609 réponses à ce sujet

[vbibbi]

Oh, those were links?

Hmm... interesting presentation, but I'm not sure it's all that effective. I suppose one could respond with a bunch of YES I DID AND HERE'S WHAT I SAID links.

That is fine if you want. That's not the point. The point was that the poster said that there have been no examples provided as to why people find the quests shallow. I'm not claiming all of the linked posts should objectively prove an opinion "right" or not. I am proving that there have been many examples.

 

How is this an issue?!

[UniformGreyColor]

You claimed that no one has presented any explanations as to why we think the quests are shallow. I just provided you ten links to posts that have provided explanations. I am not required to copy and past everything from those posts for you. You' made the claim that no explanations have been provided, I refuted that claim.

 

There is no difference between people summing up the quest in the game to "go here, do that, come back" to the "reasons" why these fetch quests were shallow.

[vbibbi]

There is no difference between people summing up the quest in the game to "go here, do that, come back" to the "reasons" why these fetch quests were shallow.

So you didn't read any of them? Some of the links are examples of quests done well, a list of qualities one looks for in an engaging quest, hypothetical examples of how current quests could be improved, a full list of all of the DAI side quests and how much of those desired qualities are present.

 

This is not really a discussion, this is both parties trying to shout over each other. If this were a discussion, you would at least attempt to understand the argument coming from the opposition; you don't have to agree with the arguments but you have to acknowledge that they are present and not just brush them aside as "reasons."

 

At this point I don't feel that anything I provide is going to make you even consider my point of view. You are so set that my opinion is wrong that you're just hearing white noise.

[hoechlbear]

And yet I have made points and brought up examples... That people like you summarily dismiss to continue your childish rantings. According to you, companion quests don't count, judgements don't count, and actual intricate world design is "just trees"... There is a lot of substantial side content, much of which focuses on the companions. And yet we still get more than that with actual variety and integration of lore and art design to create something that many people are missing for whatever reason.

You can keep trying the dismissal route, but all your criticisms boil down to you not liking that the companions were the main focus of side content. You want the focus in another area. You don't like that the art design creates an atmosphere without the need of a person explaining everything to you. And that is fine. DA is not the game for your stylistic preferences. But for others, the melding of the atmospheric design, companion interaction and content, and better RP options is more than welcome. Stop claiming DA is factually lesser or worse in side content... It just targets a different subsect of gamers and focuses on a certain area of side content. That has been the issue the whole time: the inability of some to accept that what they want the focus on is not what others want the focus on. Doesn't help when the main battle cry is over cutscenes...

Seriously, this is the exact same crap that plagues Fallout... Fallout, Dragon Age, and The Witcher are three different RPGs that focus on different areas. None are better objectively. It all depends on what you want in your RPG.

 

Yeah, like I said, you keep bringing up the same arguments even though I have replied to you a number of times and you decided to ignore it. So no, I am not going to repeat myself over and over again, like you are now. You absolutely fail to understand what is the actual discussion of this thread and why "companion quests don't count". You are trying to cover up the fact that the game is filled with fetch quests by saying "oh but the companions were sooo good and the worlds were sooo pretty". So what? Are you expecting me to forgive mistakes and bad decisions just because something else was ok? One thing does not excuse the other. 

 

The fact that you think that our "main battle cry is over cutscenes" just goes to show that you haven't read a single post in this thread. Or maybe you did, but choose to erase it from your mind 5 seconds later. So for that, I am done talking to you. Have a nice day.

[AlanC9]

Also on the Storm Coast, it's not like IB is specifically tied to that location. He and the Chargers could have been defending Crestwood against the undead and we recruit them there. Or if we want to keep them fighting Venatori, the Hissing Wastes where they're looking into why the Vints are there.

I lost track of the argument here. What's the advantage of moving IB to a main quest area rather than an optional area? (Besides the player saving four points of Power. ) IB's personal mission would need a rewrite too, but that's doable.
 
 

The Hinterlands offer many tasks to demonstrate the increase in influence, okay. But the roleplaying is all in your head, as you point out. And as Nefla points out, I would rather be able to have options within the game to roleplay instead of having to headcanon everything.

I think we need to get into definitions of RP before proceeding with this. Aren't the choices of which actions to perform, and when, just as much RP as choosing which dialogue wheel option to select?
 
On the subject of the Power and Influence awards, a lot of them are a bit silly, yeah. But XP awards for that sort of quest are silly too, and CRPGs have been doing that since, like, forever.

[Donquijote and 59 others]

OH

 

 

MY

 

 

GOD

 

 

 

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain!

