609 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Multiple outcomes/resolutions is what I meant. Though I do love games where the entire quest can diverge depending on your approach (stealth, diplomacy, information gathering, blackmail, etc...) I don't expect that of BioWare. I don't think I'm being unreasonable or asking too much, but I love having different outcomes in quests. Anything that lets me define my character and gives me a reason to play it through again and try something else (I'm also obsessed with dialogue). Things like "go find my ring" aren't fun even the first time, don't let me roleplay different personalities, and give me no reason to do them again.

 

I don't think you're being unreasonable. I like the design in DA2 a lot - I think roleplay is as much about what you say as it is about what you do, and never thought that Bioware had poor roleplay design in how they structured their quests. But from a purely quest design perspective - once we remove the dialogue - Bioware never had good quest design.

 

The problem in DA:I with the quests isn't just that Bioware removed dialogue. It's that they suck at designing quests. So when they remove dialogue, they remove the highest quality feature, and a feature that attracts many players.

 

There are two ways for Bioware to fix this problem.

 

First, have more dialogue. That's resource-intensive, which means either greater funding from EA (with the expectation of greater sales) or reallocation (so - and this is my view - substantially cutting companion banter in favour of quest dialogue with NPCs).

 

Second, have better quests. Rather than their basic kill quests and fetch quests, which describe just about every single Bioware quest ever (with the exception of their pure dialogue quests, which we do not have much of anymore), they need varied design.

 

Part of the issue for Bioware, I'm sure, is that with DA2 they doubled down on cinematics and conversation, and especially companions (look how many resources went into them - multiple companion quests, two definitive and stark outcomes, lots of cinematics). And it led to insane criticism, damage to their brand, etc.

 

There were other design issues for DA2 - but dialogue and cinematics didn't hide it. So Bioware flipped a switch with the same resource crunch in DA:I. And it seems to have paid off a lot more. 

[In Exile]

So you agree that the product needs to change because the majority of people posting have pointed out their desire for improved side quests?

No. That's not what I said. Some random group of posters on the internet doesn't reflect a general dissatisfaction with the game. I think the product needs to change because some of its features suck. But I don't need to justify that with reference to what other people believe. 

 

 

Nope, not a joke. No idea what you'd meant- actual sincere confuddlement (as opposed to deliberate obtuseness), particularly as you'd spelled everything else correctly but misspelled "rigour" twice and thus left it not in the least "evident." I guessed well though. I sometimes add a British superfluouus "u" myself to add colour.

 

I didn't intend that as a definition of game immersion, though I anticipated you needing one, so I threw over some concepts for you balk at (and me to work with). Unfortunately you seem to have missed that they were concepts about game immersion breaking, not game immersion itself. Easy to call a not-intended-as-definition "meaningless..." well, period, easy to call anything mean names, but also easy to do so when misrepresenting the we'll-pretend-it's-an-attempt-at-official-definition. In fact, I like your own definition of game immersion, though I'd tweak and add to it. As you know, I add a lot... But I don't find myself disagreeing... too much. I've even stated something similar in comments above (just getting to your posts now)... We'll get back to it in a bit as its probably the most interesting point of contention (and agreement)...

 

Another clarification needed... I never said side-venturing- or even DAI's side-venturing- was shyte. I believe I was making another hyperbolic hypothetical to dramatize a point, not stating that outright. I don't actually think that. I just think it's the kind of content I'd expect to find in far less self-respecting AAA game or a rushed game or a game with little narrative strength to begin with. If the player's point of entry into DAI were the side-venturing rather than the whole Fade and such, they'd have a qualitatively different idea of the level of content in DAI and what to expect from the game. But shyte... no.

 

OK, so your major issue was with me claiming that immersion-breaking is an objective fact. Cuz immersion measurement is ridiculous! Do you not concede that a lightning storm that fries your computer and shuts off all the electricity will make it a tad more difficult to, as you put it, "lose your sense of self, forgetting where you are and who you are and getting lost in the story." Hell, it outright ends the story, doesn't it? With a big crash where you think hour IRL house is on fire. Reminds you in a jiffy where you are, who you are, and where the flashlight is stored. That's pretty much the most extreme example of immersion being subject to objective criteria. OK, an earthquake and lightning storm... My previous example about game crashes was quite sufficient, however. One of the criticisms I actually heard articulated in the early days of DAI when bugginess was more prevalent was that the constant issues broke immersion. And why wouldn't it? Of course, it did. I'm not making any profound insight on this, am I? Now, it's probably possible that a person could still sit there in the dark during the lightning storm feeling fully immersed in the game narrative despite all the IRL events around them, but in terms of probability, it's going to be a low chance at that point, much lower than before the power went down. So though subjectivity may make immersion more or less easy for one person as opposed to another, the probabililty for it can indeed vary according to objective factors.

