609 réponses à ce sujet

[Bhryaen]

But as you know -- you didn't sleep through those philosophy classes, presumably -- whether objective standards are possible is not the important question. The question is how, or perhaps whether, you have access to those standards. When you can answer that question, you can maybe get the rest of us to take your proposed standards seriously.


There are statistics on immersion? Not just a rating for the game, but immersion? Could you point us to some?
 

That's.... a really unfortunate sentence.

Nope, didn't sleep through any classes. Did you? Maybe just skim to what enables you to make the seemingly pithy-enough response to constitute a test answer?

 

I never said "whether objective standards are possible" was the important question. I said, "how the devs are expecting the player to spend their time" is the most important question. That objective standards are possible is presumed. You can play as obtuse as you like in assessing whether I (or anyone else) can determine or apply such standards- or judge a game as immersion-breaking for that matter- but consult my post above for that. No sense repeating myself in any case.

 

As to my "unfortunate sentence" ("Some 'feels' are inevitable due to a distinguishable, objectively identifiable set of criteria and the sensibility to recognize it.") perhaps it's only unfortunate to you. When, say, a loved one is killed in front of you (and you don't pretend it's not happening)- you can distinguish it, identify it objectively according to the only criteria your physical senses can muster, and then your "feels" at that point may be somewhat, as I put it, "inevitable." Or perhaps you'll feel nothing. I suppose I don't know you, after all... That's a hyperbolic example, of course, since recognizing that the latest installment of one's favorite game is now packed with filler isn't going to give everyone else who's a fan like me quite the same "feels," but... yeah, it's gonna be similar.

[BansheeOwnage]

I have a few problems with the DA:I sidequests, but the biggest one is simply - The lack of music. And yes that sounds silly, but when i am running around in Fallout 4 or The Witcher 3 and it ranges from relaxing exploration music to epic combat theme i get more invested in what i am doing. DA:I has a great soundtrack, but it is not well utilized. 

I agree completely when it comes to lack of exploration/combat/ambient music, though that's not technically a flaw of the sidequests. But yes, it is a minor contributing factor for me.

[Nefla]

See. I don't agree. The characters in TW3 were never 3 dimensional or engaging to me. There were few branching sidequests that had any real choice. So all that packaging that enticed you, did nothing to enrich the experience for me, while even the murals added to a history and lore I care about in DA and integrates more into the world and its design than the Witcher's world. And really, the murals are more akin to the witcher contracts and points of interest (filler anyone...) than a full side quest. DA had plenty of meatier content that interacted with the world and characters than people want to give it credit for. From each companion quest, to Crestwood, to the mire, to the glyphs that open up a new area... There is a lot of side content that is rich and intricate.

Maybe you don't like it and that's fine. But I take issue with others continually spouting an opinion on distaste That the quests are simple filler fetch quests.... And then praising a game with the same kind of padding for being better at it as if it is fact. It isn't.

The companion quests in DA:I were quite nice, however nothing of anywhere near the same quality exists out in those big empty maps. If there had been random quests out in the world built the same way and of the same quality as the companion ones, I wouldn't have an issue. I don't find Crestwood, the Fallow Mire, etc...to be "rich" or "intricate" in the slightest. They had concepts with potential but fell flat in their execution and sadly those were some of the best non-companion sidequests in the game. Notes scattered around, murals, and other things that just give you a codex entry are all well and good as extras but they're not quests and should be used alongside real quests, not instead of them. If I'm just reading scraps of information, why am I playing a video game rather than reading a book? A book would be more entertaining and have a better story. The vast majority of non-companion DA:I quests were shallow boring filler and the rest were "meh" at best. Link me to even one non-companion quest from DA:I that's of the same level as:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkY_jf_SCLs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqKqooWL8mQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8cBfpvou-s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEb3k0h-A8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErQn2q1SJMg

 

and so on

 

If we're talking meaty sidequests then beyond the companion specific quests, DA:I was practically vegan

[UniformGreyColor]

Depends on what your standards are for side-quest experiences. If you're good enough just having an interesting-looking place to explore and some battles, then, sure, the Still Ruins especially were more than sufficient. I loved the time-stopped effect, plucking the book out of one frozen dude's hand... And the forts were fun enough to take, the dragons were awesomely designed and purely optional, the taste of the Deep Roads in Valammar... In fact, I'd say the best content you get in DAI's explorations beyond the main mission requisites were the little artistic touches to find, as though the game were a museum-walk-simulator where you just look for the next cool scene that's been rendered. Like this one- awesome the first time I came across it:

 

 

Or this kinda funny scene:

 

It's content... of a sort. It's creative. I like it anyway. It's even kinda memorable. But is that all we were to look forward to? Quiet background art? Or that encounter in the Hissing Wastes (one of a number of its type) where you find and kill demons near a corpse with a journal which- if read (if you consult the codex)- tells of a Vint mage who had clearly failed to control those same demons. It was also memorable. And somberly quiet. It told a story, but was completely unengaging to the player. That doesn't make it bad- and if it were the minority of encounters it'd be a lot more interesting. But it was the recurring standard of encounters in DAI's back-country. Of all the games to go silent during exploration, DA doesn't seem the place. We've already experienced a significantly higher standard in this franchise alone (and predecessors in the Bioware rpg line) for side-quest experiences, and comparatively DAI's fall far short. Should we lower our standards now? Count only on nice visuals and kill XP and basic loot for each experience? All we need? Why would we? It changes the nature of DA to reduce standards to that.

 

To what standard tho? DA:I is objectively a bigger game in size. You can't be asking for both a bigger game and a game that has no filler.

 

 

I'm only presuming that TW3 has the same distinction, but my presumption is not exactly wild speculation. It's a fairly overwhelming impression players have gotten. As is the impression that DAI's side-quests are woefully bare. I even heard a Mike Laidlaw interview where he said he was enjoying TW3 a great deal. That said, there's a reason I finished DAI and haven't yet managed to get past the first fight scene in TW3, but that's due to the main narrative and customizable characters, not side-quest depth.

 

Just because Mike Laidlaw said he was enjoying TW3 doesn't at all diminish the quality of the the game that BW developed when it made DA:I. Its actually good new to hear this because it means that the dev team isn't isolated from other dev teams and that what other devs teams do is likely going to have an impact on what the next DA game is going to be like which is good cuz it means the dev team can learn what they like and dislike about other games and try to implement the things they like and stay away from the things they don't.

 

 

 

Contrast DAO's warehouse blood mages where you had a full adventure finding the place, getting through the secret door, battling a variety of different defenses, then had a short cutscene where you get a personal interaction with the boss bastard against you, and then it was a nasty boss fight (albeit I never used much mage-killer spells, so...) with some key items to find. I could list more examples, but the difference from DAI's side quests was the content involved: voiced, impactful, memorable interactions with NPCs, narrative choices that determined your character's tendencies, a more complex adventure sequence. Just look at "Trespasser." The devs acknowledged that they designed those encounters far better. They're damn right and deserve the accolades. If you have to rely on codex entries and wordless boss fights, then you're asking the player to pretend the content for you... which is kinda lame. DAO's side-quests- hell, even that much-maligned encounter with Cammen and Gehenna- did far more for the player's experience. And none of DAO felt like filler. It all felt like part of the main story, the full story, albeit optional.

 

I see little difference between DA:O and DA:I in this regard. What about the Keep in Emprise du Lion where you talk to the demon? I'm not arguing that DA:I has less percentage of voiced, impactful, memorable interaction with NPCs, narrative choices that determine your characters tendencies, but I am saying that what BW has done is add content rather than replace it. You said it yourself in a post that there are whole teams devoted to codexes and those stories. As far as I'm concerned those codex entries are bonus content.

 

 

Mind you, this is DA we're talking about, not AC or FarCry where that sort of filler is exactly what the game entails. I enjoyed Mad Max (more or less) because that was the kind of game it was. DA... at least up to now has had a different standard, no? Plenty of players wouldn't bat an eye at DA becoming another AC (which is going great, as we see... *ahem*) But games like AC or FarCry will always outdo DA on that ground. Better DA stick to what it has done best: tell stories. I'm not a fan of DA2, but I'd rather DA4 be more like DA2 than DAI side-content-wise: it's more consistent with the standard that the franchise itself set.

 

I can't speak for AC or Farcry because I've not played much of AC and I've never touched Far Cry, but basically I'm hearing that you want content more condensed, rather than spaced out. That makes for a smaller game, you must realize that.

 

 

Just take DAI's most elaborate side-adventures: JoH and Descent. We never get to talk with a single Hakkonite or ancient dwarven defender- just kill, kill, kill- and so many of them (literally infinite due to respawns) until... done. "Uninspired" is a kind word for it. The village in JoH was good, of course- plenty of interactivity and such plus a few talkable NPCs in the woods- but the Hakkonites were just different barbarians, no? Why not some spoken encounter with them? At least one with a boss at the gate or something. They weren't zombies. But it was wordless battle the whole way. Also Valta and Renn were awesome, Valta making it through the entire adventure with us to keep the narrative going. But the Sha-Brytol are an entire city! You know- of people. People talk. And all they could do was brainlessly kill? Perhaps they were written that way intentionally- to be 100s or 1000s or 100,000s of mindless lyrium-drone killing machines- but if so that's part of the point I'm making. Why write them that way? Why wouldn't they say something? Aren't they curious about these new not-darkspawn intruders after so much time alone in the dark? Then we get to the end: big crystal boss... kill- done. DAI is profoundly quieter than DAO or DA2... and not in a profoundly meaningful way...

