integration into the main plot. I was shocked to find that I considered the supporting characters in TW3 to be better than the ones in DA:I. The only thing I found DA:I doing better was the fact that you can create your own character, though the tradeoff of having a set character who was actually deeply connected to the other characters, the world, and had a history rather than being washed up on a beach somewhere made it a tough call. If you'd played TW3 you'd also note that there are 2 romances. As for combat classes...Geralt is pretty much every class put together. He can use magic, swords, potions, poisons, bombs, traps, etc...where in DA:I your role is restricted. My imagination works just fine, but the player shouldn't have to imagine story, conversations, character development and so on. (Why read a book when I can just buy a blank journal and make by own book? Why watch a movie when I can just stare at a blank wall and make up my own story?) They shouldn't have to imagine that something is happening when it isn't that there is a danger when there is none, that their actions have an effect when they don't. Why am I even playing a game if I have to make up everything in my head? "Oh man, that quest where I had to find some bear claws for the Dalish was so amazing because I headcannoned this whole backstory where the bear was actually the questgiver's lover who had been transformed by a curse and the only way to save his spirit was for him to be put out of his misery and for her to do a ritual with the claws, etc..." yeah...no.
In short, spare me the pity party. I disagree with some of your points, might even agree with others, if they weren't laced with so much hyperbole that I can't get through them w/out being completely boggled at the lack of understanding of basic gaming conventions displayed. In short, your misinformation doesn't help you case, and it doesn't have anything to do with "I'm critiquing, and they're hatin'", it has to do with your information being wrong. I realize that, being the BSN, all negative critique is supposed to be "the Golden Rule because EA", but frankly, I'm not buying it.
Maybe someone might see your opinion as legitimate if you actually knew what you were talking about (a game you've never played) and actually addressed the subject at hand (the side quests) instead of ranting how you don't like fixed protagonists.
Sorry, I wasn't passing out invites to any pity parties. I didn't feel the need, when a position is based entirely on misinformation, or misinterpretation of information, or simply not knowing what one is talking about "but I have this made up definition that I'm using, and you have to use it too". Sorry, MMOs didn't come first, so claiming MMO style quests, unless, as I asked in the post I linked, you can show me some daily quests in DA I? Take your time, I'll wait.
You're talking about yourself right? Anyway I don't know why you feel the need to keep arguing semantics as though you can't possibly grasp what people mean when they say "the style of filler quests that is extremely abundant in MMO's is the same type used for 95% of the DA:I side quests." As for daily quests...aside from not being repeatable (oh wait, the requisitions are...) they're set up the same way. The difference is that instead of a text box that gives a short explanation of the quest and the choice to accept or cancel, you get a short voiced description from an often nameless NPC where you can accept or cancel.
Really? That's not a review because I'm basing it on my experience with the previous two games?
No, a review of the first two games is not a review of the third game, just as a review of Star Wars is not a review of The Empire Strikes Back. A child could understand this
So they changed the basic layout of the protagonist in 3, and you didn't have to play as Geralt? Of course not, he's the focal point of the story. So yes, over being a fixed PC, I'll take what we got in DA every day. That's nice dear. What does this have to do with side quests?
Again, let's ignore salient points to claim childish or immature?
What points might those be?
Look, I'm sorry that your arguments for "good or bad" or "good quest/bad quest" are falling so flat that you first had to resort to this post. Specifically that first paragraph, you know, where you plant yourself so firmly on the pity pot that I'm surprised you were able to get up. Perhaps, instead of resorting to that, you should have evaluated what it was about your position that people weren't agreeing with? I guess knowing who you're in dialog would help you too, because believe you me, as a PC gamer, I was not happy about a lot of things in this game's development. I railed hard against the hotbar limitations, and again off and on about the KB/M controls, and feeling like a console port, instead of a game developed for PC gamers by PC gamers.
However, here, I can't find that passion to claim that it's "poorly presented". I read the text that was provided, I engaged in the conversations, and I took the time to understand what they meant, and why I might want to do them, instead of putting on blinders and claiming "It sucked because I didn't get a real cutscene dialog".