[Kabraxal]

Yeah, like I said, you keep bringing up the same arguments even though I have replied to you a number of times and you decided to ignore it. So no, I am not going to repeat myself over and over again, like you are now. You absolutely fail to understand what is the actual discussion of this thread and why "companion quests don't count". You are trying to cover up the fact that the game is filled with fetch quests by saying "oh but the companions were sooo good and the worlds were sooo pretty". So what? Are you expecting me to forgive mistakes and bad decisions just because something else was ok? One thing does not excuse the other.

The fact that you think that our "main battle cry is over cutscenes" just goes to show that you haven't read a single post in this thread. Or maybe you did, but choose to erase it from your mind 5 seconds later. So for that, I am done talking to you. Have a nice day.

You are the ones reapearing the same BS... We show side content that contains everything you list... "It's not in the zones so it doesn't count!". We gave you content that occurs in the zones and "it isn't enough!".

It's been clear that you are close minded and just want to regurgitate the lie despite it so easily proven false at the beginning.

The whole argument you have is "it's mostly shallow filler!" but that meager BS claim was destroyed by the companion quests from the start. So you and others dismiss that and continue ranting until I, and others, point out that you want a different style and focus on where side content is. You then ignore that to continue screaming "shallow quests!" as if it hasn't been so embarrsingly exposed for the mindless crap it is.

But go ahead and join Nefla in stomping off in a petulant childish tantrum because you ran into people with the patience to continually expose your posts for the biased shallow parroting that they are.

[vbibbi]

You are the ones reapearing the same BS... We show side content that contains everything you list... "It's not in the zones so it doesn't count!". We gave you content that occurs in the zones and "it isn't enough!".

It's been clear that you are close minded and just want to regurgitate the lie despite it so easily proven false at the beginning.

The whole argument you have is "it's mostly shallow filler!" but that meager BS claim was destroyed by the companion quests from the start. So you and others dismiss that and continue ranting until I, and others, point out that you want a different style and focus on where side content is. You then ignore that to continue screaming "shallow quests!" as if it hasn't been so embarrsingly exposed for the mindless crap it is.

But go ahead and join Nefla in stomping off in a petulant childish tantrum because you ran into people with the patience to continually expose your posts for the biased shallow parroting that they are.

Right, if everyone starts ignoring you, clearly it's something wrong with the world...

[BansheeOwnage]

Honestly, I really doubt the judgement flavor will be imported to DA4 regardless of the Inquisitor's role in the game. At best it will be the personality decider much like Hawke's tone import...didn't have noticeable variation in DAI.

 

About the horses, I don't know if it's a bug or what, but I always heard that line about "The horses! I forgot the horses!" in Skyhold, and as I said, I've always finished that quest before IYHSB. And this happened on both PS3 and PS4, so if it's a bug, it could be a PS specific bug.

 

On romances, like I said previously, I enjoyed the Cullen romance and my canon!Inquisitor is with him. It's not that I want his romance removed, it was picking the most easily measured resource to demonstrate how Bioware could restructure its project management. It's a moot point since it's not going to happen, and I hope hope hope that DA4 has better use of resources since they've now ported everything into the new engine and are only working with three platforms.

Yeah, that's sort of why I'm worried about it. I don't want the Inquisitor to have a personality decider anyway, because it would never do them justice, but I think having "Recruiting/Merciful/Harsh" would be even worse than Hawke's options. I feel like it might be used to make RP decisions for me, which would suck.

 

Oh, that's odd. It's probably a bug, then. In my other playthroughs where I recruited Dennet before IYHSB, that line never fired for me.

 

I know, I hoped my response would come across as joking I agree that DA4 should definitely have better use of resources since they should know the engine and have so many assets from DA:I they can reuse.

 

Congratulations for demonstrating exactly what that poster was talking about. Rifts are not "side" content, but are tied to main plot.

Rifts are definitely side-content. Do you see them listed as main quests? No, because you can do none of them and finish the game with no differences (although apparently your Inquisitor would be very busy between the end of the game and Trespasser).

 

The only rift that even has an effect on anything is the one in Crestwood, and the Crestwood questline is indeed side-content. That's one out of... 70+ rifts? I'd have definitely preferred if they were more rare, more intimidating, and more impactful.

[Kabraxal]

Right, if everyone starts ignoring you, clearly it's something wrong with the world...

It's been explained and many of the claims debunked. Not my problem or something wrong with the world if those making these claims just can't admit the content is there and it is not shallow filler. You just don't like where the quests focus on.



For crying out loud we had one claim the world design was "just trees and sand" and others like you say they want less customisation and companion content for a few more dialogue quests in a zone... That is PREFERENCE on where the focus is and how it is delivered, not a FACT that DA's quests are shallow.

