609 réponses à ce sujet

[correctamundo]

Thanks. But think about this scenario. Under most circumstances, the player will talk to the farmer to activate the quest, then move toward Druffy. However, that rift happens to be in between the two, so on a first playthrough, odds are you'll deal with it before even reaching Druffy. If, say, it only appeared after she started following you, that would have helped.

 

And it might have funny if they had a short cutscene where demons came out of the rift and incapacitated Quizzy, and just as they were about to attack again, Druffy bolts into the shot and rams one! That's just some random idea off the top of my head, I'm sure people who design quests for a living could do better if they tried.

 

Sort of. At this point, you're a grunt in some ways, but still special. The troops look up to you, you have influence, and presumably they will try to keep you alive. So I propose an idea to make that quest a bit better and more realistic that I've suggested in the past:

 

You know that platoon of Inquisition soldiers parked just outside the village, doing target practice? How about we have the option to ask/order a few of them to use some local rams for practice instead? It's not like demons are covering the Hinterlands or anything, and even if they run into one, it's part of the job. Or, you could do the quest how you have to now, and choose to get the meat yourself. Even just that adds a fair bit of roleplay value, for the same result.

 

This is something I've thought about, though not for the exact same reasons. In some ways, it makes sense to have them in Skyhold; you can't judge someone formally in the field. But the reason it irked me by the end was because it happened to basically anyone important, and seemed pretty contrived that everyone of import that you fight would just barely survive when no one else does, and that the Inquisitor would auto-dialogue to take them back to Skyhold for judgement.

 

It's a bit of "Oh, thanks for making that decision for me" sprinkled onto a large portion of plot-convenience.

 

Yes, you may reach Druffy and the rift from several directions and may not be able to take advantage of her. I don't necessarily see that as bad though. I totally missed that in my first PT. Got creamed by the despair demons and had to flee. Some other player may find the rift after being to Redcliffe farms though and make the connection so they could use the Druffy tactic. And even if it takes more than one trip through the Hinterlands to figure Druffy out I don't see that as bad either.

 

I'm all for cut scenes but I don't necessarily crave them. Sometimes I even dislike them, for instance when the cut scene changes my group deployment and just drops the group in a kill zone after I have painstakingly snuck up using all possible cover.

 

We use the troops for getting the mages caches though. The troops we have deployed up in ram lands get constantly attacked by fighting mages and templars. But yes, they could have given us the easy way out for less (or negative influence (the Herald is a coward ;-))).

 

I agree that they should have just given us the opportunity to outright judge and execute Servis in the field as well some others suitable npcs.

[Addictress]

Their arguments only work with cherry picking. Origins had as many fetch quests, but with a non open world setting, the travel from point to point was much shorter. Many quests was simple ferrying things around or finding lost things with little option other than "do it/don't do it". Seriously, the only real difference is that in DA: I, the cutscenes that offer nothing but facial close ups were switched out for a quicker

If you don't like Inquisition's side content fine. But it is neither objectively worse or lesser

Just ****** stop right there. Cut scenes is already one criteria which is a weight we place on the scale in DAO's favor.

A difference is a difference. Quest + cut scene. Versus just quest. STOP. Regardless of whether you really like cut scenes, which is technically more?

Quest.

Quest + cut scene.

Let us assign the value of 1 to "Quest."

You don't like cut scenes. Still, cut scenes can't be 0. They can be .000001, if you want, OK? Let's make the value of cut scenes .000001.

Let's add this up.

1 + .000001 = 1.000001.

Now, which is more? 1 or 1.000001?

The problem is people keep saying [cut scenes] = 0. Maybe they even say it is negative. They really PREFER NOT to have them.

I think they're lying or daft. Cut scenes 1. Exist 2. As I explained before, we have established visual traditions from the motion picture industry widely accepted in games to improve storytelling effectiveness. We have to have assumptions that we all come from a shared cultural background playing these games and being informed by the same set of artistic devices and tools to convey stories. Although other methods of gaming exist, we restrict our discussion to AAA RPG games. Not only that, Bioware games, which we are all fans of. Given that, then we should accept that cut scenes are more likely than not a positive tool in storytelling. Feel free to assign a value of .000001 if you want, but you're probably lying if you assign 0 or negative values to it. If you TRULY HATE cut scenes then I'm sorry, we have to agree to disagree. You assign negative values to it. Fine.

But understand this. Even the tiniest positive decimal number assigned will logically tip the favor in an Origin fetch quest's scale.


Stop saying we aren't thoroughly critiquing. You ignore all the posts.

Show me a similar quest to Ortan Thaig in DAI. Or did you not read? There were more than just cut scenes that were different.

In DA2, the ONLY collection quest I remember is for the Qunari swords. Oops! We had a cut scene with a qunari for that, too. Wow.

[Addictress]

Yay, here's that argument that nobody's making being made yet again. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's not going to make it true. RPGs use RPG elements, MMO "particularities", a term made up to continue to support "MMO quests", doesn't make it a valid argument, it just means you made up a term to support an invalid argument. Congratulations?

In fact, in regard to the bolded, and one of the quests that has been bandied about, the ram meat, it in fact has relevance to the story, given to it by the lore, and what's going on in the surrounding countryside. You can, as you have, continue to ignore this, but just as with repeating MMO particularities won't make it true, repeating "It didn't tie into the story" until the next millennium won't make it true either.

Did you read my post about Ortan Thaig? I've yet to see a proper reply to it.

You didn't explain how the argument is invalid.