They didn't only suck because there was no cutscene, but cutscenes go a long way. For example, there were some quests involving darkspawn that I had in my journal and forgot about. It wasn't until after the quest updated (and I clicked on the bodies to be sure) that I realized I had just killed darkspawn. The camera is so zoomed out and you're so often bombarded with generic human bandits/templars/freemen/whatever that I assumed these nondescript humanoid figures were more of the same. A brief cutscene could have not only zoomed in and shown that these were indeed darkspawn (I saw someone's screenshot online and the designs were really cool but I never saw it in game) but shown them causing darkspawn-y trouble (like eating people). Cutscenes can also show action that DA:I didn't (this kind of thing can be done without a cutscene like in Skyrim but BioWare didn't use this method either). Rescuing refugees from a demon? A cutscene can show the refugees stumbling over each other trying to escape, it can show one of them be killed and the others react. A cutscene could do a lot that wasn't done in the typical DA:I sidequests. So the cutscene is one factor, other factors include: character building dialogue choices that let you roleplay your character's personality (a simple "tell me where to go" doesn't cut it for me), and multiple ways to end the quest. This allows for more roleplaying and moral choices.
I didn't try to pretend that the subtext of what I was doing wasn't there. I guess I should first say that I actually managed to realize that there was subtext to be picked up on, instead of missing it, and going "see, not cutscene, so bad". I've never tried to put the cart before the horse with "MMO style quests" because I knew which came first, I should, I've played games that came out decades before MMO was anything like a common phrase, and, amazingly enough, all those quest archetypes existed way back then: Fetch quests, postal quests, kill x quests, all of them existed before there were MMOs. Falling back to MMO style quests doesn't sound witty, or intelligent, it straight out says "my first game was WoW", or insert some other MMO, and so it sounds like the poster has no idea what they're talking about, but they have that "made up definition that everyone must use, because (insert excuse for lack of knowledge here)". Then when someone calls them on it, we get something like this. What is it that you expected to happen, everyone jumping on the bandwagon? Hey, a couple of people did just that, primarily the ones trying to stick to that "Made up definition that everyone must use", but hey, you got a couple, right?
Ugh I don't know if your reading comprehension is terrible (for the millionth time no one is saying MMOs invented shallow crappy quests) or if you just want an excuse to try and insult people.
Really? That's not a review because I'm basing it on my experience with the previous two games? So they changed the basic layout of the protagonist in 3, and you didn't have to play as Geralt? Of course not, he's the focal point of the story. So yes, over being a fixed PC, I'll take what we got in DA every day.
It's obvious you haven't played 3 because it is extremely different than the first two games. The second game was different in a lot of ways from the first game. A review is an analysis based on having experienced something, otherwise it's just conjecture. You cannot say that you have reviewed TW3 because you haven't played it. I'm not telling you you have to play it, or that it's an objectively better game than DAI. But your arguments based on how you like the DA better than TW3 are meaningless. I could say I enjoy living in my city more than I enjoyed visiting Australia. But since I haven't been to Australia, what I'm saying is disingenuous and trying to make it look like my city is better than Australia. Neither are objectively better but I can't honestly claim that one is subjectively better to me without having experienced both.
Again, let's ignore salient points to claim childish or immature? Look, I'm sorry that your arguments for "good or bad" or "good quest/bad quest" are falling so flat that you first had to resort to this post. Specifically that first paragraph, you know, where you plant yourself so firmly on the pity pot that I'm surprised you were able to get up. Perhaps, instead of resorting to that, you should have evaluated what it was about your position that people weren't agreeing with?
What is with the pity party remarks? Your repetition of that doesn't make your case any stronger, it makes you sound like a broken record. So the use of exaggeration means that my previous arguments are invalid or I'm losing the argument? I and others in this thread have listed many criteria for what we consider good quest design, and my frustration that others in the thread don't bother responding to those points or provide their examples of good quests is what is frustrating. Banging my head against a wall doesn't mean all of my arguments are suddenly invalid. What does your constant bashing of "pity party" on my posts mean, that you've proven your point so thoroughly that you don't have to say anything substantial?