 

Where the argument continued into specifying factors that make the game less narratively-driven, I was seguing from the extreme example of game crashes and bugs to game limitations that affect immersion. Because, you see, if power outages are an extreme case, then you should already be recognizing that there is a continuum within which there are less and less extreme cases. Perhaps you somehow still don't get it about the extreme example, but I'll proceed anyway in case some of it registers. If you're facing nothing but half-assed content, how well will you be able to manage game immersion, feeling like you're there, feeling like the character you've created and conceived regarding the game narrative... is going to be adversely affected. It's like if someone says, "Hey, dipstick. Go hunt eight beavers for a reward. Bye." Actually that might be very immersive in a game where the NPCs usually talk to you that way. ("The Bard's Tale," for instance.) But in DAI? In DAI the uninspired side-venturing dialog tends to go more cordially... and blandly... and all-too-predictably. See that there's a different impact on game immersion for uninspired writing? If the voice actor were lousy, that too would have an impact. It's not the same oomph of impact that a power outage has, but as an objective condition, it factors. Are you asserting that there is an equivalence of immersion condition in every gaming situation regardless of any such conditions? That such a continuum of adverse effects on game immersion doesn't exist. That's your "unfortunate" position on disagreement. If you're willing to acknowledge game immersion as a reality, you have to recognize it can be affected by objective conditions.

 

Is it a "meaningless" distinction to make that an experience you get while more or less immersed in the game feels like fluff? Take a side-quest where you find a letter on a corpse talking about completing a ritual... which auto-places a mark on the map. You go there with a narrative of, hm, a ritual. You find the location, there's an altar. You click on it. A normal demon just sort of spawns... on a nearby rock.... It stands there a moment, then attacks... So... you kill it. You get XP and loot. That's it. Quest done. Now... how immersed in the narrative were you? And that is an actual Hinterlands side-quest. One of a great many of its kind. Can you not imagine any number of ways that could've been more immersive, more engaging, more intriguing as a character in the game's narrative? If not, I have to wonder at your imagination. If you can, you've already conceded that game quality can affect game immersion...

 

All that said, it doesn't really matter whether you accept my Super Official Definition of Immersion (which I still haven't offered you- rascal that I am) or even the notion that objective conditions can affect subjective conditions. The point of it was just to show one other casualty of producing sub-par game content: people are going to be far less likely to enjoy or even sustain game immersion. The term "metagamey" isn't facetious. The more a game is constructed that way, the less impactful the narrative.

 

OK, so TW3 has different needs. Not sure what you're addressing- at least regarding anything I wrote- with that mention or the rest of this post, but I'm not disputing it. Not that I know, having never gotten past that first non-tutorial fight scene in TW3 with the annoying jumpy critters. But I get the point about DAI investing a lot more resources in companion content for logical reasons. Yep. Are you saying great content is there but it was just too sparse (and buggy) to appreciate? Not sure on that one.

 

In a different thread I made about bringing back origins for DA4 I mentioned that I'd encourage the devs to make companions- already one of the most important features of the franchise anyway- far more connected to the side-quests. This way each side-quest gets all those resources and the sort of content that works best (and among the most fan-celebrated) in DA already- banter, companion reactions to ongoing events, companion relationship building- but lending it the impact of discovering things spontaneously. Maybe a bit simplistic a suggestion, but I do see your point about how much content each event would then involve given, say, eight companions with varying potential reactions to varying potential encounter elements.

 

EDIT:

Just recognized what you were saying... I think. Yeah, I agree that companion quests are certainly not above reproach or criticism. I've just been saying that their quality was more than high enough that it poses no concerns for me regarding content quality. Could it be better? Are there things they did even worse than in previous DA's? I agree with Nefla and hoechlbear above that there weren't quite the same amount of moving moments, and hoechlbear described the "Wicked Grace" scene exactly as awkward as it felt for me. It's just not the glaring example of content quality laziness I find most needs addressing as the OP's article did.

 

I don't understand how you have the time to write all this. I can't possibly respond to this length of post on any consistent basis. So, I apologize for the brevity, but thought you at least deserved a response for the time you've dedicated to writing.

 

1. Being Canadian, I spell words differently. That you feel compelled to have a debate about spelling is insane. 

 

2. You can't separate out the definition of "immersion" from "immersion breaking" - these concepts are interrelated. Your absurd examples don't work, because they don't prove the gradation you want. We can all agree that - regardless of whatever precise definition we give to "immersion" - that you can't be immersed in a game when the game isn't on. That doesn't tell us anything about how you lose the sense of immersion while the game is on. The point you're proving is irrelevant. This is why the precise definition matters. Because we need to be able to say why, for example, a bad quest might be "immersion" breaking, or poor dialogue might be "immersion" breaking. The former point doesn't prove the latter. Bad content doesn't break immersion by definition, unless you provide a definition under which it does; for me, it certainly doesn't. Content that breaks immersion for me breaks immersion for me, and it can be (by most people's view) high quality and exceptional content. DA:O's dialogue system breaks immersion for me. I don't think anyone would argue it's a poor instance of silent VO list dialogue. Immersion is not a continuum for me. Immersion is binary. I am immersed, or I am not. This is why this debate is stupid. Because we're debating over a concept that does not mean the same thing to each of us, and throwing around the same word doesn't make it the same thing. This is a basic incommensurability problem. 