Do you not understand what the word "particularity" means? I also said "traits." How about "attributes"? Regardless, what is invalid in the fact I don't like certain attributes in MMOs being applied in single-player games? Is there something wrong in this statement? That's what I said.

[Addictress]

Except all you've done is whine and resort to cheap insults at the drop the hat. It has been explained to you countless times... There is substantial side content (the main damn argument... Do you get it yet?!), and it sometime is even in the zones with *gasp* dialogue (the mage you find and can chose to kill or judge, the agents you can recruit, the desire demon...) but you keep hand waving it away and ignore the very same issues in other games. And let us not forget banter.. You know character development only available in zones : O. Damn, making your arguments look as brittle as they are with such ease.

So put me on the ignore list because you have fully proven to be immature and incapable of any semblence of an intelligent discussion. Toodles "sweetie". Or did you forget you launched that condescending jab too? Damn, sorry to destroy your ranting.

The desire demon is a good quest although again it doesn't use cut scenes. But you are right it is one of the better quests because it actually takes place in more than one location, and you can choose to deal or not deal. But that's also a very simple choice. Just two options. Also there is that wealthy lady in Sahrnia. I think that's one of the stronger quests. However the wealthy lady in Sarhnia gets judged and some of us don't think reducing everything to the same judging scene is terribly creative. I mean really....same judgement scene for everything.

We are aware of these side quests. But as we kept saying, they're PROPORTIONALLY fewer. The RATIO of collection or stiff quests to "OK quests" is far greater than in other games. In addition, their spatial utilization is also important. The vastness of the regions dwarf the "OK quests" and highlight the proportional prevalence of the collection quests.

[hoechlbear]

Wow, this thread is at full speed. I haven't read all of the posts yet, so I'm sorry if something similar has been said already, but I want to answer to this particular person.

 

 

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.

 

Right, because DAI's companion quests don't involve essentially "go to this place, kill these people/fetch these things", right? Oh wait, it does.. Not to mention the ones that are literally fetch quests and the game doesn't even try to hide it (kill these venatori, kill these rogue mages/templars, activate these artifacts, fetch these warden objects), so I find it funny that you are comparing "companion" quests in TW3 to the shards and astrariums, when the companion's quests in DAI are literally the same thing or "worse", if we go by your standards. 

 

 

Most side content (and the main quest...) is talk, follow a person or trail, fight and/or fetch something, talk. Yeah... Wasn't exactly lighting my world on fire.

 

So I see you prefer "Pick up note from the ground, go to X mark on map and fetch the object/kill the thing", right? From your posts it seems those lighted your world on fire.

 

Like I said, every quest in every game can come down to "talk to someone, go to place, do the thing." It's how those quests are handled and how they unfold that matters. Cutscenes and meaningful dialogue with the NPCs go a long way to make those quests feel like a different experience and make them more memorable. Also the way you can complete said quest, by having choices and different outcomes that can have consequences sometimes. TW3 does that well, that is why people praise it for its sidequests. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what else to tell you. If you didn't feel like the story in the TW3 sidequests were engaging, that's one thing, and that's your opinion, fine. But besides the witcher contracts, each quest offered a different story, different ways for you to solve it, different outcomes, different experiences. Same cannot be said for the majority of DAI's sidequests.

 

TW3's sidequests are diverse in the sense that it can give you dark quests with tough choices and different paths, but also quick, but funny, quests that are there to lift the mood and provide some entertaining moments of Geralt with other NPCs (or animals). They aren't supposed to be brilliant. Geralt himself mocks these quests. This is the case of the pan quest ("never taken on a pan contract") and the goat, Princess (I mean, come on, the goat's name alone and the name of the quest "Princess in Distress" should be an indication of that). If you compare those quests to similar ones in DAI, you can see the glaring difference. There is nothing funny about escorting the druffalo. It is handled like any other quest. Your character doesn't even say a thing, nor do your companions. While you're making the druffalo follow you (which is the most annoying task ever because he's so slow and can get stuck in places) at least your companions could be talking about how the mighty Herald/Inquisitor is herding a cow. There could be a cutscene when you approach the rift and we could see the druffalo taking down the demons on its own while everyone is watching in shock. After that, some of the companions could suggest that the Inquisitor should recruit him for the Inquisition. Now that would make that quest stand out more, because, yes, it's still ridiculous, but at least it could have had some humor to it, much like the goat in TW3. But the fact that the game handles that quest like it's "serious business", just makes it even more ridiculous, and not in a good way.

 

EDIT: And from what I'm reading from your posts, you continue to compare actual filler content to the sidequests that are supposed to be more meaty. Shards, rifts, bottles, camps, astrariums, that is filler content. Monster nests, bandit camps, treasures, abandoned places, that is filler content. We are comparing sidequests though, not filler. If anyone is saying that the sidequests in DAI feel like filler is because they think there isn't much of a difference between picking up shards from picking up rings and other random objects from the ground. There's a difference because one is meant to be filler content, but the other doesn't, yet they feel like the same thing because there isn't anything that distinguish them.

[Orian Tabris]

But there are... Several possible agents have dialogue options (one I didn't know was agent capable til my third run), a mage in the western approach gives you options and a possible judgement, the desire demon, one of those tempted by said demon, the woman you can judge offers flavour dialogue.... There are lots of moments like that in just the initial releasw... DLC adds more.

 

I wasn't trying to imply DA:I didn't give us those sorts of side quests, I was just stating that I want them. You have to admit though, Origins had a lot more of them than either DA2 or DA:I, and they frequently gave the player insight into Thedas and the people that live there.