I guess knowing who you're in dialog would help you too, because believe you me, as a PC gamer, I was not happy about a lot of things in this game's development. I railed hard against the hotbar limitations, and again off and on about the KB/M controls, and feeling like a console port, instead of a game developed for PC gamers by PC gamers.
However, here, I can't find that passion to claim that it's "poorly presented". I read the text that was provided, I engaged in the conversations, and I took the time to understand what they meant, and why I might want to do them, instead of putting on blinders and claiming "It sucked because I didn't get a real cutscene dialog". I didn't try to pretend that the subtext of what I was doing wasn't there. I guess I should first say that I actually managed to realize that there was subtext to be picked up on, instead of missing it, and going "see, not cutscene, so bad". I've never tried to put the cart before the horse with "MMO style quests" because I knew which came first, I should, I've played games that came out decades before MMO was anything like a common phrase, and, amazingly enough, all those quest archetypes existed way back then: Fetch quests, postal quests, kill x quests, all of them existed before there were MMOs. Falling back to MMO style quests doesn't sound witty, or intelligent, it straight out says "my first game was WoW", or insert some other MMO, and so it sounds like the poster has no idea what they're talking about, but they have that "made up definition that everyone must use, because (insert excuse for lack of knowledge here)". Then when someone calls them on it, we get something like this. What is it that you expected to happen, everyone jumping on the bandwagon? Hey, a couple of people did just that, primarily the ones trying to stick to that "Made up definition that everyone must use", but hey, you got a couple, right?
And you're making assumptions again. I've never played any MMOs, including WoW or SWTOR. You are getting upset over terminology rather than discussing content. And somehow people agreeing with my posts means that they're just jumping on a bandwagon rather than because they also came to the same conclusions themselves by playing the game? That sounds like you're upset more people on this thread aren't "jumping on the bandwagon" of your opinions. There is no made up definition of good quests, there are elements that many people in this thread think are important to good quests. No one is saying there is some magical formula to determine if a quest is "good" or "bad" but many things that comprise good quests. I don't know where you're getting the opinion that there is some made up definition, but it highlights that people are just ignoring the criteria we're describing and asking for. Your response to whether something is an MMO or RPG or what the difference is doesn't address anything about the content of the side quests, which is what this thread is about. You haven't shown any reasons why you enjoy the side quests in DAI, you've just said that fetch quests and other "bad" quests have been in every RPG since the dawn of time. So what? We as consumers are supposed to just accept that and hope the next game has more enjoyable quests? How about instead of get upset on the similarities and differences on types of games, or whether other games have had similar quests before, you explain why you don't think any of the ideas that have been brought up would be good to include in DA4? Here is a list of some of the ideas posted already:
Spoiler
1. Striking lack of cutscenes
2. Striking lack of dialog beyond text of "I'm in a pickle, do this one thing to get me pickle-extraction?" and "Thanks for the pickle-extraction" upon return. This is bare-bones quest construction mechanics. It's where the derogatory (it is derogatory, mind you) term "fetch quests" comes from.
3. Irrelevance of quests to game's main themes. (This one can partially slide in the sense that it is possible to make an irrelevant quest... say, the Lord Woolsley quest... that's genuinely amusing without having any bearing on anything other than the humor of it. Even 4th-wall breaking can remain game-immersive...)
4. Lack of intellectual, philosophical, or imaginative challenge employed within side-content. You do or do not. That's usually it.
5. Preponderance of non-speaking bosses at the end of side-quests that have bosses. Bosses are all impersonal. (Most side-content doesn't even have bosses, but... Or bosses that may speak a line or two (usually inaudible in the heat of battle noises) but never actually interact with the party.)
6. Preponderance of side-content that is purely visual.
7. Preponderance of side-content that relies upon codex entry reading rather than "real-time" experience. (This one is only partially (mostly) egregious. There are a few instances in which this is sorta cool as a mechanic. The pictures of areas that you use to find hidden treasure used codex entries and worked OK as such (but in that case searching those bloody codex entries should've been easier). Like this one that was pretty cool, matching a picture to actual scenery:)
8. The quality of being a 2nd (or 3rd) tier of relevant quests below the main quests. Investment was clearly diverted heavily into main/companion quests, lightly into most side quests/venturing. There should be no distinction. Experience involving the player should always be valuable/meaningful/top quality.