 

 

I have yet to play the DLC content so take that as you will. I will say I have 465 hours on record for DA:I. But your point here is made. I can see how this could be a mistake from the devs on this end.

 

 

This is why the "hill-crawling," no, is not bad in itself. It's bad when it's empty. If they could've added more meaningful encounters, the hill-crawling would've been par for the course. But they didn't. So there's a lot of "elevator time." And even then, a lot of the encounters you do find are outright lazy: go click a gravestone, then click me again- done; kill a few thugs I'm going to identify right on your map, pick up ring, click me again- done; kill a few demons, click a mass grave, repeat three times- done. Not even that any of those are so bad in themselves (just conspicuously uninspired and uninspiring), but that such an overwhelming portion of the side-quests were no better... like nearly all of them. I mentioned the haunted mansion (in the Emerald Graves) because that was my favorite of the main-game side-quests... and no less disappointing to proceed by killing constant zombie respawns and at long last end in yet another wordless (and lackluster) demon boss battle. The puzzly bit was ok (held together by codexes again), but... that was it. So, as I said, if they can't manage more meaningful encounters in the given extensiveness of the terrain, it'd be better to scale back the explorable realm to where they can invest in providing them with the content to make them meaningful and have impact (and occupy a larger proportion of the total playthrough time as such). If I were to make one suggestion to them it would be to make no side-quest at all for DA4 unless it resonates impactfully with the overall story they're telling.

 

That is quite the suggestion.. You realize you are basically putting people out of work if this is implemented right? DA has always had codexes and I don't see them disappearing any time soon. And it would be a necessity to cut that part of the game out if the devs do what you suggest.

 

 

And unfortunately the problem doesn't stop with the side-quest (lack of) quality. It's also the reliance on farming for craft materials and grinding through respawns as a means to character development- a mainstay of MMO's where the lack of content is usually mediated by the fact that you can get buddies in to play with and make it more meaningful that way. Hence my (not-so-sincere) suggestion to just make the main game multiplayer-accessible. Other than the main campaign and companion quests- which can be a minority of the time "finishing" the game (depending on your interest in completion)- the rest ends up being well-painted fluff.
The most important mention in the OP's cited article was the entreaty to devs to think more carefully about how they're requiring the player to spend their time. How the devs answer this question is determined by how valuable they consider the player's time. If one cynically feels that the player just needs their time wasted in a more or less entertaining way, obviously there's nothing to discuss. But if the devs are intending a meaningful experience for players of their game- something the player identifies with, remembers for years to come, struggles with emotionally and/or philosophically, challenges the player if it can, immerses the player head over heels in the unfolding narrative... then they'll have to do better than the bulk of DAI's meh side-encounters and gameplay. And for as talented a writing crew as DA has, it's really not an unreasonable requisite, just a reorientation of priorities...

 

You cannot create a game the size of DA:I with every occurrence being a profoundly meaningful one, it is not possible. You are basically saying that the devs need to create only the highest of quality of content for the whole game and that just does not make sense on a fiscal level. It is by far a lot cheaper to make a game with less really good side quests and more quests that maybe can be called fetch quests. It does not make sense for BW to completely cut out a relatively large chunk of the game so that we get maybe 5-10% more "meaningful" quests. FWIW I enjoy reading codexes. I didn't use to, but I decided, "what the heck I'll do a runthrough where I read them" and I am so glad I decided to start reading them. The question, really, is how important to you is Narrative screenplay to you in favor of that over stories that can simply be written and put in a codex to add spice to a quest that would otherwise be completely bland.

 

Stop taking everything out of proportion, I never said the word "godly". TW3 has filler, of course, no one said it doesn't. Those little question marks that can be abandoned places, monster nests, guarded treasures, treasure hunts, etc. are definitely filler, because they are there just to pad the game and give the player more chances to gain XP and find items. 

 

Thing is, that's extra content, those aren't sidequests, which is what we're talking about. But the majority of DAI's sidequests feel like filler to me. They seem to be there just to fill the empty worlds because the maps barely have any purpose besides exploration, so there has to be something there. They are simple fetch/kill quests that involve little to no effort and have no impact on anything. Not on the world, not on the NPCs, not on your character (barely no moral choices to be made). TW3's maps have a purpose, it's where the main quests unfold, so just by doing the main quest, you explore the majority of the maps and come across the side content naturally, kind of like how DAO did it. These sidequests are there to complement the maps and the story, they aren't there to force you to explore the world. Most of the sidequests don't even appear on the map until you are close to the quest giver, same applies to random NPC encounters you get on the road. I can't understand how you think TW3's sidequests have "no real choice". I don't think we played the same game. Or maybe we have different definitions of "choice".

 

Where do you draw the line between side quests and extra content?

 

"Accomplished." Attempting to reason with the sort that considers filler to be golden does indeed make such a term suspect in that limited respect. Fortunately I tend to speak to the matter, not the sort...

 

Much attention gets paid to the length of my reply. I tend instead to think in terms of "thoroughness" and "preciseness." How's that for relative? I have no time for filibusters, but I'll take the time to explain something more fully if it takes a while to do so...

 

The dichotomy is not "is DA meh or 'side content.'" False dichotomy. At least for most of us on this side of the dichotomy. It's "is the bulk of DA's side content meh?" As to facts(!!!) of the matter, I'll address this in my reply further ahead.

 

Your derision for TW3 is irrelevant to me. Perhaps you're 100% correct. Even more correct than you know. There is "right opinion" after all, wouldn't ya know. And you may be absurdly wrong. I wouldn't know, however. I haven't played TW3, haven't mustered the wherewithal to bother trying except a couple brief moments (despite buying the bloody thing). So the bias for or against doesn't apply to me. Actually, if either, the bias against TW3 is stronger with me. But I'm not "acting" as if that bias has any relevance at all. I'm a DA fan judging DAI on DA's merits as a franchise. You... aren't.

 

Agreed upon definition by whom? And who is to agree that these agreers are sufficient? See how easy it is to make it sound insufferably arbitrary? Relativism is utter intellectual dishonesty. As to this "riquer..." uh huh. Is that French for "intellectual rigor?" (In which case I'd say I'm applying far more than you...) Referring to Alexandre De Riquer? (Likely not...) As it's a nonsensical term otherwise, I won't presume, but if only short replies show "riqeur," perhaps I'm right to mock it... As to the validity of "consensus," examine the "argument from popularity." Consensus is not sufficient either if you're sincerely looking for evidence.

 

And the reality it isn't so arbitrary, is it? A game that constantly jars the player out of a sense of identification with their own protagonist or their sense of the character being a part of the game's narrative, a living part of the fiction... yeah, that would be a game that breaks its players' immersion. Disagree? The most stark example of this is a buggy game. No way to maintain immersion in a game that crashes every 30 min. What is more objectively quantifiable than the rate at which a game crashes? Does one need to be "self-selected" as a judge in that case? You set the timer, you play the game, you record how often it crashes. Human tolerance for such a thing may vary, but a game that never crashes will be less immersion-breaking than a game that does every 30 min, no? I'll presume agreement (cuz it's the only intellectually honest response). And by extension I'll presume you agree that there are other objective criteria by which a game may be judged to be immersion-breaking.

 

In DAI's case it has only crashed for me an average of every 5-6 hrs (usually bursts of 3-4 times in a 1-2 hr period in a particular area), so that's not it. No, it's the mechanical nature of the side-quests in the... what? 60%? 80%? I said 95% earlier... of DAI I've done anything other than main or companion quests. That is, for the vast majority of the time of my life I've spent in DAI (which according to Origin/EA is apparently *gulp* 708hrs... (holy friggin...)), it's been spent in side-venturing. If side-venturing were 10% of my time, it'd be a different assessment, wouldn't it? (Which in my case would be about 71hrs...) This is where relativity as an assessment tool is more honest: the quality of my time spent in side-venturing is only an issue relative to the amount of total game time that side-venturing entails. Not to say that if side-venturing were shyte I'd be happy with it because it's only 2% of my time, but it certainly holds that while it at least feels like 95% of my time, it really... really... oughtn't to be shyte. And if I were to pretend that a completionist like myself finds only 50% (rather than 95%) of my total game hours are spent in hill-crawling and respawn grinding and craft material farming and side-quest fulfilling and exploring... that would still be roughly HALF of 708 hrs... And it's well over half...This is also why I suggested to the devs to simply limit the side-venturing content if they don't have the resources/staff/time to devote to fully developing that content. How unreasonable is that when side-venturing takes up in reality the vast majority of the total game time (unless you rush the main story)?

 

And this is where the "completionism is a disease to be avoided" type tries to say it's all my fault for trying to complete all the side areas. But really? They made side content to be ignored? One is a fool to go after it? Side-content is a trap? Well, that's a blight on the dev's record as well then for trying to trap people into wasting their time in side-questing... except that I'm presuming that's untrue. No, I prefer to think that the devs created the side-content with the belief (how subjective of them) that it would be... sufficient? meaningful? filling? I'll just say, "They meant well." I want to say that. Not sure what they were thinking, but it seems the height of cynicism to think they intended it all just to screw with us. There is content there after all so I'll argue against that. In any case, the game is what it is. It doesn't matter if I'm a completionist or not when judging a game for all it is. If the game makes side-venturing immersion-breaking, that's a factor to be considered in assessing the game overall... no? Of course, it is. "It's got a great central narrative, but woe be to those attempting side-questing because that's pretty broken as such." See, I had to address the general failures of your argument first... Forgive me for also addressing the "anti-completionist" line I've also heard articulated on this thread...