If people would just admit it and move on then there is no argument. Those two posters not only couldn't accept they were spouting preference, but they continually dismissed then began passive agressively attacking posters in an attempt to deflect from their posts parading as fact being demolished with ease. When it became apparent that their attitudes had been exposed, they took the natural route of the common amateur and stomped off.

[UniformGreyColor]

So you didn't read any of them? Some of the links are examples of quests done well, a list of qualities one looks for in an engaging quest, hypothetical examples of how current quests could be improved, a full list of all of the DAI side quests and how much of those desired qualities are present.

 

This is not really a discussion, this is both parties trying to shout over each other. If this were a discussion, you would at least attempt to understand the argument coming from the opposition; you don't have to agree with the arguments but you have to acknowledge that they are present and not just brush them aside as "reasons."

 

At this point I don't feel that anything I provide is going to make you even consider my point of view. You are so set that my opinion is wrong that you're just hearing white noise.

 

You can always come up with examples to prove pretty much anything. Its why statistics is highly questionable. Qualities. Sure. Opinions that I don't agree with and have had counter points to. Also, Hypotheticals don't work because BW games by and large don't go backwards to take specifics of an old game and implement them, though they may take core concepts (of RPGs) and implement them. Yes, there are exceptions to this, but only to fit within the framework that works for the current game. Take the Mako for example. If you think the Mako is going to be the exact same as it was in ME1, your expectations are not going to line up to what you get. This will cause people to say "I hated the way the Mako worked, why can't it be like ME1's Mako?" I guarantee you someone is going to say something along those lines.

 

The biggest reason why I don't just go "sure, you're completely correct" is because it would mean going back to a system that is not going to come back. I disagree because it sets a bad president if I do agree that so many people fall into in that they want BW to go back to the way things were done before and I cannot accept that as a realistic solution. Believe it or not, most the people who have disagreed with me have not given me credit when I make a good point. I will return what is given to me... if people give me credit for having a good point, I will do the same for them. Also, do you really expect someone to give up to you when your presentation can look hostile? Think about that for a second. It is a problem I see in arguments all the time. One person does something rude. Even if they may very well have made the best of points, there is no way the opposition is going to just bend over. Its human psychology. People do not like to be abused and there is a really good chance that they are going to try and prevent abuse. We are a predatorial species, we are not like horses where we don't mind submitting to something that forces us to do something.

[Addictress]

You toss out "anything goes" wildcard arguments when you should be aware that media criticism, in order to work, must have some established visual and directorial traditions - tools in the way stories are expressed must be shared in order for us to communicate. We can't say apple means apple to some and apple means orange to others. We are supposed to have a basic shared language. If you intend to dismantle that language, vie for an different genre entirely, that's another matter. But we are guests to this particular house, with its particular ground rules.

[hoechlbear]

You are the ones reapearing the same BS... We show side content that contains everything you list... "It's not in the zones so it doesn't count!". We gave you content that occurs in the zones and "it isn't enough!".

It's been clear that you are close minded and just want to regurgitate the lie despite it so easily proven false at the beginning.

The whole argument you have is "it's mostly shallow filler!" but that meager BS claim was destroyed by the companion quests from the start. So you and others dismiss that and continue ranting until I, and others, point out that you want a different style and focus on where side content is. You then ignore that to continue screaming "shallow quests!" as if it hasn't been so embarrsingly exposed for the mindless crap it is.

But go ahead and join Nefla in stomping off in a petulant childish tantrum because you ran into people with the patience to continually expose your posts for the biased shallow parroting that they are.

 

Companions' quests don't take up the whole game. There's about 4 per companion, where one is where you recruit them (those who need to be recruited), one is a fetch quest, one is tied to the romance, and then you have ONE (or two, in some rare cases like Cassandra) that is the actual personal quest. If you go to youtube to watch these quests, they can be done in about 15 minutes. So stop talking about the companions' quests like they are something out of this world. We always had those in previous DA games, we always had abundant companion interaction so this is not exclusive to DAI and shouldn't be used as an excuse for the game's failures.

 

When it comes to your BS claim that the game is NOT filled with mostly shallow quests, then let me refresh your memory.

 

I found a post of mine on another thread of about a year ago where we were discussing sidequests as well. People were saying DAI has little fetch quests, so I presented some examples to those people. This is only on the Hinterlands, by the way. I chose that map because it's the first one you visit. But if I do this for the other maps, it will be exactly the same thing:

 

A Common Treatment - You have to fetch some herbs for the healer.

Agrarian Apostate - You go fetch a ring and kill some templars.

Blood Brothers - You find a note on a corpse, go to spot X and retrieve an object from another corpse.