9. Preponderance of exploration that involves nothing other than traversing terrain and removing Fog of War from the map.
10. Incentivized resource farming
11. Incentivized respawn grinding
12. Lack of consequences for decisions made. (Few decisions were afforded the player during side-quests, of course, so this hardly applies for that reason, but, say, in "The Loss of a Friend" you can either send the demon to go rampaging through the land after Hakkon or kill the demon... same either way other than a free rune for killing the demon and possible minor rep boosts/loss with various companions.)
13. Preponderance of quests that end in nothing other than a simple battle or item... i.e., no different from a typical respawn encounter rather than a character building experience, for instance.
I stated that MMOs are MMORPGs. I stated that MMORPGs get their RPG elements from RPG games that existed before they did. I know it's confusing to think that a concept can be so wrong w/out being so contradictory, but claiming the SP RPGs are borrowing/stealing/using elements of MMOs is just that, wrong. I have stated that RPGs are being RPGs, just like they have been being RPGs for 40 some odd years. What MMO was it that DnD stole these quest archetypes from, exactly? Since MuD games were based on DnD, we once again see that people claiming SP games are stealing/borrowing/whatever word makes you feel better about your lack of understanding the order of operations here from MMOs are putting the cart before the horse, and then can't figure out why the horse can't pull it, aka "argument falling flat". It's easy to attempt to twist what someone else says to fit an agenda, but when that fails, it's not childishness on the part of the person that catches you out, it's just people looking at the reality of the situation and saying "Nope". This, of course nets this pity party post. People can't be disagreeing with you because you're wrong, after all, it has to be because
What are you even talking about? You are the one who is so caught up in the super intellectual analysis of SP and MMOs. I really don't care, it's not making me feel better for lack of understanding. How about we discuss the actual topic of the thread, how side quests need to be improved, rather than try to dilute the discussion with arguing about how bad side quests are a staple of SP and MMOs, and anyone who disagrees with your analysis of the differences in the games are morons?
You are shooting your own arguments in the foot by trying to "prove" my opinions as wrong. The conversation isn't about who is right about good quests, it's about what people who were dissatisfied with DAI's quests want to see improved for the next game. If you're so insistent on shouting to anyone who will listen that this is wrong, you keep shouting until you're hoarse.
It's obvious you haven't played 3 because it is extremely different than the first two games. The second game was different in a lot of ways from the first game. A review is an analysis based on having experienced something, otherwise it's just conjecture. You cannot say that you have reviewed TW3 because you haven't played it. I'm not telling you you have to play it, or that it's an objectively better game than DAI. But your arguments based on how you like the DA better than TW3 are meaningless. I could say I enjoy living in my city more than I enjoyed visiting Australia. But since I haven't been to Australia, what I'm saying is disingenuous and trying to make it look like my city is better than Australia. Neither are objectively better but I can't honestly claim that one is subjectively better to me without having experienced both.
What is with the pity party remarks? Your repetition of that doesn't make your case any stronger, it makes you sound like a broken record. So the use of exaggeration means that my previous arguments are invalid or I'm losing the argument? I and others in this thread have listed many criteria for what we consider good quest design, and my frustration that others in the thread don't bother responding to those points or provide their examples of good quests is what is frustrating. Banging my head against a wall doesn't mean all of my arguments are suddenly invalid. What does your constant bashing of "pity party" on my posts mean, that you've proven your point so thoroughly that you don't have to say anything substantial?