 

As to how the devs dropped the ball on side-quests in DAI, I've already mentioned a number of ways. You ignored them to argue generalities, so I'll list them specifically for easier one-off replies on your part:

 

1. Striking lack of cutscenes

2. Striking lack of dialog beyond text of "I'm in a pickle, do this one thing to get me pickle-extraction?" and "Thanks for the pickle-extraction" upon return. This is bare-bones quest construction mechanics. It's where the derogatory (it is derogatory, mind you) term "fetch quests" comes from.

3. Irrelevance of quests to game's main themes. (This one can partially slide in the sense that it is possible to make an irrelevant quest... say, the Lord Woolsley quest... that's genuinely amusing without having any bearing on anything other than the humor of it. Even 4th-wall breaking can remain game-immersive...)

4. Lack of intellectual, philosophical, or imaginative challenge employed within side-content. You do or do not. That's usually it.

5. Preponderance of non-speaking bosses at the end of side-quests that have bosses. Bosses are all impersonal. (Most side-content doesn't even have bosses, but... Or bosses that may speak a line or two (usually inaudible in the heat of battle noises) but never actually interact with the party.)

6. Preponderance of side-content that is purely visual.

7. Preponderance of side-content that relies upon codex entry reading rather than "real-time" experience. (This one is only partially (mostly) egregious. There are a few instances in which this is sorta cool as a mechanic. The pictures of areas that you use to find hidden treasure used codex entries and worked OK as such (but in that case searching those bloody codex entries should've been easier). Like this one that was pretty cool, matching a picture to actual scenery:)

 

 

8. The quality of being a 2nd (or 3rd) tier of relevant quests below the main quests. Investment was clearly diverted heavily into main/companion quests, lightly into most side quests/venturing. There should be no distinction. Experience involving the player should always be valuable/meaningful/top quality.

9. Preponderance of exploration that involves nothing other than traversing terrain and removing Fog of War from the map.

10. Incentivized resource farming

11. Incentivized respawn grinding

12. Lack of consequences for decisions made. (Few decisions were afforded the player during side-quests, of course, so this hardly applies for that reason, but, say, in "The Loss of a Friend" you can either send the demon to go rampaging through the land after Hakkon or kill the demon... same either way other than a free rune for killing the demon and possible minor rep boosts/loss with various companions.)

13. Preponderance of quests that end in nothing other than a simple battle or item... i.e., no different from a typical respawn encounter rather than a character building experience, for instance.

 

(Always good to end on lucky number 13.) These are all measurable, no? I'm right or I'm not. Make the assessment and see that I'm right. No opinion to be had in any of it. That's what goes on during most of your time in DAI. Obviously no one's made a full-out measurement. No one will. So you could say it's a matter of opinion how much all of that applies. But THAT it applies is incontrovertible. That it applies extensively is as clear as it was the lackluster modus operendi by which they created the side-content. But you'd have to be... surprise, surprise... very intellectually dishonest to pretend that all that is an insignificant portion of the side-content in DAI. It's all that the side-content entails... with some nice, ineffectual offshoots here and there like, as I also mentioned, in JoH or Descent. But, OK, I'll let you as an "audience" assess your "attitudes and tastes" in estimating accurately the same reality I've been slogging through in DAI for 700+hrs...

 

I don't think its bad that you want your BW game to have as much of this kind of content as possible. You are basically saying to BW to trim the fat, which is not inherently bad. The problem comes from replacing all this content that is easily made in favor of far fewer quests that are more "meaningful". 

[In Exile]

Agreed upon definition by whom? And who is to agree that these agreers are sufficient? See how easy it is to make it sound insufferably arbitrary? Relativism is utter intellectual dishonesty. As to this "riquer..." uh huh. Is that French for "intellectual rigor?" (In which case I'd say I'm applying far more than you...) Referring to Alexandre De Riquer? (Likely not...) As it's a nonsensical term otherwise, I won't presume, but if only short replies show "riqeur," perhaps I'm right to mock it... As to the validity of "consensus," examine the "argument from popularity." Consensus is not sufficient either if you're sincerely looking for evidence.

This is obviously a joke. The word is evidently "rigour" (or if you prefer the American spelling, "rigor"). You can even see the typo in the next sentence - "rigeur", that swaps the "q" for the "g". 

 

And the reality it isn't so arbitrary, is it? A game that constantly jars the player out of a sense of identification with their own protagonist or their sense of the character being a part of the game's narrative, a living part of the fiction... yeah, that would be a game that breaks its players' immersion. Disagree? The most stark example of this is a buggy game. No way to maintain immersion in a game that crashes every 30 min. What is more objectively quantifiable than the rate at which a game crashes? Does one need to be "self-selected" as a judge in that case? You set the timer, you play the game, you record how often it crashes. Human tolerance for such a thing may vary, but a game that never crashes will be less immersion-breaking than a game that does every 30 min, no? I'll presume agreement (cuz it's the only intellectually honest response). And by extension I'll presume you agree that there are other objective criteria by which a game may be judged to be immersion-breaking.

 

Now we have a definition: "jars the player out of a sense of identification with their own protagonist or their sense of the character being a part of the game's narrative, a living part of the fiction". The definition is meaningless nonsense. 

 

I disagree - because that doesn't describe my subjective experience of "immersion". To me, immersion is about a loss of a sense of self - forgetting where I am and who I am and getting lost in the story.

 

And putting aside your meaningless definition, your "objective" measure doesn't actually measure it. It measures how often the game crashes. You haven't persuaded me - or even explained - why a game that crashes would break immersion. That's not an objective definition - that's a bare assertion. 

 

Not to mention that - even if I accept your nonsense definition, and your non sequitur "objective" measure, your argument doesn't actually follow. Because your illustration of "buggy" breaking immersion in this example, that's predicated on the frequency of crashing. The implicit position in your argument is that 30 minute breaks in the game - outside of the control of the player - are immersion breaking. Let's say that's true. You don't assert DA:I crashes every 30 minutes for everyone. You assert that it crashes every 5-6 hours for you:

 

 

In DAI's case it has only crashed for me an average of every 5-6 hrs (usually bursts of 3-4 times in a 1-2 hr period in a particular area), so that's not it. No, it's the mechanical nature of the side-quests in the... what? 60%? 80%? I said 95% earlier... of DAI I've done anything other than main or companion quests. That is, for the vast majority of the time of my life I've spent in DAI (which according to Origin/EA is apparently *gulp* 708hrs... (holy friggin...)), it's been spent in side-venturing. If side-venturing were 10% of my time, it'd be a different assessment, wouldn't it? (Which in my case would be about 71hrs...) This is where relativity as an assessment tool is more honest: the quality of my time spent in side-venturing is only an issue relative to the amount of total game time that side-venturing entails. Not to say that if side-venturing were shyte I'd be happy with it because it's only 2% of my time, but it certainly holds that while it at least feels like 95% of my time, it really... really... oughtn't to be shyte. And if I were to pretend that a completionist like myself finds only 50% (rather than 95%) of my total game hours are spent in hill-crawling and respawn grinding and craft material farming and side-quest fulfilling and exploring... that would still be roughly HALF of 708 hrs... And it's well over half...This is also why I suggested to the devs to simply limit the side-venturing content if they don't have the resources/staff/time to devote to fully developing that content. How unreasonable is that when side-venturing takes up in reality the vast majority of the total game time (unless you rush the main story)?

 

And this is where the "completionism is a disease to be avoided" type tries to say it's all my fault for trying to complete all the side areas. But really? They made side content to be ignored? One is a fool to go after it? Side-content is a trap? Well, that's a blight on the dev's record as well then for trying to trap people into wasting their time in side-questing... except that I'm presuming that's untrue. No, I prefer to think that the devs created the side-content with the belief (how subjective of them) that it would be... sufficient? meaningful? filling? I'll just say, "They meant well." I want to say that. Not sure what they were thinking, but it seems the height of cynicism to think they intended it all just to screw with us. There is content there after all so I'll argue against that. In any case, the game is what it is. It doesn't matter if I'm a completionist or not when judging a game for all it is. If the game makes side-venturing immersion-breaking, that's a factor to be considered in assessing the game overall... no? Of course, it is. "It's got a great central narrative, but woe be to those attempting side-questing because that's pretty broken as such." See, I had to address the general failures of your argument first... Forgive me for also addressing the "anti-completionist" line I've also heard articulated on this thread...

 

 

Even if that were universally true, which it isn't - it's a baseless anecdote - your argument about the rate of crashing wouldn't work. But it's not the argument you use for the rest of your post - the rest of your post is based on the quality of side quests. 

 

Suppose I accept your purported measure, you go on about "side-venturing" as "shyte". But this has absolutely nothing to do with your previous point, nothing to do with your putative objective measure. In fact, you haven't even shown - going to your original point, about immersion - that "shyte" content is immersion breaking. And even if we say that it is, we run into the problem of subjective evaluation. 

 

The subjective evaluation problem isn't that we can't come up with criteria. It's that reasonable people will disagree as to whether those criteria are met. The way to resolve that problem is to survey many reasonable people - and then say that the majority description is the one we accept as "right", because there are good reasons to defer to the majority opinion. You've misunderstood the fundamental issue with taste being measured from an objective standpoint. 

 

As to the rest of your post, I never contested that it's possible to measure quality. I said "immersion" is a nonsense measure, and that you haven't provided a serious definition or a way to evaluate it. 

[hoechlbear]

Where do you draw the line between side quests and extra content?