[vbibbi]

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.

No one in this thread has mentioned EA at this point until you. So that's your own bias influencing how you're reading all of these posts.

 

The issue is also that while other Bioware games have had the same "filler" and "fetch" quests, they weren't the only side quests in the games. We still had other deeper quests. But the majority of side quests in DAI are limited to these quests with minimal to no interaction or choices. How many side quests automatically ended when we picked up an item or a letter or killed an enemy? In previous games, we would still at least have to return to the quest giver and give them the item, tell them the enemy was dead, etc. and complete the quest that way. Not amazing quest design but at least there's a a reason we're doing the quest in game and not through headcanon explanation.

 

But...if you want to equate those of us who hold Bioware to higher game design standards than other companies as bad guys, go ahead. That doesn't speak well for those who are fine with the status quo and don't want games to improve elements they didn't like. I would think Bioware would appreciate some of their fans hold them to higher standards than other game companies and expect the best of them.

 

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.

 

edit: inappropriate content alert omg

Yeah, I enjoyedTW3 well enough and appreciate its design, but it's by no means my favorite setting or cast of characters. Most Bioware games have a more enjoyable setting, main story, and characters for me. And it's more replayable for me because of the different types of PCs I can create. So it's more of a shame for me when I see TW3 having better side quest design and open world mechanics than DAI, because I would much rather play DAI endlessly.

 

And yet that sude content exists in DA: I... As has neen repeated time and again. The companion content alone matches most RPGs for "meanigful" content that meets the criteria. And there are at least two judgements born out of simply wandering and completing the "filler/fetch" questing.

But apparently that side content does not count for reasons that no one has yet explained. And the simple facts that TW3 has a similar offering of meaningful and filler content, this continued posturing that DA: I suffered for it but TW3 is a shining example of revolutionary quest design is shown for pure monsense. DA: I gave us quite a rich and deep side offering. People are cherry picking what counts just to make a false statement.

The reasons, which have been pointed out already, are that we are criticizing what we consider poorly done side quests, not all quests in DAI. Most of the companion quests were good, we're not debating that. But most of the other side quests weren't, in our opinions. Your argument that as long as there are a few good quests, we shouldn't criticize any of the quests is hollow. It's not pure monsense, we have given examples of the poor quests.

 

And yet the shards add details with the skulls and the room you find out how those skulls are made. Or how about the tidbits found in little notes left behind, or bodies found on a cliffside, or beneath one or.... Yeah I can go on. Much of what DA has always done is a subtle flavour tucked away here and there. What you want is a blunt hammer since you seem to have missed much of the little details because Bioware didn't (and has never) flashed a neon "look here is a little detail!" Sign over it. Seriously, the more you post the clearer it becomes that Inquisition isn't the issue... It's your ability to grasp things that don't beat you over the head.

The shards can provide details when we open that room in Redcliffe, yes. That's it. There's no further details provided by collecting 50 or 100 of the damn things. And the payoff is a disappointing generic demon fight with a cryptic message that to date has not yielded any actual information.

 

And you're using environmental design to replace side quests. If you enjoy that in games, that's good for you. But I play Bioware games for characters and story, not for the scenery. Bioware has never flashed a neon sign over our heads before because their story telling was good enough that the quests directed us seamlessly without needing further explanation.

 

Your ad hominem attacks that anyone disagreeing with you is stupid isn't doing you or your arguments any credit. If that's what you have to resort to in order to prove your point, rather than facts and examples, you don't have much to go on.

 

This is just wrong. "finding ram meat" does indeed develop your Herald. It can be one of the things you do to gain the Power you need. In fact, doing that, and chasing blankets for the refugees can give you all the power you need to go to Val Royeaux, if you open the camps you find along the way. This is developing your Herald into what will become the Inquisitor.

No. It provides power in order to unlock the next maps/main quests. It does nothing to develop the PC as a character. In headcanon sure we can say the reason we're doing rams meat and blankets instead of closing rifts or requisitions to unlock the four power is because we want to help people more than stop demons appearing or outfitting our soldiers. But that's all headcanon, nothing in the game indicates the reasoning behind doing the quests other than to unlock power. Bioware did not design these quests as a roleplaying task but as a farming method, otherwise they would have included more dialogue where the PC can accept or reject the quests and possibly provide reasons for why the PC is/isn't doing the quests.

 

If there were some type of internal counter of how many of these quests we had accomplished and why, similar to the Keep's tracking of if we're a recruiting, merciful, harsh judge, then there could be an argument that these quests develop the flavor of the Herald and the Inquisition they end up leading. But there are no changes in outcome based on which side quests we choose to complete.

[Steelcan]

This is just wrong. "finding ram meat" does indeed develop your Herald. It can be one of the things you do to gain the Power you need. In fact, doing that, and chasing blankets for the refugees can give you all the power you need to go to Val Royeaux, if you open the camps you find along the way. This is developing your Herald into what will become the Inquisitor.

What dialogue options do you get while chasing blankets that do that?

All these missions donis further reinforce the Inquisition as a force for good something that's already been firmly established.

[CronoDragoon]

What dialogue options do you get while chasing blankets that do that?

All these missions donis further reinforce the Inquisition as a force for good something that's already been firmly established.

 

No, it hasn't. Those quests are at the very beginning of the game and quite possibly are the Inquisition's first acts as an organization. Robert's point is that the Inquisition begins as a grassroots organization, lacking the support of the Chantry or official governments. Doing those quests will begin changing NPC dialogue around the Hinterlands to praising the Inquisition.