And you're making assumptions again. I've never played any MMOs, including WoW or SWTOR. You are getting upset over terminology rather than discussing content. And somehow people agreeing with my posts means that they're just jumping on a bandwagon rather than because they also came to the same conclusions themselves by playing the game? That sounds like you're upset more people on this thread aren't "jumping on the bandwagon" of your opinions. There is no made up definition of good quests, there are elements that many people in this thread think are important to good quests. No one is saying there is some magical formula to determine if a quest is "good" or "bad" but many things that comprise good quests. I don't know where you're getting the opinion that there is some made up definition, but it highlights that people are just ignoring the criteria we're describing and asking for. Your response to whether something is an MMO or RPG or what the difference is doesn't address anything about the content of the side quests, which is what this thread is about. You haven't shown any reasons why you enjoy the side quests in DAI, you've just said that fetch quests and other "bad" quests have been in every RPG since the dawn of time. So what? We as consumers are supposed to just accept that and hope the next game has more enjoyable quests? How about instead of get upset on the similarities and differences on types of games, or whether other games have had similar quests before, you explain why you don't think any of the ideas that have been brought up would be good to include in DA4? Here is a list of some of the ideas posted already:
Spoiler
1. Striking lack of cutscenes
2. Striking lack of dialog beyond text of "I'm in a pickle, do this one thing to get me pickle-extraction?" and "Thanks for the pickle-extraction" upon return. This is bare-bones quest construction mechanics. It's where the derogatory (it is derogatory, mind you) term "fetch quests" comes from.
3. Irrelevance of quests to game's main themes. (This one can partially slide in the sense that it is possible to make an irrelevant quest... say, the Lord Woolsley quest... that's genuinely amusing without having any bearing on anything other than the humor of it. Even 4th-wall breaking can remain game-immersive...)
4. Lack of intellectual, philosophical, or imaginative challenge employed within side-content. You do or do not. That's usually it.
5. Preponderance of non-speaking bosses at the end of side-quests that have bosses. Bosses are all impersonal. (Most side-content doesn't even have bosses, but... Or bosses that may speak a line or two (usually inaudible in the heat of battle noises) but never actually interact with the party.)
6. Preponderance of side-content that is purely visual.
7. Preponderance of side-content that relies upon codex entry reading rather than "real-time" experience. (This one is only partially (mostly) egregious. There are a few instances in which this is sorta cool as a mechanic. The pictures of areas that you use to find hidden treasure used codex entries and worked OK as such (but in that case searching those bloody codex entries should've been easier). Like this one that was pretty cool, matching a picture to actual scenery:)
8. The quality of being a 2nd (or 3rd) tier of relevant quests below the main quests. Investment was clearly diverted heavily into main/companion quests, lightly into most side quests/venturing. There should be no distinction. Experience involving the player should always be valuable/meaningful/top quality.
9. Preponderance of exploration that involves nothing other than traversing terrain and removing Fog of War from the map.
10. Incentivized resource farming
11. Incentivized respawn grinding
12. Lack of consequences for decisions made. (Few decisions were afforded the player during side-quests, of course, so this hardly applies for that reason, but, say, in "The Loss of a Friend" you can either send the demon to go rampaging through the land after Hakkon or kill the demon... same either way other than a free rune for killing the demon and possible minor rep boosts/loss with various companions.)
13. Preponderance of quests that end in nothing other than a simple battle or item... i.e., no different from a typical respawn encounter rather than a character building experience, for instance.
What are you even talking about? You are the one who is so caught up in the super intellectual analysis of SP and MMOs. I really don't care, it's not making me feel better for lack of understanding. How about we discuss the actual topic of the thread, how side quests need to be improved, rather than try to dilute the discussion with arguing about how bad side quests are a staple of SP and MMOs, and anyone who disagrees with your analysis of the differences in the games are morons?
You are shooting your own arguments in the foot by trying to "prove" my opinions as wrong. The conversation isn't about who is right about good quests, it's about what people who were dissatisfied with DAI's quests want to see improved for the next game. If you're so insistent on shouting to anyone who will listen that this is wrong, you keep shouting until you're hoarse.
What I took from this is that you want DA to go above and beyond any rpg on the market. There is side content that meets your criteria and it matches the scope/amount/size of other RPGs. But that apparently isn't good enough... O right, we have to magically discount companion quests, judgements, Suledin Keep, and a few more quests so we can ***** that DA: I didn't bankrupt Bioware and give more "deep" content.
This is the real issue... Most other games are getting a pass but o no... Big bad DA: I and the evil EA overlords screwed gamers out of content because... Uh... Well just because. It would be nice if we could get consistent answers from you bunch, but all I keep seeing is handwaving of anything that meets your criteria so you can yell "it's not good enough!" over and over.