 

Extra content is like DAI's bottles, shards, astrariums and the requisitions. Or like setting up camps or closing rifts. They are repetitive and add nothing special to the game. They are there just to give you extra XP/money/power/whatever and make the game last longer. Every game has that, yes, even TW3, like I said monster nests, abandoned places, treasure hunts, bandit camps, etc. Of course deep down they are all side content, but to me there's a difference between extra padding and actual meaty sidequests that can impact the world, its NPCs and let you develop your character's personality. The thing is, the majority of the sidequests in DAI all feel like they are in the same category. The grinding, padding category. I don't see a difference between picking up shards and bottles from picking up letters and notes and fetching rings, or other random objects all over the map. Even the quests that have more meat to them and that had the potential to be something more, are still pretty straightforward and offer barely any NPC interaction, involves little to no choice and no different outcomes. 

[UniformGreyColor]

Extra content is like DAI's bottles, shards, astrariums and the requisitions. Or like setting up camps or closing rifts. They are repetitive and add nothing special to the game. They are there just to give you extra XP/money/power/whatever and make the game last longer. Every game has that, yes, even TW3, like I said monster nests, abandoned places, treasure hunts, bandit camps, etc. Of course deep down they are all side content, but to me there's a difference between extra padding and actual meaty sidequests that can impact the world, its NPCs and let you develop your character's personality. The thing is, the majority of the sidequests in DAI all feel like they are in the same category. The grinding, padding category. I don't see a difference between picking up shards and bottles from picking up letters and notes and fetching rings, or other random objects all over the map. Even the quests that have more meat to them and that had the potential to be something more, are still pretty straightforward and offer barely any NPC interaction, involves little to no choice and no different outcomes. 

 

That is a reasonable enough answer to satisfy me. You are correct that there is not much in the way of NPC interaction, however, I feel this is not a necessity. I will say it would be nice to have more choices, but I am perfectly happy with the story elements that the game provides for me to not put up that much of a stink about it. Where I mostly agree is with your definition of extra content. bottles, astrariums requisitions, all extra content, however, while I can see why someone would not like to have to fetch a ring from a dead person, I can still see how this ties into the main plot of the game. This particular quest is meant to bring the personal details that come with the war between the mages and templars so that is forgiven. I'd argue a whole lot of the side quests are like this in the game. Whether it be defeating Venatori to closing fade rifts, pretty much everything ties into the main plot in one way or another.

[AlanC9]

I never said "whether objective standards are possible" was the important question. I said, "how the devs are expecting the player to spend their time" is the most important question. That objective standards are possible is presumed. You can play as obtuse as you like in assessing whether I (or anyone else) can determine or apply such standards- or judge a game as immersion-breaking for that matter- but consult my post above for that. No sense repeating myself in any case.

If you didn't think that establishing the existence of objective standards was important, why were you talking about it? Anyway, I'll let In Exile handle the substance of the issue.
 

As to my "unfortunate sentence" ("Some 'feels' are inevitable due to a distinguishable, objectively identifiable set of criteria and the sensibility to recognize it.") perhaps it's only unfortunate to you. When, say, a loved one is killed in front of you (and you don't pretend it's not happening)- you can distinguish it, identify it objectively according to the only criteria your physical senses can muster, and then your "feels" at that point may be somewhat, as I put it, "inevitable."

But by saying "loved one" there you're assuming what you're atttempting to prove. Since the person in question has a "loved one" he's by definition already using a system of values that includes "loved ones,." This has no relevance to the current topic since the question is how various gameplay experiences are valued.

[hoechlbear]

That is a reasonable enough answer to satisfy me. You are correct that there is not much in the way of NPC interaction, however, I feel this is not a necessity.

 

Fair enough if you feel that way. Personally, what I love the most about these sidequests is the ability to interact with other NPCs other than companions and the ones tied directly to the main plot. I like to roam around on a world and meet different people, hear their story, interact with them while roleplaying by choosing different types of dialogue, allowing me to shape my character's personality. That always gives an extra something to these quests and can add a lot to a game, in my opinion. They are always more memorable than the ones where you pick up stuff from the ground and go from spot X to spot Y. I mean, let's take Dagna's example in DAO. A simple errand quest, right? But the girl made an impression and got stuck in people's minds, and look at her now in DAI.

 

 

Where I mostly agree is with your definition of extra content. bottles, astrariums requisitions, all extra content, however, while I can see why someone would not like to have to fetch a ring from a dead person, I can still see how this ties into the main plot of the game. This particular quest is meant to bring the personal details that come with the war between the mages and templars so that is forgiven. I'd argue a whole lot of the side quests are like this in the game. Whether it be defeating Venatori to closing fade rifts, pretty much everything ties into the main plot in one way or another.

 

Yes, they are somehow connected to what is going on on the worlds, but do they have to be so.... shallow? The ring quest for example. Why can't we have an actual conversation with the widow? Show some sympathy? The woman literally tells you her husband was murdered and all you say is "goodbye" ?? And why couldn't we have a confrontation with the templars that had the ring? Actually see their faces, talk, maybe know their side of the story, instead of just killing them like they are just another random mob. Why couldn't there be something more to this quest? Maybe we would find out they don't have the ring anymore because someone stole it, and then you'd have to track the thieves down, confront them and it would turn out they are refugees who wanted to sell the ring to buy food or something? And then present you with a moral choice. Let them keep the ring, ask for the ring but give them money, or leave them with nothing. This isn't exactly a good example, I have zero creativity, but you know what I mean, right? My issue with the sidequests is not that they involve you to retrieve an object or kill something, it's the way the quests are executed, and how there is no complexity to them at all. They are as simple as go to a place and kill something/pick up an object. That's not engaging to me at all, it requires no skill, no thinking, it adds nothing to the game. In the end, it's all the same repetitive crap, they feel like a complete chore, just like the requisitions or the shards.

[vbibbi]

Some of the quests in Inquisition were...tedious, I'll admit.  I skipped over some (Temple of Solasan, the Hissing Wastes) because it didn't really have an impact.  I usually get to a point, and decide...well, screw it, I have to kill something with a name and a cutscene.  So I move on.  BTW, loved Fallout 4...but I am SO SICK of saving settlements.  I armed them to the TEETH...walls, guns, MORE GUNS...can't they take care of that themselves?  Good gravy...which actually does get me back to Inquisition...after you BECOME the Inquisitor...I get leading from the front, but why does it feel like my army is actually HIDING behind me?  Seriously?  Three advisors, true...but can't I send out a COUPLE of agents to take care of stuff?  Josie has got to have more than one diplomatic team...and are all of Cullen's people so inept that he can't trust them to follow simple directions?  Or does he NEED them babysat so they don't accidentally impale themselves on their headgear or such?  Seriously...we should have been able to send out multiple missions per advisor.  
 
Still, twas fun.  Unlike DAO and DA2, leveling up was a bit better (for me, for me, another could have a totally different experience) so if I had the levels and power, I did story over...well, whatever that guy wanted me to pick up.  Asthma alchemy or something?  Seriously...I cleared the roads!  Just walk up to that place, talk to your dipstick kid himself!  It's like a five minute hike dude!

  

I don't think DAI was successful in conveying the PC as the leader of an organization, at least any more than any other RPG where we choose from the limited options presented. It felt like we remained as a figure head for the entire game, one that the advisors could use as a scapegoat if our plans went wrong. "It was the will of the Herald that all of those troops die needlessly!"

.... But that is exactly how supply-demand works. In theory, if every consumer worked like that, it forces the developers/publishers to keep their games at the top level in order to fight the competition and make a profit. If the consumer keeps blindly purchasing the (shitty) products that the developer/publisher is bringing to the market and they keep making a profit, why would they stop or change whatever they're doing?

  

The state of game reviewers now is skewed against consumers. How often do we see big name journalists trash an AAA game? I think it's very hard for a consumer to have a good idea of a game's qualifier on release day. We have to wait weeks for consumer reviews. Which is how the rest of the world works, I know, but in this industry, there are incentives for preorder bonuses and gamers don't want to risk being spoiled if they don't abstain from the Internet until unbiased reviews come out. And how many people actually return a game if they enjoyed parts of it but not overall? I would think most people wouldn't only return a game if they really hated it or it was broken beyond playability. But people also hold out waiting for patches to improve issues from launch day. It's really just a market heavily favoring the publishers.

Like Banshee said, i meant people who genuinely want to give feedback or constructive criticism and are still told to bugger off. Sadly there are many who just want to bash the game.
 
I don't simply drop something if there are things not to my liking or a problem. I try to fix it (in this case give feedback). I am a huge fan of the Dragon Age Series and i want them to improve. Wasn't to fond of DAI but i had to play it an see what it has to offer and if i like it.

Since there are games that improved although being bought a lot, this doesn't apply to every developer. I know that there are games like Assassin's Creed which improved nearly none over the years and people still bought them like crazy. I didn't "blindly" purchase DAI, i checked reviews, gameplay videos and every news beforehand and sadly still got disappointed. There is nothing like playing the game for yourself and experiencing it. Granted i'll be more cautious for the next Dragon Age but i'll probably buy it someday because there is always hope. Ah yes and thanks for calling me stupid i think

  

Yeah I'm fairly sure I'll be buying DA4 regardless of its content since I love the DA world so much. But I'll definitely not preorder and might wait for either the price to go down or get a GOTY edition if it's comes out.

To me, "good" side quests come in two types:
 
1) Well-crafted side stories that add depth to the environment and tells it own little story.  Essentially doing a story in a story.  Baldur's Gate 2 was full of them:  Trademeet, the stronghold quests, The Windspear Hills, etc.
 