 

I don't find the quests themselves particularly compelling, but there's a clear logical and narrative purpose to them. They are pretty typical for Inquisition's quests, which are a bunch of small bits that add up to represent a whole. This goes along with your point that there's little variance to the quests themselves.

[vbibbi]

No, it hasn't. Those quests are at the very beginning of the game and quite possibly are the Inquisition's first acts as an organization. Robert's point is that the Inquisition begins as a grassroots organization, lacking the support of the Chantry or official governments. Doing those quests will begin changing NPC dialogue around the Hinterlands to praising the Inquisition.

 

I don't find the quests themselves particularly compelling, but there's a clear logical and narrative purpose to them. They are pretty typical for Inquisition's quests, which are a bunch of small bits that add up to represent a whole. This goes along with your point that there's little variance to the quests themselves.

But it's not character development as he's painting it. Unless a Herald who performs all of the quests handed to them the same way with the same results is roleplaying, in which case there is only one role to play as: the obedient Herald-turned-Inquisitor. If we had been able to negotiate with a trader for a discount on blankets, or steal some from Haven's stores, or perform a raid on a templar or rebel mage camp to get the blankets, or even collected enough cloth to commission blankets from the requisition officer (curse her!), then it would be roleplaying and developing the Herald into the type of Inquisitor they would become. If we could even tell Corporal Vale directly that we don't have time for these shenanigans and need to get to Val Royeux as quickly as possible, that would be a method of informing us of what kind of Inquisitor we would be.

 

There needs to be a reason to perform these tasks besides "I need four power points to reach the next zone" because we could do any number of tasks in the Hinterlands to get those points and move on without touching the Crossroads at all. It doesn't later affect our reputation as a grassroots organization, it's not like if we don't help the refugees by the end of IYHSB, we face troop desertion or hostility from locals because we didn't help the little people, and they died of starvation/exposure/nug attacks.

[robertthebard]

Did you read my post about Ortan Thaig? I've yet to see a proper reply to it.

You didn't explain how the argument is invalid.

Do you not understand what the word "particularity" means? I also said "traits." How about "attributes"? Regardless, what is invalid in the fact I don't like certain attributes in MMOs being applied in single-player games? Is there something wrong in this statement? That's what I said.

...and here we are again. No. There is no such thing as MMO "traits". This is a strawman created by people that want to throw out an excuse for hating on a particular quest, or quest archetype. In order for this to be a factual statement, as opposed to a fabrication, MMOs would have had to come first. So you make a film, 20 years later, I remake your film. 10 years after that, someone else remakes your film. Are they using your ideas, or mine? It's going to make a difference if there's royalties to be paid, isn't there? So if I hit 'em up for the royalties, it's going to be fine with you, since you believe that now that I've used your ideas, they're my ideas. This is the oversimplified version of what you're saying when you say "MMO particularity". As I've said, so many times that people have begun to tell me I'm making up the reason to say it: A fetch quest is a fetch quest, it's not MMO specific. I've pointed out multiple times that they, along with all other RPG staple archetypical quests have existed since PnP gaming was the only way to play an RPG. So using RPG elements to make an RPG game isn't "using MMO particularities", it's using RPG elements. The more you know.

What dialogue options do you get while chasing blankets that do that?

All these missions donis further reinforce the Inquisition as a force for good something that's already been firmly established.

You actually do get dialog while chasing after the caches, nope, no options, but if you choose to ignore them, you lose out on an agent for your Inquisition, which is a measurable loss. Yes, this works to build up the Inquisition, but the people see the Herald doing it, so it adds to your personal rep as well. I guess this doesn't count because there's no way for you to measure it?

Yes, because being renounced by the Chantry is firmly established. Your grasp of the story to this point is lacking, in a big way. You are there, in fact, to talk to Gisselle first, and even after this, and going to Val Royeaux, you're not firmly established as anything. In fact, I'd say, given dialog after defeating Cory, that you're not firmly established as anything until after Cory's defeated.

[robertthebard]

But it's not character development as he's painting it. Unless a Herald who performs all of the quests handed to them the same way with the same results is roleplaying, in which case there is only one role to play as: the obedient Herald-turned-Inquisitor. If we had been able to negotiate with a trader for a discount on blankets, or steal some from Haven's stores, or perform a raid on a templar or rebel mage camp to get the blankets, or even collected enough cloth to commission blankets from the requisition officer (curse her!), then it would be roleplaying and developing the Herald into the type of Inquisitor they would become. If we could even tell Corporal Vale directly that we don't have time for these shenanigans and need to get to Val Royeux as quickly as possible, that would be a method of informing us of what kind of Inquisitor we would be.

So I do this quest this way, this time, and ignore it next time, or ignore the agent from it, and that's not RP because it's not what you would do? We actually do "raid" the mages for the blankets, we steal their caches after all. Here's the kicker, we don't even do the stealing, we tell the guy where to go look, and he sends guys out to do the stealing. If you're just going to tell him you don't have time, why didn't you just sit in Haven, wondering why you can't go? The end result is the same, you can't go. You don't have time to get horses for the Inquisition either, do you?
 

There needs to be a reason to perform these tasks besides "I need four power points to reach the next zone" because we could do any number of tasks in the Hinterlands to get those points and move on without touching the Crossroads at all. It doesn't later affect our reputation as a grassroots organization, it's not like if we don't help the refugees by the end of IYHSB, we face troop desertion or hostility from locals because we didn't help the little people, and they died of starvation/exposure/nug attacks.