Basically saying that "you don't have imagination if you weren't able to piece together the pell-mell, poorly-animated NPC's and scattered objects lying about in a game that should be cinematically orchestrated" is like saying "you didn't have imagination if you couldn't imagine the great movie within this movie that's literally a blank screen that appears for 20 seconds."
Like, if they projected a blank screen for 20 seconds. Modern art piece, right? Oh, you don't have imagination! You weren't able to understand the film.
A blank book without words, or with just numbers and stick figures.
Oh, you have poor imagination. You weren't able to imagine the story out of the crap in that book.
Right. "Using your imagination to fill in blanks" which shouldn't be there in the first place should not be a requirement in a medium that should be fleshed out enough to be an overall engaging experience as formulated by not only previous games in the same trilogy, but other games in that genre.
vbibbi, Nefla, BansheeOwnage et 2 autres aiment ceci
What I took from this is that you want DA to go above and beyond any rpg on the market. There is side content that meets your criteria and it matches the scope/amount/size of other RPGs. But that apparently isn't good enough... O right, we have to magically discount companion quests, judgements, Suledin Keep, and a few more quests so we can ***** that DA: I didn't bankrupt Bioware and give more "deep" content.
This is the real issue... Most other games are getting a pass but o no... Big bad DA: I and the evil EA overlords screwed gamers out of content because... Uh... Well just because. It would be nice if we could get consistent answers from you bunch, but all I keep seeing is handwaving of anything that meets your criteria so you can yell "it's not good enough!" over and over.
Most other games are getting the pass? We described how other games deserved the pass. Because they didn't suck. For specific reasons.
What I took from this is that you want DA to go above and beyond any rpg on the market. There is side content that meets your criteria and it matches the scope/amount/size of other RPGs. But that apparently isn't good enough... O right, we have to magically discount companion quests, judgements, Suledin Keep, and a few more quests so we can ***** that DA: I didn't bankrupt Bioware and give more "deep" content.
This is the real issue... Most other games are getting a pass but o no... Big bad DA: I and the evil EA overlords screwed gamers out of content because... Uh... Well just because. It would be nice if we could get consistent answers from you bunch, but all I keep seeing is handwaving of anything that meets your criteria so you can yell "it's not good enough!" over and over.
Sweetie, we're not discounting anything. All those zones are empty of content that is meaningful and fun to us and that's a problem (as is the power requirements system that forces us to do the boring fluff). Please actually read the posts and stop repeating the same pointless crying. You're saying we want DA to "go above and beyond" what any other RPG does but we just want some of the same kind of content from BioWare's previous games to be included in the zones. We point to TW3 because it's such a similar game on the surface and yet it manages to have both an open world AND engaging side quests. Both "companion" quests AND other fun quests as well as the fluff. DA:I completely separates anything fun from the zones which makes those zones pointless.
Sweetie, we're not discounting anything. All those zones are empty of content that is meaningful and fun to us and that's a problem (as is the power requirements system that forces us to do the boring fluff). Please actually read the posts and stop repeating the same pointless crying. You're saying we want DA to "go above and beyond" what any other RPG does but we just want some of the same kind of content from BioWare's previous games to be included in the zones. We point to TW3 because it's such a similar game on the surface and yet it manages to have both an open world AND engaging side quests. Both "companion" quests AND other fun quests as well as the fluff. DA:I completely separates anything fun from the zones which makes those zones pointless.
The Witcher 3 still doesn't have the depth of lore, the quality characters Bioware consistently provides (even in Inquisition). TW3 is also just not as cerebrally engaging when you really think about the forces at play in that world, and not nearly as socially progressive, if at all (thanks to Gaider).
The reason I lament is because I just know if Inquisition had higher quality combat mechanics, quest design, and story, in addition to these other advantages (basically the best of TW3+the best of DA) I'd cry because the perfection is too painful to behold.
Retour en haut
I don't know if your reading comprehension is terrible (for the millionth time no one is saying MMOs invented shallow crappy quests) or if you just want an excuse to try and insult people. 