2) Extremely simple additions you can do while doing something else.  Such as being on the lookout for a particular item or NPC while you're crawling around in a dungeon you were going to visit anyway.  They add nothing to the story itself, but provide a nice little reward for being observant.  Things like finding the Redcliffe blacksmith's daughter  or the Topsider's Honor quest in DAO.  
 
Boring ones are the ones that ask you to visit difficult to access areas for no other reason than they are there, or require a long, repetitive series of actions which do little but pad out the number of hours played without adding any real story to the game.  "Collection quests" are the worst.  Like the mosaic pieces or the bottles.

 

It's even lampshades in game by the fact that the journal has open quests, completed quests, and collections. Apart from the codex we receive from the mosaics and some landmarks (notably the Hinterlands which I did like) there's no real benefit to the collections. Visiting a region in a map doesn't provide any bonus, nor do the bottles. The shards do give combat bonuses, but I don't consider them worth the effort of tracking down all of the shards. And there's no great payoff when opening the last chamber in the temple, just more mystery.

 

To me, this is greatly a matter of opinion. There were more than a few side quests that I did in DA:I that when I was done with them, I actually found myself saying to myself "that was great!" To name a few there is Still Ruins in the Western Approach, Valammar in The Hinterlands and The Flooded Caves in Crestwood. These are some of the absolute funnest quests in the whole game for me. Not only do they tell their own story, but there is more than one story there that are all intertwined with each other. There are also the Keeps, which I had a blast conquering -especially the long road up to the one in Emprise du Lion. These are all exactly the kind of thing I look for in a side quest and they were really done beautifully. Actually reading the codex often gives you inside info on what is going on at these locations as well, which is a big plus.

 

True, the quests you mention are interesting and expand on lore. But I still miss the human interaction which would have been involved in those quests in previous games. It's too much combat, reading codex, more combat and pick up an item, then quest ends.

 

Considering side quests existed in DA:I that were more involved and the "fetch" quests are purely optional and yet still tend to add to the lore... I don't get the "hate". Especially since the game it is held up against has just as much repetitive filler... Sorry, but one great sidequest isn't enough to rise above "go here talk walk follow witcher senses kill" repitition that is all over TW3. Maybe some forgive it, but let's not act like it doesn't commit the same "crime" Inquisition does. It's just that you like that game and forgive the same obvious "flaws".
So sick of thise sidequest crap being used against DA:I when it isn't the only ROG to have these types of quest. If it gets hate for it, so should Fallout and The Witcher.

I think it's a problem if the filler quests you mention still have some lore attached to them. A player who enjoys learning lore shouldn't be punished by having to complete boring filler quests in order to access the lore. It's about wanting to enjoy the entire gameplay experience, not feel obligated to do quests in order to get the neat lore bits or other goodies.

And has been said, there are a lot more side quests in TW3 than just monster contracts. Several of which impact the epilogue slides even though they're completely optional. They don't even help advance the main plot in the way that DAI side quests give power to unlock main quests. Some of the contracts can be dull and boil down to tracking the monster and killing it, but many have different outcomes based on our decisions, and some interesting moral questions or information that expands our understanding of the world.

Also, I didn't buy FO4 because I had heard of the poor quests. So in that way you are correct. I don't think one needs to compare DAI's side quests to other games to see that it's own side quests were subpar. It has nothing to do with other games and entirely to do with whether the player enjoys playing DAI on its own merits.

[CronoDragoon]

but you get a cool wine cellar for the bottles.

 

admittedly i didn't even find it until my second playthrough, but still!

[Guitar-Hero]

Except the quests aren't factually better or more diverse or deeper... You keep pounding the table screaming TW3 does it better and scream it is fact and turn around saying I an touting opinion as fact..... No. I admitted both games have repetitive quests that can be viewed as filler. Whether you like one story or game more generally skews perception of that filter. You are the one screaming your opinion as fact, constantly playing the routine "just a hater" card, and proving yourself to be yet another Witcher fanatic that can't stand that someone doesn't worship the game with you.

That is the attitude I am sick of from that fanbase...


See. I don't agree. The characters in TW3 were never 3 dimensional or engaging to me. There were few branching sidequests that had any real choice. So all that packaging that enticed you, did nothing to enrich the experience for me, while even the murals added to a history and lore I care about in DA and integrates more into the world and its design than the Witcher's world. And really, the murals are more akin to the witcher contracts and points of interest (filler anyone...) than a full side quest. DA had plenty of meatier content that interacted with the world and characters than people want to give it credit for. From each companion quest, to Crestwood, to the mire, to the glyphs that open up a new area... There is a lot of side content that is rich and intricate.

Maybe you don't like it and that's fine. But I take issue with others continually spouting an opinion on distaste That the quests are simple filler fetch quests.... And then praising a game with the same kind of padding for being better at it as if it is fact. It isn't.

Please give an exsample of on side-quest DAI did which felt engaging. Now i know i wont change anyones mind on a particular game (and why would i? If you love something that's a good thing) but calling people fanatic because they are passionate and have a different opinion is ****** lame. TW3 has a slew of problems but still beats the socks off any DA game We've had for me.

[Bizantura]

For me what is a good game is simple : the one I play from a to z.  Not many as I review my library of games.  3 publishers to be exact and Bioware is one of them.  Looking at their games from DA and ME franchise and the odd stand alone like KOTOR, JE.  In my book that is a good track record.  I honestly don't expect a "perfect" game.

 

The overall story in DAI is good and yes rather generic, but aren't they all?  Hero archetype is just that being a hero.  You can skip all the sidequests without any problem, being a completionist is no excuse. 

 

I play games to escape reality but at least be honest and aware about it and demanding "reality" in games, well I refrain of even commenting on that!!

Shure in time that will be remedied by a "holodeck" type of startrek thing where many people can loose themselves in a artificial enviroment totaly save and devoid of natures reality.  Coping with "reality" will only be during demanded slave hours.

[vbibbi]

What is a meaningful experience to one player can be meaningless to another. What matters to one player may or may not matter to another. What immerses one player in the game may take another one out of it. What one player remembers for years to come may be forgotten by another player in the next minute.
 
The best any developer can do is make the game the developer wishes to make and hope that the majority of the gaming audience agrees with that development.

 

Is DAI the game Bioware wanted to make? We have no idea, it's not like they're going to come out and say it wasn't. They've already said they realize Corypheus should have had more of a presence. They've already responded to feedback when implementing changes in the DLCs. But a lot of the things in DAI were imposed on them and affected their original plan: because DA2's expansion was cut they had to fold it into DAI and cut some of the intended story. They had to spend so much time learning the new engine and making the game available for five platforms. They had to cut things that they had said would be in, like environmental reactivity, customization of keeps, directing our forces in the field. This isn't just stuff seen from the leaked pre alpha footage, this is what they told the public would be in the game and was later cut. I think Bio could see the game as a successful given the circumstances but my impression is that it's not the game they wanted.

 

Well, except that it is arbitrary. What's the formal, agreed upon definition of immersion? Where is the survey that has a statistically relevant random sample of DA:I players responding to a survey regarding it?
 
We can investigate attitudes and tastes. But to do it objectively requires riquer. Posting a lengthy opinion is not rigeur. Seeming consensus might be - but there's no real evidence of any such consensus, because any audience we can point to is very self-selected.

From reading through just this thread, and yes I know it's not a relevant sample survey but in that case your own arguments can't be considered accurate, most people explaining how they found DAI side quests lacking are providing examples of what they didn't like and some suggestions of how it could be improved. Most people arguing the point are either saying they hate TW3 (irrelevant) or they disagree with the arguments provided. Objectively, there are less NPCs with conversation that extend beyond "kill his" or "fetch me that" than in previous Bioware games. And if someone doesn't have a problem with that fine, but don't claim people who see this as a flaw are objectively wrong or that their opinion that DAI needs to improve its side quests have no foundation on which to stand.

  

To what standard tho? DA:I is objectively a bigger game in size. You can't be asking for both a bigger game and a game that has no filler.
 
I see little difference between DA:O and DA:I in this regard. What about the Keep in Emprise du Lion where you talk to the demon? I'm not arguing that DA:I has less percentage of voiced, impactful, memorable interaction with NPCs, narrative choices that determine your characters tendencies, but I am saying that what BW has done is add content rather than replace it. You said it yourself in a post that there are whole teams devoted to codexes and those stories. As far as I'm concerned those codex entries are bonus content.
 
You cannot create a game the size of DA:I with every occurrence being a profoundly meaningful one, it is not possible. You are basically saying that the devs need to create only the highest of quality of content for the whole game and that just does not make sense on a fiscal level. It is by far a lot cheaper to make a game with less really good side quests and more quests that maybe can be called fetch quests. It does not make sense for BW to completely cut out a relatively large chunk of the game so that we get maybe 5-10% more "meaningful" quests. FWIW I enjoy reading codexes. I didn't use to, but I decided, "what the heck I'll do a runthrough where I read them" and I am so glad I decided to start reading them. The question, really, is how important to you is Narrative screenplay to you in favor of that over stories that can simply be written and put in a codex to add spice to a quest that would otherwise be completely bland.
 
I don't think its bad that you want your BW game to have as much of this kind of content as possible. You are basically saying to BW to trim the fat, which is not inherently bad. The problem comes from replacing all this content that is easily made in favor of far fewer quests that are more "meaningful".