You talk a lot about RP in your first paragraph, and then demonstrate a total lack of same in the next. There are reasons other than power, but frankly, power is, in and of itself, a RP reason to do these things. "But it's on a bar" isn't relevant, unless you're spending all your time looking at that bar? In which case, you're not really RPing, but metagaming when you can stop. Then we get back to the hyperbole. You actually can see the results of not doing these things, all over the Hinterlands. NPCs set up little camps in areas that are supposed to be safe, but if you don't "make" them safe, they die. Mages, Templars or the faux highwaymen will kill them. You can prevent this, by simply doing some side and some main story. We also run into the lack of understanding context with this paragraph: you didn't go to the Crossroads to speak with Vale, or the hunter, or the private that needs blankets, you go to talk to Gisselle, who is there aiding the refugees and townsfolk that have been affected by the Mage/Templar war. Leliana covers this in the war room before you ever go. No matter how hard you want to rationalize or justify your desire to stay out of the Hinterlands, you can't. You can't even think about getting to Val Royeaux to advance the plot until you talk to Gisselle.

[CronoDragoon]

But it's not character development as he's painting it. Unless a Herald who performs all of the quests handed to them the same way with the same results is roleplaying, in which case there is only one role to play as: the obedient Herald-turned-Inquisitor. If we had been able to negotiate with a trader for a discount on blankets, or steal some from Haven's stores, or perform a raid on a templar or rebel mage camp to get the blankets, or even collected enough cloth to commission blankets from the requisition officer (curse her!), then it would be roleplaying and developing the Herald into the type of Inquisitor they would become. If we could even tell Corporal Vale directly that we don't have time for these shenanigans and need to get to Val Royeux as quickly as possible, that would be a method of informing us of what kind of Inquisitor we would be.

 

There needs to be a reason to perform these tasks besides "I need four power points to reach the next zone" because we could do any number of tasks in the Hinterlands to get those points and move on without touching the Crossroads at all. It doesn't later affect our reputation as a grassroots organization, it's not like if we don't help the refugees by the end of IYHSB, we face troop desertion or hostility from locals because we didn't help the little people, and they died of starvation/exposure/nug attacks.

 

It's not role-playing except insofar as you can choose to do it or not, but it is character development. You are the spearhead for the Inquisition and it's notable that your character is the one that becomes synonymous with the Inquisition by the time Skyhold comes around, hence you becoming the Inquisitor. I don't know how much it says about what kind of Inquisitor you are, only that it plays an important role in you being any kind of Inquisitor at all.

 

Yes, if you wish you could deliberately avoid the Crossroads, except that even the main path sends you there so at the very least you are making an appearance and defending the refugees from rogue mage/templar units as happens when you first meet Giselle. It's clear BioWare wanted the narrative weight of bolstering the refugee camps to be part of why the Inquisition's fame spreads, though if you want to just clear rifts as well that's obviously up to you. I'd argue an Inquisitor that skips helping refugees and only establishes camps and closes rifts is indeed a different type of Inquisitor than one who focuses on the NPCs, but since the game doesn't offer much reactivity either way it's mostly headcanon. Sylvius might say here that all role-playing is headcanon, and while I don't necessarily agree he does have a point: reactivity is important, but so is the game offering you choices of how to proceed.

 

This line of conversation feels a bit stale to me for a few reasons though, and both are ones I don't think anyone should disagree with: 1) the refugee quests and most quests in Inquisition do a great job of establishing narrative weight behind the Inquisition's rise to power, but 2) a lot of the quests aren't terribly interesting in their own right as self-contained stories. I think that's a good summary of Inquisition's quest design, and my past couple posts have only been to highlight that #1 is as obvious as #2.

[hoechlbear]

 

 You actually can see the results of not doing these things, all over the Hinterlands. NPCs set up little camps in areas that are supposed to be safe, but if you don't "make" them safe, they die. Mages, Templars or the faux highwaymen will kill them. You can prevent this, by simply doing some side and some main story. 

 

You mean the same NPCs that spawn in random locations? In my game they even appeared on a river once. Yes, with a campfire, sitting on the water. That did wonders to my immersion. Also, I never once saw them being attacked, let alone die. When I was wandering in the Hinterlands they would constantly appear in different places. Why the heck would refugees even set up a fire in the middle of nowhere and just sit there forever doing nothing? Were they waiting to be attacked by bears or bandits? For one, that doesn't make sense for me. Specially when there's a safe place: the crossroads with Inquisition forces. But even so, I never saw anything happening to them. I actually think more than once I was fighting some enemies not too far away from them, and they were just sitting there and not reacting at all, just like any other NPC in the world. So I don't see how doing or not doing the quests affect things "all over the Hinterlands", when the only thing I noticed was some ambient dialogue changes.

[Mr Fixit]

This thread is going full speed ahead into a minefield of been there done that. Or, if you prefer, into a full spread of Japanese Long Lance 610mm been there done that torpedoes.

 

Seriously now, if there's one thing I can't wrap my head around in this discussion, it's that quite a few people apparently want their side content to be as linear and simplified as possible. Sure, you like DAI. And why wouldn't you? I like DAI as well; quite a bit actually. But in the name of the old gods and the new (and R'hllor as well), would you guys really not appreciate a more detailed side quest structure with more dialogues, more ways to complete quests (and therefore more ways to characterize your Inquisitors besides simple Accept/Decline) and evident consequences more fully integrated into the main game aside from the power mechanic?