Failure to Deliver - You find a note, go to the river to collect the package.

Hinterland Who's Who - You find a letter and travel to the other edge of the map to put the letter on the mail box.

My Lover's Phylactery - You find a note, and return a phylactery to a woman.

Letter from a Lover - You find a note and have to bring felandaris to some statue.

Safeguards Against Looters - You find a note and go to spot Y to retrieve some objects.

Farmland Security - You claim spots all over the map.

In the Elements - You claim spots all over the map. [x2]

Flowers for Senna - You put some flowers on a grave.

Shallow Breaths - You have to go get a potion.

Open a Vein - You find a note and go to a cave. And that's it..?

Where the Druffalo Roam - You have to go fetch the druffalo and herd him back.

 

And then we have the kill quests, which are exactly the same as fetch quests but instead of getting an object in order to complete the quest, you have to kill things.

 

Apostates in Witchwood - You kill some mages.

Templars to the West - You kill some templars.

Deep Trouble - You kill some carta members.

East Road Bandits - You kill some bandits.

The Mercenary Fortress - You kill some mercenaries.

Hunger Pangs - You kill some rams.

Bergrit's Claws - You kill some bears.

Trouble with Wolves - You kill some wolves.

Conscientious Objector - you find a note, go to a house and kill a demon.

Playing with Fire - You find a note and go to a grave to summon a corpse you have to kill.

Return Policy - You find a note and to the other edge of the map to kill a demon.

Stone Dreams - You find a note and go to a cave and kill a mage and some demons.

 

Just notice how many times I wrote "you find a note". The Hinterlands has about 40 sidequests (not counting the filler ones, like shards, camps, rifts and requisitions) and at least 26 of those are fetch/kill/find a note quests. That's more than half, and it's only in the Hinterlands. Out of those 26 quests there isn't a single one where you get a small cutscene, where you get dialogue options and truly interact with the NPCs (most have zero NPC interaction) besides of the generic "what do you want?" and "it's done. Bye", where you get multiple choices and different ways to complete that quest and multiple outcomes that can also have consequences. (See what I did there? My "battle cry" isn't just the lack of cutscenes) So yes, they are shallow. Meaning of shallow: "of little depth". I don't see any depth in a quest where you read a note and go fetch/kill something on the other side of the map and that's it. 

[Joseph Warrick]

Rifts were supposed to be important in the game, at a conceptual level, but the reality of the game is that it would make no difference in general if they weren't there. Only a couple matter: the tutorial one and the one at Adamant. Those are plot related. The rest are confined to "rifts in X" side quests that are analogous to "set camps in X" and "X geological survey", and you can safely ignore them.

The rifts/camps/geological surveys were meant to get you to explore the map. That's why you can't order your agents to do it (the latter two anyway). They're filler in a literal sense. They fill up the areas. That's the whole point to rifts, sadly, as they are implemented in Inquisition.

It could have been done differently. You could have had rifts actually terrorizing the population or turning forests mad and corrupt instead of just being there doing nothing. It didn't happen. But I did like details. The cult worshipping the rift in the Hinterlands, even if it wasn't very fleshed out, was interesting. The one in Crestwood was good. Just give us a story around it. Anything.

[vbibbi]

You can always come up with examples to prove pretty much anything. Its why statistics is highly questionable.

I really am trying to be reasonable and have a discussion, but it's really hard when you keep changing your argument and ignoring my points. You claimed that there were no examples provided. Now it sounds like you are acknowledging that there were examples provided, albeit they don't prove anything. And now you're saying that examples don't mean anything because they can be skewed for results. So you still haven't actually stated that yes, there have been multiple examples provided, and on top of that, it doesn't matter if examples were provided because they are meaningless.

 

 

The biggest reason why I don't just go "sure, you're completely correct" is because it would mean going back to a system that is not going to come back.

I'm not asking you to to completely agree with me. I'm asking you not to make false claims against my arguments. Or since you are now stating that my argument means going backwards, you're not even bothering to read the arguments since you have already come to a conclusion and therefore my arguments don't even exist.

 

 

 

Believe it or not, most the people who have disagreed with me have not given me credit when I make a good point. I will return what is given to me... if people give me credit for having a good point, I will do the same for them.

 You haven't even given credit that someone has made a point, let alone a good one.

 

 

Also, do you really expect someone to give up to you when your presentation can look hostile? Think about that for a second. It is a problem I see in arguments all the time. One person does something rude.

Read my posts at the beginning of the thread, before people argued against me without reading my posts. Look at how I found and posted ten links for you since you claimed there were no examples. Look at how I have repeatedly asked people who continue to ignore my responses to them and just move on to the next attack to actually respond to my points to them, only to be ignored, told I'm having a pity party, questioning my intelligence, etc.