My argument would be, if they created a world too large to contain significant side content as well as in previous games, scale back the world. Leave exploration games to other franchises. I play Bioware games because of the story and characters, not because there's huge maps to explore and some enjoyable, if irrelevant, visual narration we can discover.

As for the example of Imshael in EdL, to compare that as a side quest like the blood Mage hideout in DAO shows my unhappiness with it. The blood mage hideout is in no way relevant to the overall story of DAO, it's just a quest that provides flavor in the nature of blood magic and its dangers. Imshael is supposedly in the keep in an alliance with Corypheus similar to Envy and the nightmare demon's alliances, to oversee the expansion of red lyrium in the region. He has a lot of backstory from TME and Michel has a personal connection to him. But what is our interaction with him? He just asks if we would like to be bribed not to fight him, and gives us options for generic loot. That's it. No mention of Corypheus and the expansion of red lyrium, no branching investigative dialogue options to ask him for more information, just accept his deal or kill him. And how realistic is it to accept his deal, as we're depriving ourselves of a keep and agent, and allowing the continuation of red lyrium growth. We're there to stop the red lyrium mines, not get a small amount of gold or some items. This is a completely optional side quest but one that should have had more of an impact in the fight against Corypheus. There should have been more red Templars at the Temple of Mythal if we hadn't disrupted the mines, etc.

  

That is a reasonable enough answer to satisfy me. You are correct that there is not much in the way of NPC interaction, however, I feel this is not a necessity. I will say it would be nice to have more choices, but I am perfectly happy with the story elements that the game provides for me to not put up that much of a stink about it. Where I mostly agree is with your definition of extra content. bottles, astrariums requisitions, all extra content, however, while I can see why someone would not like to have to fetch a ring from a dead person, I can still see how this ties into the main plot of the game. This particular quest is meant to bring the personal details that come with the war between the mages and templars so that is forgiven. I'd argue a whole lot of the side quests are like this in the game. Whether it be defeating Venatori to closing fade rifts, pretty much everything ties into the main plot in one way or another.

Given that I play Bioware games for the NPC interaction, it is a flaw in the game for me.

[CronoDragoon]

Is it actually true that there are fewer NPCs/side quests with objectives that extend beyond "kill this or fetch that." with no interaction? DAI's problem to me is a question of ratio, not raw content. Compared to DAI, both Origins and DA2 have substantially fewer side quests in general.

[vbibbi]

Is it actually true that there are fewer NPCs/side quests with objectives that extend beyond "kill this or fetch that." with no interaction? DAI's problem to me is a question of ratio, not raw content. Compared to DAI, both Origins and DA2 have substantially fewer side quests in general.

I will need to pull up a list of DAO quests when I'm home to compare them to DAI. I did make a list of all DAI side quests (excluding companion quests) and determined that the in game ratio of meaningful interaction to number of quests was poor. Generally only one or two per zone. You can find that comparison here http://forum.bioware...ion/?p=20090926

And while I understand that we're comparing DAO to DAI in regards to its side content, I think DAI should have a strong ratio of good side content regardless of DAO or TW3 or any other game. If the argument that it's side content is no worse than X games' content, that's damning with faint praise.

[CronoDragoon]

I will need to pull up a list of DAO quests when I'm home to compare them to DAI. I did make a list of all DAI side quests (excluding companion quests) and determined that the in game ratio of meaningful interaction to number of quests was poor. Generally only one or two per zone. You can find that comparison here http://forum.bioware...ion/?p=20090926

And while I understand that we're comparing DAO to DAI in regards to its side content, I think DAI should have a strong ratio of good side content regardless of DAO or TW3 or any other game. If the argument that it's side content is no worse than X games' content, that's damning with faint praise.

 

I agree, I just thought that saying DAI has objectively fewer meaningful side quests than DAO or DA2 (as in raw numbers) was a pretty strong statement, and I hadn't seen any evidence either way. Purely due to DAI's size I think it's easy to agree the ratio is bad, which is why I think the zones should have been way smaller, and some zones cut entirely.

[Mr Fixit]

Just including a couple interaction-driven side quests on each map would be a big plus. Comparing to DA2, something in the vein of Magistrates Orders or Fenriel.

[CronoDragoon]

Just including a couple interaction-driven side quests on each map would be a big plus. Comparing to DA2, something in the vein of Magistrates Orders or Fenriel.

 

Magistrate's Orders is a good example, though Feynriel is a main quest.

[AFA]

I really wish that the sidequests on the war table had been swapped in for some of the fetch quests. They have the best plots in the game.

 

DAI was twice as big as it should have been, hence the filler. Half the zones could have been cut or consolidated and nothing would have been lost. We didn't need three deserts, or two swamps filled with undead.

 

DAI as a whole could have done with a tighter narrative really. 

[Toasted Llama]

The state of game reviewers now is skewed against consumers. How often do we see big name journalists trash an AAA game? I think it's very hard for a consumer to have a good idea of a game's qualifier on release day. We have to wait weeks for consumer reviews. Which is how the rest of the world works, I know, but in this industry, there are incentives for preorder bonuses and gamers don't want to risk being spoiled if they don't abstain from the Internet until unbiased reviews come out. And how many people actually return a game if they enjoyed parts of it but not overall? I would think most people wouldn't only return a game if they really hated it or it was broken beyond playability. But people also hold out waiting for patches to improve issues from launch day. It's really just a market heavily favoring the publishers.

 

I agree that big name gaming journalism is currently pretty much anti-consumer and pre-order exclusive content is a bad business practice, but the getting spoiled part only counts for story-heavy games AFAIK.

 

And consumers returning a game they enjoyed parts of but not overall is still sending a message; not good (enough). Waiting for patches is also a message: not good enough, you fix it, I buy it. It's a lot more effective, developers otherwise would have to read through piles and piles of feedback and at least half of both the positive as well as negative feedback is bullshit or subjective. I also doubt they would thoroughly look through feedback as long as they're making a decent profit.

 

But from all the points mentioned, the publishers/developers can only 'fix' the pre-order bullshit. The consumer has a certain level of power, but it's not being properly used. For example; most people think season passes that are more expensive than the actual game are complete and utter garbage and bad business practices, right? Yet they're still being used/sold because apparently they're still profitable; consumers still buy that crap.

 

I admit that it's a lot harder to properly spend your money on the correct games and correct developers, but if you'll have to use your wallet if you want to push something in the right direction while money is involved.

[Bhryaen]

To what standard tho? DA:I is objectively a bigger game in size. You can't be asking for both a bigger game and a game that has no filler.

 

Just because Mike Laidlaw said he was enjoying TW3 doesn't at all diminish the quality of the the game that BW developed when it made DA:I. Its actually good new to hear this because it means that the dev team isn't isolated from other dev teams and that what other devs teams do is likely going to have an impact on what the next DA game is going to be like which is good cuz it means the dev team can learn what they like and dislike about other games and try to implement the things they like and stay away from the things they don't.

 

I see little difference between DA:O and DA:I in this regard. What about the Keep in Emprise du Lion where you talk to the demon? I'm not arguing that DA:I has less percentage of voiced, impactful, memorable interaction with NPCs, narrative choices that determine your characters tendencies, but I am saying that what BW has done is add content rather than replace it. You said it yourself in a post that there are whole teams devoted to codexes and those stories. As far as I'm concerned those codex entries are bonus content.

 

I can't speak for AC or Farcry because I've not played much of AC and I've never touched Far Cry, but basically I'm hearing that you want content more condensed, rather than spaced out. That makes for a smaller game, you must realize that.

 

I have yet to play the DLC content so take that as you will. I will say I have 465 hours on record for DA:I. But your point here is made. I can see how this could be a mistake from the devs on this end.

 

That is quite the suggestion.. You realize you are basically putting people out of work if this is implemented right? DA has always had codexes and I don't see them disappearing any time soon. And it would be a necessity to cut that part of the game out if the devs do what you suggest.

 

You cannot create a game the size of DA:I with every occurrence being a profoundly meaningful one, it is not possible. You are basically saying that the devs need to create only the highest of quality of content for the whole game and that just does not make sense on a fiscal level. It is by far a lot cheaper to make a game with less really good side quests and more quests that maybe can be called fetch quests. It does not make sense for BW to completely cut out a relatively large chunk of the game so that we get maybe 5-10% more "meaningful" quests. FWIW I enjoy reading codexes. I didn't use to, but I decided, "what the heck I'll do a runthrough where I read them" and I am so glad I decided to start reading them. The question, really, is how important to you is Narrative screenplay to you in favor of that over stories that can simply be written and put in a codex to add spice to a quest that would otherwise be completely bland.

 

I don't think its bad that you want your BW game to have as much of this kind of content as possible. You are basically saying to BW to trim the fat, which is not inherently bad. The problem comes from replacing all this content that is easily made in favor of far fewer quests that are more "meaningful". 

True about Laidlaw... didn't know if I should mention that tidbit since it risked putting words in Laidlaw's mouth, but you took the point the right way anyhow...