 

Really guys? You really don't want such content in the zones? You're actively opposed to it? If DA 4 comes along in a few years and has such detailed, branching side quests, you would come here on Bioware forums and advocate the return to DAI's way of doing things? Bioware, we implore you to abandon this multiple choice folly with diverging consequences and return to the good old days of Accept/Decline! You're ruining our RP!

 

C'mon guys, there's different opinions and then there's pure obstinacy for the sake of it.

[vbibbi]

So I do this quest this way, this time, and ignore it next time, or ignore the agent from it, and that's not RP because it's not what you would do? We actually do "raid" the mages for the blankets, we steal their caches after all. Here's the kicker, we don't even do the stealing, we tell the guy where to go look, and he sends guys out to do the stealing. If you're just going to tell him you don't have time, why didn't you just sit in Haven, wondering why you can't go? The end result is the same, you can't go. You don't have time to get horses for the Inquisition either, do you?

Do you really not see the difference between the role playing suggestions I made and the binary choice of accepting the quest or not? I feel like you are willfully "misunderstanding" what I'm saying. To get blankets, we mark locations on the map. Yup. And that leads to the agents picking up the blankets and distributing them. Yup. That is in no way the same as: okay we need to get blankets for the refugees. I can use the cloth I've gathered to requisition blankets, I can use my dialogue perk to talk to the merchant and arrange some type of discount (or use one of Josephine's agents to help), I can ask Varric to get me in touch with any of his contacts to divert some trade caravans to the region, I can scout out the mage stronghold and either steal blankets from them, kill everyone and take the blankets, or try to negotiate a ceasefire with them and buy blankets from them.

I actually have never NOT done the horse master quest, but I don't think it's required to get mounts in order to progress the main story. In fact, none of the zone "main missions" are required to complete the game.

It's a valid role playing option to have a PC who thinks stopping the Breach is the first priority. They would do the bare minimum required to meet with the Chantry and conscript the mages or templars. For that PC, spending time running around the wilderness looking for blankets and herbs and food might NOT be the best use of their time. Just because that PC doesn't do those quests doesn't mean they're just sitting around Haven. On the contrary, they are trying to make the best use of their time and go from major quest to major quest. We know as gamers that the Breach isn't going to keep spreading in real time, but the PC has no way of knowing how stable it is and how much time they have to find allies to close it.
 
 

You talk a lot about RP in your first paragraph, and then demonstrate a total lack of same in the next. There are reasons other than power, but frankly, power is, in and of itself, a RP reason to do these things. "But it's on a bar" isn't relevant, unless you're spending all your time looking at that bar? In which case, you're not really RPing, but metagaming when you can stop. Then we get back to the hyperbole. You actually can see the results of not doing these things, all over the Hinterlands. NPCs set up little camps in areas that are supposed to be safe, but if you don't "make" them safe, they die. Mages, Templars or the faux highwaymen will kill them. You can prevent this, by simply doing some side and some main story. We also run into the lack of understanding context with this paragraph: you didn't go to the Crossroads to speak with Vale, or the hunter, or the private that needs blankets, you go to talk to Gisselle, who is there aiding the refugees and townsfolk that have been affected by the Mage/Templar war. Leliana covers this in the war room before you ever go. No matter how hard you want to rationalize or justify your desire to stay out of the Hinterlands, you can't. You can't even think about getting to Val Royeaux to advance the plot until you talk to Gisselle.

I have played the game, I don't need you to explain the reason why we're in the Hinterlands. But Bioware created the game so that we don't actually have to follow what the game tells us. The power mechanic is their method of showing our influence, but it doesn't work as well as it could. If the four power points is meant to represent the Inquisition's good deeds earning it a reputation and forcing the Chantry to meet with us, then why can we gain power by farming the requisitions officer? Or after we talk to Giselle we could go to the Storm Coast or Fallow Mire or Oasis and gain power in those maps, which have no impact on the Hinterlands, but still gives us enough power to visit Val Royeux.
 
It's not metagaming to see that we've been granted access to move on to Val Royeux and then go there. That's how the game is played. Plus the companions actually say we should move on to VR once we have enough power.
 

It's not role-playing except insofar as you can choose to do it or not, but it is character development. You are the spearhead for the Inquisition and it's notable that your character is the one that becomes synonymous with the Inquisition by the time Skyhold comes around, hence you becoming the Inquisitor. I don't know how much it says about what kind of Inquisitor you are, only that it plays an important role in you being any kind of Inquisitor at all.
 
Yes, if you wish you could deliberately avoid the Crossroads, except that even the main path sends you there so at the very least you are making an appearance and defending the refugees from rogue mage/templar units as happens when you first meet Giselle. It's clear BioWare wanted the narrative weight of bolstering the refugee camps to be part of why the Inquisition's fame spreads, though if you want to just clear rifts as well that's obviously up to you. I'd argue an Inquisitor that skips helping refugees and only establishes camps and closes rifts is indeed a different type of Inquisitor than one who focuses on the NPCs, but since the game doesn't offer much reactivity either way it's mostly headcanon. Sylvius might say here that all role-playing is headcanon, and while I don't necessarily agree he does have a point: reactivity is important, but so is the game offering you choices of how to proceed.
 
This line of conversation feels a bit stale to me for a few reasons though, and both are ones I don't think anyone should disagree with: 1) the refugee quests and most quests in Inquisition do a great job of establishing narrative weight behind the Inquisition's rise to power, but 2) a lot of the quests aren't terribly interesting in their own right as self-contained stories. I think that's a good summary of Inquisition's quest design, and my past couple posts have only been to highlight that #1 is as obvious as #2.