 

I might not be polite but I think I'm being pretty darn patient and accommodating.
 

[UniformGreyColor]

 

Companions' quests don't take up the whole game. There's about 4 per companion, where one is where you recruit them (those who need to be recruited), one is a fetch quest, one is tied to the romance, and then you have ONE (or two, in some rare cases like Cassandra) that is the actual personal quest. If you go to youtube to watch these quests, they can be done in about 15 minutes. So stop talking about the companions' quests like they are something out of this world. We always had those in previous DA games, we always had abundant companion interaction so this is not exclusive to DAI and shouldn't be used as an excuse for the game's failures.

 

When it comes to your BS claim that the game is NOT filled with mostly shallow quests, then let me refresh your memory.

 

I found a post of mine on another thread of about a year ago where we were discussing sidequests as well. People were saying DAI has little fetch quests, so I presented some examples to those people. This is only on the Hinterlands, by the way. I chose that map because it's the first one you visit. But if I do this for the other maps, it will be exactly the same thing:

 

A Common Treatment - You have to fetch some herbs for the healer.

Agrarian Apostate - You go fetch a ring and kill some templars.

Blood Brothers - You find a note on a corpse, go to spot X and retrieve an object from another corpse.

Failure to Deliver - You find a note, go to the river to collect the package.

Hinterland Who's Who - You find a letter and travel to the other edge of the map to put the letter on the mail box.

My Lover's Phylactery - You find a note, and return a phylactery to a woman.

Letter from a Lover - You find a note and have to bring felandaris to some statue.

Safeguards Against Looters - You find a note and go to spot Y to retrieve some objects.

Farmland Security - You claim spots all over the map.

In the Elements - You claim spots all over the map. [x2]

Flowers for Senna - You put some flowers on a grave.

Shallow Breaths - You have to go get a potion.

Open a Vein - You find a note and go to a cave. And that's it..?

Where the Druffalo Roam - You have to go fetch the druffalo and herd him back.

 

And then we have the kill quests, which are exactly the same as fetch quests but instead of getting an object in order to complete the quest, you have to kill things.

 

Apostates in Witchwood - You kill some mages.

Templars to the West - You kill some templars.

Deep Trouble - You kill some carta members.

East Road Bandits - You kill some bandits.

The Mercenary Fortress - You kill some mercenaries.

Hunger Pangs - You kill some rams.

Bergrit's Claws - You kill some bears.

Trouble with Wolves - You kill some wolves.

Conscientious Objector - you find a note, go to a house and kill a demon.

Playing with Fire - You find a note and go to a grave to summon a corpse you have to kill.

Return Policy - You find a note and to the other edge of the map to kill a demon.

Stone Dreams - You find a note and go to a cave and kill a mage and some demons.

 

Just notice how many times I wrote "you find a note". The Hinterlands has about 40 sidequests (not counting the filler ones, like shards, camps, rifts and requisitions) and at least 26 of those are fetch/kill/find a note quests. That's more than half, and it's only in the Hinterlands. Out of those 26 quests there isn't a single one where you get a small cutscene, where you get dialogue options and truly interact with the NPCs (most have zero NPC interaction) besides of the generic "what do you want?" and "it's done. Bye", where you get multiple choices and different ways to complete that quest and multiple outcomes that can also have consequences. (See what I did there? My "battle cry" isn't just the lack of cutscenes) So yes, they are shallow. Meaning of shallow: "of little depth". I don't see any depth in a quest where you read a note and go fetch/kill something on the other side of the map and that's it. 

 

 

All completely optional - you don't have to do them.

I see for you it comes down to actions taken rather than what is going on with these quests and why you are doing them. That is just a difference of opinion. As far as "multiple outcomes" is concerned, IDK how many devs actually worked on DA:I, but TW3 had 250 by the end of the development. My point is, creating content that changes based on a specific instance is expensive. Not only because it takes its toll on the writers, but on the cinematic developers and voice acting as well. Think about this: if you have 2 different ways a story can play out that is 2 times the resources to create. When you start getting into even 10 different story paths it your looking at an awful lot of manpower to implement these choices.

[Realmzmaster]

@hoechlbear

 

My Lover's Phylactery is more involved than just a fetch quest. yes, you find the note on a dead templar and return it to Ellendra. The Inquisitor can have a great deal of interaction with Ellendra and can recruit (if a mage or the right party member is in the party) her as an agent for Josephina.

 

Hunger pangs has you interacting with the Hunter and changing his opinion of the Inquisition. Also if you listen to the conversations between the people they remark on the point that the Inquisition is helping and feeding people.