 

Also true about that demon in Emprise du Lion... which makes it the 2nd talking boss in DAI's side-venturing... 2nd of 2... or rather 2 of, what, 30?... and still kinda makes my point... which you say you're not disputing, but you actually say you see no difference between DAO and DAI on this. DAO had many more talking bosses or even just potential foes- the warehouse mage boss, both Denerim tavern thug groups, the treant, the hermit mage, the blood mages in the woods, the desire demon in the Circle Tower (the other talking one was a required boss), Ser Landry, the orphanage demon, city guards (if you got caught PP'ing), Beyha Joam, the traveling adventurers, etc.- all of them at least had a moment of face-time with the player where you can get a sense of them and give a more meaningful context to resorting to kill, kill, loot- or otherwise is many cases. DAI has only those two talking boss encounters, both of which do give the player (protagonist) choices, but... that's it. And, mind you, there were also non-talking (not much more than kill, kill, loot) bosses and foes in DAO. But you see the proportion, yes? And there's a reason- a narrative reason- that you aren't going to have a talking scene with a pack of spiders or werewolves or darkspawn. Is there any narrative reason that there's no conversation with the boss in the Fallow Mire? Not even a cutscene of him simply shouting a warning at us from atop the fort wall before we're surrounded in undead. In DAO you did also have moments of purely audio tracks from talkable foes and then kill, kill, loot- such as when you venture to Dust Town the first time and the group of thugs shouts something before attacking. (Followed by a companion mentioning it's a rough neighborhood...) But it was laid out intentionally for narrative purposes that way, whereas in DAI that was pretty much the rule simply because it's easier (or as you put it, "cheaper"): Fallow Mire boss, Crestwood fort bosses, the black knight in the Hinterlands fort, the mage and templar faction bosses, giants, the Freemen leader, Hessarians, Sha-Brytol, Hakkonites, the Western approach desert bandits, and it's worth noting that demons can talk, even rage demons. All have distinct stories, supposedly full lives before you meet them... and all mute. (The Western Approach boss Servis is mute as well, but only until you "kill" him. Then he, well, can be taken back to Skyhold to talk anyway... My first time through I didn't even recognize he was a boss and just found him lying there while looting the place.) Nothing to them but loot targets, no different from regular respawns other than appearance, maybe a special skill or combat difficulty, 'bout it. In DAI it's laid out like that because, as you seem to recognize, they had huge areas to fill and not enough resources to do them justice... so they half-assed it. It's the half-assing I oppose.

 

Then you say the codex entries are just a happy "extra." It's only extra if there's something there to which it's adding. There isn't. That's what I was emphasizing. There were plenty of codex entries in DAO and DA2 as well, but that's not where the gameplay was. Supplementary is supplementary. Come to think of it, DAI is the first DA where I ended up reading every bloody codex. And why? Because the codex trail is the side-quest much of the time in DAI. And as I said, it's not bad or wrong in itself to have such a codex-based or codex-housed side-venture. It's lame when it becomes the standard, when it replaces the more interactive, elaborately laid-out, narrative-driven content that you get in the previous DA's. I didn't eagerly grab up the next DA in order to read codexes. "Man, those codexes in DAO were great! Can't wait to get into DAI's!" There's already good DA fiction to read outside of the game- the novels and the WoT volumes, not to mention fan fiction. Mind you, I do remember an example from DAO that relied on codexes- the secret stash mentioned in codex entries found scattered around the Deep Roads until you identify the location (and face off with an ogre). And that was the exception- and it worked well as such. The not-main-narrative/not-companion-quest "other stuff" team of DAI, however, added the bulk of their creativity to codex composition (and background art)- tons of characters existing there with different voices and stories and writing styles... and none of which we meet, interact with, change the lives of, change our character's life or journey, discover as a friend or foe, cause us moral conundrums, or even affect the game in any way... A lot of great writing, but the "NPCs" there (do they even qualify as NPCs?) add nothing to the "real-time" experiences of our characters in the world. They're just not substantive enough to constitute an adventure. Codex stories and lived stories are not equivalents, just as filler is not a qualitative equivalent of quests/encounters into which the full creative team has really invested their effort.

 

And I don't get your notion that changing this "puts people out of work." They already put someone out of work to make DAI the way they did. If they'd write those codexes as playable adventure instead, full of all the same characters and voices and irony, the artists would simply be put to work differently. And if they've gone overboard on hiring for codex entry prominence, that's not my problem to correct or endure. They're going to hire someone for whatever design they choose anyway.

 

No, I asked for neither a larger game nor a smaller game. I asked for a high-quality game to the largest extent they could manage without resorting to filler. I see no reason to assume this isn't possible. I mean really: are you suggesting they have no choice but to add filler to a game? They must make it larger and thus must dumb down the encounters? DAO did an excellent job without doing that... and, yes, remained much smaller than DAI territory-wise. DA2 did a fairly good job of it as well, better than DAI, and also ended up being the shorter game. I find it ironic that with DAI so huge they couldn't manage anything more for a city than Val Royeaux's center plaza while DAO had Denerim, Orzammar, Amaranthine, even a larger Redcliffe than DAI's. So I suggested, if you can only keep up that standard by reducing the game's overall traversible area size, just reduce the size. It's OK! It lends nothing to DAI simply that it's big. A hiking simulator, sure, should be big since the hiking is the game. A roleplay adventure game with a sophisticated central narrative like DA... isn't best served by hours and hours of uneventful hiking, filler encounters, and repetitive tasks. Would be awesome if they could make DA4 equally as huge as DAI with no filler, mindful to preserve the sense of uninterrupted narrative content (and simply having such a narrative imperative (haha) to maintain in the first place). It's just that it's not necessary to attempt such a thing, not the sort of priority that trumps great interactive content and a consistently meaningful player experience. You recognize that you're making an argument for quantity over quality, right? It's almost inevitable that the player is going to end a narrative-rich game wishing there was more, but by the same token a territory-weighty, supposedly-roleplaying game full of filler is going to end begging for narrative/interactive content. So err on the side that works better for rpg's, no? In any case I'm not going to accept the devs applying a "cheap and easy" method to constructing the DAverse without complaining. Especially as it kills replayability for me.

 

465hrs in DAI for you. Just amazing to me all those hrs. I've got 708... and only finished the game once! By contrast I've got 1700+ in DAO and played it 5.5 times. And the main mission in DAI is arguably equal to or shorter than DAO's in time needed. That's how much of my time went to the meat of the game in DAO compared to going to filler in DAI... This makes me cringe... This is also why I supported the Golden Nug. It's totally cheesy to add it, conspicuously metagamey, has no narrative purpose, stands out like a sore thumb in the playable terrain, and otherwise a no-no for an rpg, but it ameliorates the time-drain (trying not to say time-wasting) involved in compulsory filler activity like resource and item farming and battling respawns over and over (and helps with early-game equipment cosmetics). It's no better than a compensation, not an innovation, but welcome nonetheless. It helps make replay more feasible given the sort of game they decided to saddle us with...

[UniformGreyColor]

Fair enough if you feel that way. Personally, what I love the most about these sidequests is the ability to interact with other NPCs other than companions and the ones tied directly to the main plot. I like to roam around on a world and meet different people, hear their story, interact with them while roleplaying by choosing different types of dialogue, allowing me to shape my character's personality. That always gives an extra something to these quests and can add a lot to a game, in my opinion. They are always more memorable than the ones where you pick up stuff from the ground and go from spot X to spot Y. I mean, let's take Dagna's example in DAO. A simple errand quest, right? But the girl made an impression and got stuck in people's minds, and look at her now in DAI.

 

 

 

Yes, they are somehow connected to what is going on on the worlds, but do they have to be so.... shallow? The ring quest for example. Why can't we have an actual conversation with the widow? Show some sympathy? The woman literally tells you her husband was murdered and all you say is "goodbye" ?? And why couldn't we have a confrontation with the templars that had the ring? Actually see their faces, talk, maybe know their side of the story, instead of just killing them like they are just another random mob. Why couldn't there be something more to this quest? Maybe we would find out they don't have the ring anymore because someone stole it, and then you'd have to track the thieves down, confront them and it would turn out they are refugees who wanted to sell the ring to buy food or something? And then present you with a moral choice. Let them keep the ring, ask for the ring but give them money, or leave them with nothing. This isn't exactly a good example, I have zero creativity, but you know what I mean, right? My issue with the sidequests is not that they involve you to retrieve an object or kill something, it's the way the quests are executed, and how there is no complexity to them at all. They are as simple as go to a place and kill something/pick up an object. That's not engaging to me at all, it requires no skill, no thinking, it adds nothing to the game. In the end, it's all the same repetitive crap, they feel like a complete chore, just like the requisitions or the shards.

 

Don't get me wrong, choice is always preferable, its just a matter of at what cost. I think if enough of these threads creep up BW will be changing the way they do quests. If ME:A turns out to be a game with such an emphasis on exploration and fans aren't happy with it, you can bet people are going to point the finger at BW and they are going to have to change things.

 

 
My argument would be, if they created a world too large to contain significant side content as well as in previous games, scale back the world. Leave exploration games to other franchises. I play Bioware games because of the story and characters, not because there's huge maps to explore and some enjoyable, if irrelevant, visual narration we can discover.

As for the example of Imshael in EdL, to compare that as a side quest like the blood Mage hideout in DAO shows my unhappiness with it. The blood mage hideout is in no way relevant to the overall story of DAO, it's just a quest that provides flavor in the nature of blood magic and its dangers. Imshael is supposedly in the keep in an alliance with Corypheus similar to Envy and the nightmare demon's alliances, to oversee the expansion of red lyrium in the region. He has a lot of backstory from TME and Michel has a personal connection to him. But what is our interaction with him? He just asks if we would like to be bribed not to fight him, and gives us options for generic loot. That's it. No mention of Corypheus and the expansion of red lyrium, no branching investigative dialogue options to ask him for more information, just accept his deal or kill him. And how realistic is it to accept his deal, as we're depriving ourselves of a keep and agent, and allowing the continuation of red lyrium growth. We're there to stop the red lyrium mines, not get a small amount of gold or some items. This is a completely optional side quest but one that should have had more of an impact in the fight against Corypheus. There should have been more red Templars at the Temple of Mythal if we hadn't disrupted the mines, etc.