I agree that most of the roleplaying is left to headcanon, which I think is a problem. I don't agree that your two points don't permit disagreement. The fact that we've been debating the refugee quests and other side quests in this thread proves that several people don't agree with how they establish narrative weight.

 

Considering that the Herald chooses whether to ally or conscript the mages/templars, and then back at Haven Cassandra yells at us for our choice, saying it was not our decision to make, the game is fairly uneven in its depiction of our rise to leadership. We can say that it was a spur of the moment decision, that a decision had to be made on the spot and not wait for the advisors to debate the best course of action before deciding how to handle the mages/templars. It would have been nice if that dialogue had been modified so that a Herald who had done most of the refugee quests was thanked for their decision, as they had proven competent in their decisions before, while a Herald who hadn't done much would get Cassandra yelling at them for making the decision.

[Realmzmaster]

Nothing you said conflicts with the logic I used.

We do not like the particularities of MMOs, period. Doesn't matter what begat those particularities. Doesn't matter if Darth Vader is Luke's father. Doesn't change the fact we don't want these MMO traits in current SP RPG games, OK?

Those particularities include rote collection quests that lack depth or quality, relevance to either lore or story, cinematic orchestration, etc.

 

The point is that they are not particularities of MMOs. They are particularities of all crpgs. The collection quests did not begin with MMOs. They have been in crpgs from the beginning and before that P n P systems.

 

I object when posters point to MMOs and think that is where it began. Sorry, it has been around for a long time. Collection quests are nothing new. They have been the staple of crpgs since before Wizardy.

 

Collection quests are no more the product of MMOs than the Holy Trinity (Warrior, Wizard and Thief). In fact cutscenes are far newer in crpgs. Previous crpgs simply did not have them. Now it to the point where (IMHO) cuttscenes are overdone in crpgs.

[UniformGreyColor]

This thread is going full speed ahead into a minefield of been there done that. Or, if you prefer, into a full spread of Japanese Long Lance 610mm been there done that torpedoes.

 

Seriously now, if there's one thing I can't wrap my head around in this discussion, it's that quite a few people apparently want their side content to be as linear and simplified as possible. Sure, you like DAI. And why wouldn't you? I like DAI as well; quite a bit actually. But in the name of the old gods and the new (and R'hllor as well), would you guys really not appreciate a more detailed side quest structure with more dialogues, more ways to complete quests (and therefore more ways to characterize your Inquisitors besides simple Accept/Decline) and evident consequences more fully integrated into the main game aside from the power mechanic?

 

Really guys? You really don't want such content in the zones? You're actively opposed to it? If DA 4 comes along in a few years and has such detailed, branching side quests, you would come here on Bioware forums and advocate the return to DAI's way of doing things? Bioware, we implore you to abandon this multiple choice folly with diverging consequences and return to the good old days of Accept/Decline! You're ruining our RP!

 

C'mon guys, there's different opinions and then there's pure obstinacy for the sake of it.

 

The question for me is not and has never been "do I want choices in doing side quests?" but "what are we giving up to have them?"

[vbibbi]

The question for me is not and has never been "do I want choices in doing side quests?" but "what are we giving up to have them?"

Our first born child!

 

 

Seriously, though, I would have been fine with fewer maps, less Skyhold customization, removal of mounts (since they were useless anyway). I know most are going to disagree, but I would rather have only been allowed to play as human, and only one voice set, to improve the side quests. That was a lot of development time and resources there, and paying twice the budget for all of the Inquisitor's lines couldn't have been cheap.

 

ETA: This is going to get me in trouble, but I would have rather Bio worked on side quests than spend the extra year creating the Cullen and Solas romances.

[hoechlbear]

 

I actually have never NOT done the horse master quest, but I don't think it's required to get mounts in order to progress the main story.

 

I don't think we even see the Inquisition using the horses? Maybe they do and I haven't noticed, I only remember seeing one or two horses in the barn at Skyhold.

 

 

Seriously, though, I would have been fine with fewer maps, less Skyhold customization, removal of mounts (since they were useless anyway). I know most are going to disagree, but I would rather have only been allowed to play as human, and only one voice set, to improve the side quests. That was a lot of development time and resources there, and paying twice the budget for all of the Inquisitor's lines couldn't have been cheap.

 

Agreed.

 

 

ETA: This is going to get me in trouble, but I would have rather Bio worked on side quests than spend the extra year creating the Cullen and Solas romances.

 

Hey, hey let's not go that far. Lol But on a serious note, I'd agree with everything you said if that would mean a longer main story and a better villain, along with good sidequests. I don't think they would need to cut so many things in order to have some decent sidequests though. 

[AlanC9]

Or after we talk to Giselle we could go to the Storm Coast or Fallow Mire or Oasis and gain power in those maps, which have no impact on the Hinterlands, but still gives us enough power to visit Val Royeux.

Though in order to open up those maps, you need to need to spend as much Power as you could have spent to just go straight to Val Royeaux.

Anyway, you're on to something here. Spending Power to open up non-plot areas sets up a weird dynamic where opening up those areas will actually be counterproductive for much of the game. In a strategic sense, that is; if you're in search of, say, more levels or better crafting mats, that's obviously productive. I guess you can say that Emprise du Lion is a straight-up trade of Power for level 3 mats.

Considering that the Herald chooses whether to ally or conscript the mages/templars, and then back at Haven Cassandra yells at us for our choice, saying it was not our decision to make, the game is fairly uneven in its depiction of our rise to leadership.