 

Templars to the west and Apostates in Witchwood have you ending the conflict between the mages and templars in the Hinterlands.

 

A Common Treatment has the Inqusitor gathering herbs so that the healer can treat the wounded. She is also necessary if you want to recruit Vale's Irregulars as an agent for the Inquisition.

 

Failure to Deliver gives a dwarf Inquisitor or Varric a good piece of armor.

 

Farmland Security makes sense because you are securing lookout points to secure the people and the area. Also necessary because you want Dennet to send the Inquisition horses without them being stolen by bandits.

 

In the Elements you are claiming caches left by apostate mages to help feed and clothe the people.

 

Shallow Breaths the Inquisitor is saving a life and spreading the influence of the Inquisition.

 

Shall I go on. Many of the quests you list have a purpose.

[vbibbi]

You can always come up with examples to prove pretty much anything. Its why statistics is highly questionable. Qualities. Sure. Opinions that I don't agree with and have had counter points to. Also, Hypotheticals don't work because BW games by and large don't go backwards to take specifics of an old game and implement them, though they may take core concepts (of RPGs) and implement them. Yes, there are exceptions to this, but only to fit within the framework that works for the current game. Take the Mako for example. If you think the Mako is going to be the exact same as it was in ME1, your expectations are not going to line up to what you get. This will cause people to say "I hated the way the Mako worked, why can't it be like ME1's Mako?" I guarantee you someone is going to say something along those lines.

 

The biggest reason why I don't just go "sure, you're completely correct" is because it would mean going back to a system that is not going to come back. I disagree because it sets a bad president if I do agree that so many people fall into in that they want BW to go back to the way things were done before and I cannot accept that as a realistic solution. Believe it or not, most the people who have disagreed with me have not given me credit when I make a good point. I will return what is given to me... if people give me credit for having a good point, I will do the same for them. Also, do you really expect someone to give up to you when your presentation can look hostile? Think about that for a second. It is a problem I see in arguments all the time. One person does something rude. Even if they may very well have made the best of points, there is no way the opposition is going to just bend over. Its human psychology. People do not like to be abused and there is a really good chance that they are going to try and prevent abuse. We are a predatorial species, we are not like horses where we don't mind submitting to something that forces us to do something.

 

I apologize, though, if I have been rude or offended you. It is certainly not my intention to bash others on the forums and I really don't want you to be offended or hurt by anything in these discussions. I know that I haven't been as diplomatic on this thread as I could be. I do not think you are unintelligent or less of a fan of the games because you have a differing opinion.

[UniformGreyColor]

I really am trying to be reasonable and have a discussion, but it's really hard when you keep changing your argument and ignoring my points. You claimed that there were no examples provided. Now it sounds like you are acknowledging that there were examples provided, albeit they don't prove anything. And now you're saying that examples don't mean anything because they can be skewed for results. So you still haven't actually stated that yes, there have been multiple examples provided, and on top of that, it doesn't matter if examples were provided because they are meaningless.

 

 

I'm not asking you to to completely agree with me. I'm asking you not to make false claims against my arguments. Or since you are now stating that my argument means going backwards, you're not even bothering to read the arguments since you have already come to a conclusion and therefore my arguments don't even exist.

 

 

 

 You haven't even given credit that someone has made a point, let alone a good one.

 

 

Read my posts at the beginning of the thread, before people argued against me without reading my posts. Look at how I found and posted ten links for you since you claimed there were no examples. Look at how I have repeatedly asked people who continue to ignore my responses to them and just move on to the next attack to actually respond to my points to them, only to be ignored, told I'm having a pity party, questioning my intelligence, etc.

 

I might not be polite but I think I'm being pretty darn patient and accommodating.
 

 

OK, I will state this: some of your points are very good and well thought out. But some of your requests on how you would want the game to change are completely unreasonable and I bet you can tell which is which.

 

In debate rarely do you see people explicitly acknowledge that a point has been made. Doing so is generally considered a nice gesture or simply giving up the point.

 

And believe it or not, I am not just speaking to you. I am speaking to a different crowd as well as you so if it seems like I am making points that don't line up with what you are arguing, the reason is that I'm hoping to get people (plural) to see my points and not just you. Don't take it personally that when I make a point that doesn't align perfectly with what you are arguing that I don't see the point you are making. I don't need to tell you that there are plenty of people who just want DA4 to go back to the way it use to be and I'm am trying to make a point that that is just not going to happen. But What do I know, maybe BW will completely surprise me.

[vbibbi]

OK, I will state this: some of your points are very good and well thought out. But some of your requests on how you would want the game to change are completely unreasonable and I bet you can tell which is which.