  
Given that I play Bioware games for the NPC interaction, it is a flaw in the game for me.

 

I share your sentiments on story and characters, that really does it for me too. Exploration is nice, but I would rather have a good story told than pretty things to look at.

 

I didn't choose the option to be bribed partly due to RP options and partly because I didn't feel I needed anything he was offering. But basically the choice to be bribed or not is almost entirely for RP options and that is kinda a difference from another encounter we have seen previously in DA games. In DA:O we can actually unlock Blood Magic as a reward for taking a bribe from a demon. And here's the kicker, BM has basically the best AoE spell in the entire game. So I agree with you in part. Where I disagree is in the example between the two. You listed a sting of 4 different things that Imshael had story wise when the Blood Mage example only had 1. Not to say I would've liked a little bit of an explanation. I actually myself was thinking it was a tiny bit of a let down not to discover why exactly the demon was working with Cory, but I can only expect so much. After all where does BW stop with the story and just let it be? If we were to take the bribe, I would have liked to see some kind of epic reward I will admit.

 

NPC interactions are nice, but you can tell a whole lot more story with the amount of time it takes to do a screenplay narrative.

[UniformGreyColor]

True about Laidlaw... didn't know if I should mention that tidbit since it risked putting words in Laidlaw's mouth, but you took the point the right way anyhow...

 

Also true about that demon in Emprise du Lion... which makes it the 2nd talking boss in DAI's side-venturing... 2nd of 2... or rather 2 of, what, 30?... and still kinda makes my point... which you say you're not disputing, but you actually say you see no difference between DAO and DAI on this. DAO had many more talking bosses or even just potential foes- the warehouse mage boss, both Denerim tavern thug groups, the treant, the hermit mage, the blood mages in the woods, the desire demon in the Circle Tower (the other talking one was a required boss), Ser Landry, the orphanage demon, city guards (if you got caught PP'ing), Beyha Joam, the traveling adventurers, etc.- all of them at least had a moment of face-time with the player where you can get a sense of them and give a more meaningful context to resorting to kill, kill, loot- or otherwise is many cases. DAI has only those two talking boss encounters, both of which do give the player (protagonist) choices, but... that's it. And, mind you, there were also non-talking (not much more than kill, kill, loot) bosses and foes in DAO. But you see the proportion, yes? And there's a reason- a narrative reason- that you aren't going to have a talking scene with a pack of spiders or werewolves or darkspawn. Is there any narrative reason that there's no conversation with the boss in the Fallow Mire? Not even a cutscene of him simply shouting a warning at us from atop the fort wall before we're surrounded in undead. In DAO you did also have moments of purely audio tracks from talkable foes and then kill, kill, loot- such as when you venture to Dust Town the first time and the group of thugs shouts something before attacking. (Followed by a companion mentioning it's a rough neighborhood...) But it was laid out intentionally for narrative purposes that way, whereas in DAI that was pretty much the rule simply because it's easier (or as you put it, "cheaper"): Fallow Mire boss, Crestwood fort bosses, the black knight in the Hinterlands fort, the mage and templar faction bosses, giants, the Freemen leader, Hessarians, Sha-Brytol, Hakkonites, the Western approach desert bandits, and it's worth noting that demons can talk, even rage demons. All have distinct stories, supposedly full lives before you meet them... and all mute. (The Western Approach boss Servis is mute as well, but only until you "kill" him. Then he, well, can be taken back to Skyhold to talk anyway... My first time through I didn't even recognize he was a boss and just found him lying there while looting the place.) Nothing to them but loot targets, no different from regular respawns other than appearance, maybe a special skill or combat difficulty, 'bout it. In DAI it's laid out like that because, as you seem to recognize, they had huge areas to fill and not enough resources to do them justice... so they half-assed it. It's the half-assing I oppose.

 

Then you say the codex entries are just a happy "extra." It's only extra if there's something there to which it's adding. There isn't. That's what I was emphasizing. There were plenty of codex entries in DAO and DA2 as well, but that's not where the gameplay was. Supplementary is supplementary. Come to think of it, DAI is the first DA where I ended up reading every bloody codex. And why? Because the codex trail is the side-quest much of the time in DAI. And as I said, it's not bad or wrong in itself to have such a codex-based or codex-housed side-venture. It's lame when it becomes the standard, when it replaces the more interactive, elaborately laid-out, narrative-driven content that you get in the previous DA's. I didn't eagerly grab up the next DA in order to read codexes. "Man, those codexes in DAO were great! Can't wait to get into DAI's!" There's already good DA fiction to read outside of the game- the novels and the WoT volumes, not to mention fan fiction. Mind you, I do remember an example from DAO that relied on codexes- the secret stash mentioned in codex entries found scattered around the Deep Roads until you identify the location (and face off with an ogre). And that was the exception- and it worked well as such. The not-main-narrative/not-companion-quest "other stuff" team of DAI, however, added the bulk of their creativity to codex composition (and background art)- tons of characters existing there with different voices and stories and writing styles... and none of which we meet, interact with, change the lives of, change our character's life or journey, discover as a friend or foe, cause us moral conundrums, or even affect the game in any way... A lot of great writing, but the "NPCs" there (do they even qualify as NPCs?) add nothing to the "real-time" experiences of our characters in the world. They're just not substantive enough to constitute an adventure. Codex stories and lived stories are not equivalents, just as filler is not a qualitative equivalent of quests/encounters into which the full creative team has really invested their effort.

 

And I don't get your notion that changing this "puts people out of work." They already put someone out of work to make DAI the way they did. If they'd write those codexes as playable adventure instead, full of all the same characters and voices and irony, the artists would simply be put to work differently. And if they've gone overboard on hiring for codex entry prominence, that's not my problem to correct or endure. They're going to hire someone for whatever design they choose anyway.

 

No, I asked for neither a larger game nor a smaller game. I asked for a high-quality game to the largest extent they could manage without resorting to filler. I see no reason to assume this isn't possible. I mean really: are you suggesting they have no choice but to add filler to a game? They must make it larger and thus must dumb down the encounters? DAO did an excellent job without doing that... and, yes, remained much smaller than DAI territory-wise. DA2 did a fairly good job of it as well, better than DAI, and also ended up being the shorter game. I find it ironic that with DAI so huge they couldn't manage anything more for a city than Val Royeaux's center plaza while DAO had Denerim, Orzammar, Amaranthine, even a larger Redcliffe than DAI's. So I suggested, if you can only keep up that standard by reducing the game's overall traversible area size, just reduce the size. It's OK! It lends nothing to DAI simply that it's big. A hiking simulator, sure, should be big since the hiking is the game. A roleplay adventure game with a sophisticated central narrative like DA... isn't best served by hours and hours of uneventful hiking, filler encounters, and repetitive tasks. Would be awesome if they could make DA4 equally as huge as DAI with no filler, mindful to preserve the sense of uninterrupted narrative content (and simply having such a narrative imperative (haha) to maintain in the first place). It's just that it's not necessary to attempt such a thing, not the sort of priority that trumps great interactive content and a consistently meaningful player experience. You recognize that you're making an argument for quantity over quality, right? It's almost inevitable that the player is going to end a narrative-rich game wishing there was more, but by the same token a territory-weighty, supposedly-roleplaying game full of filler is going to end begging for narrative/interactive content. So err on the side that works better for rpg's, no? In any case I'm not going to accept the devs applying a "cheap and easy" method to constructing the DAverse without complaining. Especially as it kills replayability for me.

 

465hrs in DAI for you. Just amazing to me all those hrs. I've got 708... and only finished the game once! By contrast I've got 1700+ in DAO and played it 5.5 times. And the main mission in DAI is arguably equal to or shorter than DAO's in time needed. That's how much of my time went to the meat of the game in DAO compared to going to filler in DAI... This makes me cringe... This is also why I supported the Golden Nug. It's totally cheesy to add it, conspicuously metagamey, has no narrative purpose, stands out like a sore thumb in the playable terrain, and otherwise a no-no for an rpg, but it ameliorates the time-drain (trying not to say time-wasting) involved in compulsory filler activity like resource and item farming and battling respawns over and over (and helps with early-game equipment cosmetics). It's no better than a compensation, not an innovation, but welcome nonetheless. It helps make replay more feasible given the sort of game they decided to saddle us with...

 

All I have to say is read the post I made just before this one. IF BW can make a game as big as DA:I with as much quality as you would want and cut all the unnecessary fat away, then I'm all for it. But if it turns out that BW goes, "OK, we will make a smaller game and spend only a year and a half on it" then count me out of that conundrum.

[Realmzmaster]

All I have to say is read the post I made just before this one. IF BW can make a game as big as DA:I with as much quality as you would want and cut all the unnecessary fat away, then I'm all for it. But if it turns out that BW goes, "OK, we will make a smaller game and spend only a year and a half on it" then count me out of that conundrum.

 

The point is what is unnecessary fat? Some posters feel that the shards, astrariums and bottles were unnecessary fat? I happen to like figuring out the astrariums and other puzzles. So that is not unnecessary fat to me. I also like the rewards that come from collecting the shards and figuring out how to reach them. So that is not unnecessary fat.

 

I liked uncovering the archaeology in the Hissing Wastes. Even the Duffalo quest was interesting because I found a way to tackle the rift that was there using the creature. 

 

So who is to define what unnecessary fat is? Who gets to decide what is and what is not a meaningful sidequest?