Huh? I just played through IHW last night, and after allying with the mages Cassandra supported the Herald's decision when back in Haven.

[CronoDragoon]

I agree that most of the roleplaying is left to headcanon, which I think is a problem. I don't agree that your two points don't permit disagreement. The fact that we've been debating the refugee quests and other side quests in this thread proves that several people don't agree with how they establish narrative weight.

We've been debating the refugee quests in several aspects, but the idea that the quests have a clear purpose in building the reputation and influence of the Inquisition - like most quests in the game - is I think fairly unassailable. What I think's just as obvious is that, since the Hinterlands is the first zone with the Inquisition being a fledgling organization, it makes sense that the scope of the quests is humble. That doesn't mean they need to be as boring as they were, but that's a quibble I have with the actual storytelling/RPing potential of the quests.

One thing I did like though is that in Trespasser they bring up the degree to which the Inquisition's rise to power is pretty much through conquest of claimed land. I mean sure in wartime the Inquisition is just "keeping it safe" but I was wondering what Orlais and Ferelden were going to say once that ended. "Hey you know that safehold we didn't give a **** about and left to bandits that were terrorizing our citizens? Yeah well now that you've restored it and all, that's ours."
 

Considering that the Herald chooses whether to ally or conscript the mages/templars, and then back at Haven Cassandra yells at us for our choice, saying it was not our decision to make, the game is fairly uneven in its depiction of our rise to leadership. We can say that it was a spur of the moment decision, that a decision had to be made on the spot and not wait for the advisors to debate the best course of action before deciding how to handle the mages/templars. It would have been nice if that dialogue had been modified so that a Herald who had done most of the refugee quests was thanked for their decision, as they had proven competent in their decisions before, while a Herald who hadn't done much would get Cassandra yelling at them for making the decision.

I don't think it's all that uneven. By the time you seal the Breach, everyone else in the Inquisition is already accepting your decisions whether or not they are grumpy about it. After all, does Cassandra actually reject your alliance? After you save the Inquisition at Haven is when it becomes especially obvious, and when Giselle makes her play with the Dawn Will Come scene you can smell the writing on the wall.

[AlanC9]

I don't think we even see the Inquisition using the horses? Maybe they do and I haven't noticed, I only remember seeing one or two horses in the barn at Skyhold.

They don't. The real value of the quest is gaining Dennet as an Inquisition branch agent

[vbibbi]

Though in order to open up those maps, you need to need to spend as much Power as you could have spent to just go straight to Val Royeaux.

Anyway, you're on to something here. Spending Power to open up non-plot areas sets up a weird dynamic where opening up those areas will actually be counterproductive for much of the game. In a strategic sense, that is; if you're in search of, say, more levels or better crafting mats, that's obviously productive. I guess you can say that Emprise du Lion is a straight-up trade of Power for level 3 mats.

Huh? I just played through IHW last night, and after allying with the mages Cassandra supported the Herald's decision when back in Haven.

When I conscripted the templars she wasn't happy. Maybe she just reacts based on which option we choose. Or my overall approval wasn't high enough with her yet.

 

They don't. The real value of the quest is gaining Dennet as an Inquisition branch agent

And he is the only Inquisition agent, right? So he can help unlock that line of perks, but doesn't help speed up war table missions. With the level cap and limit to 8 abilities, the Exclusive Training perk isn't that valuable.

 

We've been debating the refugee quests in several aspects, but the idea that the quests have a clear purpose in building the reputation and influence of the Inquisition - like most quests in the game - is I think fairly unassailable. What I think's just as obvious is that, since the Hinterlands is the first zone with the Inquisition being a fledgling organization, it makes sense that the scope of the quests is humble. That doesn't mean they need to be as boring as they were, but that's a quibble I have with the actual storytelling/RPing potential of the quests.

One thing I did like though is that in Trespasser they bring up the degree to which the Inquisition's rise to power is pretty much through conquest of claimed land. I mean sure in wartime the Inquisition is just "keeping it safe" but I was wondering what Orlais and Ferelden were going to say once that ended. "Hey you know that safehold we didn't give a **** about and left to bandits that were terrorizing our citizens? Yeah well now that you've restored it and all, that's ours."
 

I don't think it's all that uneven. By the time you seal the Breach, everyone else in the Inquisition is already accepting your decisions whether or not they are grumpy about it. After all, does Cassandra actually reject your alliance? After you save the Inquisition at Haven is when it becomes especially obvious, and when Giselle makes her play with the Dawn Will Come scene you can smell the writing on the wall.

Okay fair enough, the gradual increase of importance in tasks works. I think the Hinterlands' size harms it, though, as it's too much to digest easily, and people tried to tackle too much of it at once. It could have been broken into a few smaller zones. Some of the smaller tasks like the fenlandaris offering and bear claws and lost letter and zombie grandfather were out of place being minor fetch quests that took place in the higher level areas, and didn't really have any discernable use, since by the time we could safely reach those parts of the map we would have already had enough power to go to VR and probably would have already secured the Crossroads.

 

Having Valammar and the bandit fortress farther out makes sense, but the tiny quests in the far reaches felt like padding out the map. The scale of the Hinterlands also seems to have come about because Bioware wanted to advertise that the first main map in DAI was larger than all of DAO and DA2 combined, rather than because they felt it was necessary to be so large.

[vbibbi]

May I just say...I love the term pickle-extraction and I think I'll be using it to describe quests in the future

All credit to Bhryaen for that gem