 

In debate rarely do you see people explicitly acknowledge that a point has been made. Doing so is generally considered a nice gesture or simply giving up the point.

 

And believe it or not, I am not just speaking to you. I am speaking to a different crowd as well as you so if it seems like I am making points that don't line up with what you are arguing, the reason is that I'm hoping to get people (plural) to see my points and not just you. Don't take it personally that when I make a point that doesn't align perfectly with what you are arguing that I don't see the point you are making. I don't need to tell you that there are plenty of people who just want DA4 to go back to the way it use to be and I'm am trying to make a point that that is just not going to happen. But What do I know, maybe BW will completely surprise me.

Agreed. Thank you for the detailed explanation. I realize that not everything I'm posting is plausible or will ever happen. And the hypotheticals are mostly examples of how some quests could have been done. I know that DAI is done and I'm not asking for changes to it now, there's no point. I'm trying to use examples to show how I'm hoping DA4's side quests will be. I still hope that Bioware reads the forums, even if their presence isn't really felt here anymore, and they read the diverse opinions on how things performed in DAI. They have always been good about listening to feedback, even if they haven't always responded to it how people wanted. And that's fine, that's their right.

[hoechlbear]

All completely optional - you don't have to do them.

I see for you it comes down to actions taken rather than what is going on with these quests and why you are doing them. That is just a difference of opinion. As far as "multiple outcomes" is concerned, IDK how many devs actually worked on DA:I, but TW3 had 250 by the end of the development. My point is, creating content that changes based on a specific instance is expensive. Not only because it takes its toll on the writers, but on the cinematic developers and voice acting as well. Think about this: if you have 2 different ways a story can play out that is 2 times the resources to create. When you start getting into even 10 different story paths it your looking at an awful lot of manpower to implement these choices.

 

No one is saying if they are optional or not. We're discussing the quality of them. I've said multiple times already. My problem is not that I have to fetch a ring for a widow, is how the quest was handled. I even gave an example of how I think that quest could've been better and more than just a simple fetch quest. You honestly don't think that a quest that allows you to interact with an NPC, make dialogue options and have different ways to complete it is not a more elaborated and complex quest than one where you pick a note from the ground, read it, and go to place X to fetch an object? You think that is a matter of opinion? It's a matter of opinion if you prefer a quest's story over another, if you found it engaging or not, but we're talking about mechanics here, how these quests unfold and how complex/plain they can be. The term fetch quest applies to quests that involve little to no effort, usually involve no NPC interaction, and you are only required to do one task for the quest to be completed: fetch something or kill something. Those are the majority of DAI's sidequests. The moment a quest has NPC interaction where you choose from multiple dialogue options and can solve the quest in different ways, therefore giving that quest different outcomes, is automatically NOT a fetch quest because there's more to it than just fetching something. In my post I didn't even mention TW3. I was just trying to point out that DAI doesn't have just a few fetch quests. It was a decision from Bioware to fill the worlds with those. Which somehow I can understand, because it's painfully obvious they run out of resources by the end and had to fill the maps with something. That is why many of us would be willing to sacrifice a few maps and maybe have less companions if that would mean we could have better sidequests. Obviously that is just how we feel, but that's not even what is being discussed here. People keep affirming DAI doesn't have fetch/shallow quests and that's just not true.

 

 

 

@hoechlbear

 

My Lover's Phylactery is more involved than just a fetch quest. yes, you find the note on a dead templar and return it to Ellendra. The Inquisitor can have a great deal of interaction with Ellendra and can recruit (if a mage or the right party member is in the party) her as an agent for Josephina.

 

Hunger pangs has you interacting with the Hunter and changing his opinion of the Inquisition. Also if you listen to the conversations between the people they remark on the point that the Inquisition is helping and feeding people.

 

Templars to the west and Apostates in Witchwood have you ending the conflict between the mages and templars in the Hinterlands.

 

A Common Treatment has the Inqusitor gathering herbs so that the healer can treat the wounded. She is also necessary if you want to recruit Vale's Irregulars as an agent for the Inquisition.

 

Failure to Deliver gives a dwarf Inquisitor or Varric a good piece of armor.

 

Farmland Security makes sense because you are securing lookout points to secure the people and the area. Also necessary because you want Dennet to send the Inquisition horses without them being stolen by bandits.

 

In the Elements you are claiming caches left by apostate mages to help feed and clothe the people.

 

Shallow Breaths the Inquisitor is saving a life and spreading the influence of the Inquisition.

 

Shall I go on. Many of the quests you list have a purpose.

 

 

That doesn't contradict anything of what I said. No cutscenes, no dialogue options (besides the generic ones), no choices (besides the agents ones you pointed out, true, you have ONE choice on those), no multiple outcomes, no consequences. You either do the quest or you don't. If you do, sure, it may change some ambient dialogue in some cases, but that's it. If you don't do it, well nothing happens really.

You're basically just describing what each quest is meant to be.. that doesn't change the fact that all it requires from you is to kill rams, kill mages, kill templars, fetch herbs, fetch packages, claim spots, etc.

[UniformGreyColor]

No one is saying if they are optional or not. We're discussing the quality of them. I've said multiple times already. My problem is not that I have to fetch a ring for a widow, is how the quest was handled. I even gave an example of how I think that quest could've been better and more than just a simple fetch quest. You honestly don't think that a quest that allows you to interact with an NPC, make dialogue options and have different ways to complete it is not a more elaborated and complex quest than one where you pick a note from the ground, read it, and go to place X to fetch an object? You think that is a matter of opinion? It's a matter of opinion if you prefer a quest's story over another, if you found it engaging or not, but we're talking about mechanics here, how these quests unfold and how complex/plain they can be. The term fetch quest applies to quests that involve little to no effort, usually involve no NPC interaction, and you are only required to do one task: fetch something, kill something for the quest to be completed. Those are the majority of DAI's sidequests. The moment a quest has NPC interaction where you choose from multiple dialogue options and can solve the quest in different ways, therefore giving that quest different outcomes, is automatically NOT a fetch quest because there's more to it than just fetching something. In my post I didn't even mention TW3. I was just trying to point out that DAI doesn't have just a few fetch quests. It was a decision from Bioware to fill the worlds with those. Which somehow I can understand, because it's painfully obvious they run out of resources by the end and had to fill the maps with something. That is why many of us would be willing to sacrifice a few maps and maybe have less companions if that would mean we could have better sidequests. Obviously that is just how we feel, but that's not even what is being discussed here. People keep affirming DAI doesn't have fetch/shallow quests and that's just not true.

 

You might not be comparing TW3 to DA:I, but it is done.. a lot. It is a matter of opinion what is considered depth in a quest. The moment you start introducing more and more dialog options (never mind different outcomes) is the point that you are either going to get a much smaller game, or a lot and I mean a lot of content is going to have to be cut. Let me be clear: I understand your position that going to point A doing X at point B and going back to point A for a reward sounds trivial to you regardless of what context is there. I understand you would rather have a condensed game rather than one with large landscapes. That is fine. I also understand that you desire "complex" quests that involve a cause and effect for what happens in the game by doing those quests. There's nothing wrong with that and I want that in the next DA:I game too. But I do not think that DA4 is going to be as dense as you would like. But we will see. Maybe BW is reading this right now and thinking that they have to change the way quests are done.

[Nefla]

OH
 
 
MY
 
 
GOD
 
 
ARE
 
 
YOU
 
 
READING
 
 
NOTHING
 
 
IN
 
 
THIS
 
 
THREAD?
 
If you don't agree with any of the arguments, suggestions, or examples presented here that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But I cannot comprehend how you can claim there has been no explanations provided in this thread. Are you actually reading any responses or are you just skimming the first line and then responding?

I think it's been well established that he and Kabraxal do not read or understand the posts they reply to. Maybe they headcanon the post's contents...

[UniformGreyColor]

I think it's been well established that he and Kabraxal do not read or understand the posts they reply to. Maybe they headcanon the post's contents...

 

That is not even fair and you know it. You're just being difficult at this point.

[hoechlbear]

You might not be comparing TW3 to DA:I, but it is done.. a lot. It is a matter of opinion what is considered depth in a quest. The moment you start introducing more and more dialog options (never mind different outcomes) is the point that you are either going to get a much smaller game, or a lot and I mean a lot of content is going to have to be cut. Let me be clear: I understand your position that going to point A doing X at point B and going back to point A for a reward sounds trivial to you regardless of what context is there. I understand you would rather have a condensed game rather than one with large landscapes. That is fine. I also understand that you desire "complex" quests that involve a cause and effect for what happens in the game by doing those quests. There's nothing wrong with that and I want that in the next DA:I game too. But I do not think that DA4 is going to be as dense as you would like. But we will see. Maybe BW is reading this right now and thinking that they have to change the way quests are done.

 

Well, that's why we are here, sharing our thoughts hoping that Bioware will listen. Obviously what's done is done. DAI won't change and no one is expecting that. We are here because we are fans of the franchise, some of us even enjoyed DAI, but felt like the side content was absolutely terrible. We just want a more balanced game (or at least I do) where certain content doesn't get the short end of the stick just because they focused all of their attention and resources in other things.