 

3.  My problem isn't that you said immersion is objective. My problem is that you didn't provide an objective standard. I don't think one exists, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. 

[Realmzmaster]

The basic point is that what is and what is not a good sidequest is subjective. There is not objective standard that says this is how good sidequests are done. Some say that the keeps are pointless while others others like the keeps.

Some say that the astrariums are unnecessary fat. Others on the other hand found them to be awesome in concept. Some find puzzles to be unnecessary. I enjoy. them.

 

Also what constitutes a "meaty" sidequest? Or even a good sidequest? That can vary depending on the gamer. Many of the suggestions on so-called trimming the fat means removing parts that some gamers find engaging.

 

So how does the developer decide what is and what is not fat?

[Toasted Llama]

 
All good points. It's just sad for me, because I remember preordering DA2 and the special edition of ME3 because I was so excited for Bioware's latest titles. I enjoyed both games, despite agreeing with some of the criticism of them, but by this point I really don't feel justified in giving Bioware my automatic preorder money anymore. Maybe it's because I preordered DAI for my PS3, got the Flames of the Inquisition bonus materials, but then when I bought a PS4, bought DAI AGAIN so I could play the DLCs, there was no option to import my purchased preorder materials. They had the balls to tell me I needed to pay $10 AGAIN to get the materials I had already paid for again.

 

Oh! Yes! That suddenly-switching-platforms-for-dlc debacle was awful! It's understandable they couldn't have seen it coming, but they should've given compensation. Forgot about that one, good point. I don't see any excuse there; allow people to trade physical copies at the store and allow digital copies to be traded with the use of PSN or Xbox Live. If that's difficult to do they should've looked into it more before making the decision to ditch last-gen.

Speaking of DLC: it should be account bound across all platforms (or at the very least last-gen + next-gen, iirc you don't switch accounts for that) or you should get some sort of redeemable code (that works once) for other platforms. Though I haven't seen much of a consumer outrage over this, so I doubt it'll happen.

 

And DA2 and ME3 disappointing so many people is why EA is so hated; chances are, they rushed the games out the door because at that point, Bioware was 'trusted'. Just like Star Wars Battlefront. Even Destiny suffered from it. More proof that - unfortunately - once money is involved, trust will be abused. Very anti-consumer, but I doubt it can be fixed by "just making better games".

[Hiemoth]

I don't think you're being unreasonable. I like the design in DA2 a lot - I think roleplay is as much about what you say as it is about what you do, and never thought that Bioware had poor roleplay design in how they structured their quests. But from a purely quest design perspective - once we remove the dialogue - Bioware never had good quest design.

 

The problem in DA:I with the quests isn't just that Bioware removed dialogue. It's that they suck at designing quests. So when they remove dialogue, they remove the highest quality feature, and a feature that attracts many players.

 

There are two ways for Bioware to fix this problem.

 

First, have more dialogue. That's resource-intensive, which means either greater funding from EA (with the expectation of greater sales) or reallocation (so - and this is my view - substantially cutting companion banter in favour of quest dialogue with NPCs).

 

Second, have better quests. Rather than their basic kill quests and fetch quests, which describe just about every single Bioware quest ever (with the exception of their pure dialogue quests, which we do not have much of anymore), they need varied design.

 

Part of the issue for Bioware, I'm sure, is that with DA2 they doubled down on cinematics and conversation, and especially companions (look how many resources went into them - multiple companion quests, two definitive and stark outcomes, lots of cinematics). And it led to insane criticism, damage to their brand, etc.

 

There were other design issues for DA2 - but dialogue and cinematics didn't hide it. So Bioware flipped a switch with the same resource crunch in DA:I. And it seems to have paid off a lot more. 

 

Slight correction on the companion resource issue. While DA2 did have those companion quests, and associated companion dialogues, it didn't have random discussions with companions and DAI actually not only has double the amount of companions/advisors, it also has more discussions scenes with them. Before DAI came out, I remember reading an interview with Gaider that the resource allocation to companions was about the same in DA2 and DAI. He also mentioned that one of the reasons they had to give up on the detailed companion quests was to allow having those always discussions in camp.

[Addictress]

And what's odd... DA:I gives us a lot of that type of content too. People are just weirdly focused on one type of content that is a rather small portion of the game.

It really doesn't, proportionally speaking.

[Addictress]

Not sure how anyone would disagree that the companion quests in DA2 were flat out the richest, best companion quests in the series

[vbibbi]

The basic point is that what is and what is not a good sidequest is subjective. There is not objective standard that says this is how good sidequests are done. Some say that the keeps are pointless while others others like the keeps.
Some say that the astrariums are unnecessary fat. Others on the other hand found them to be awesome in concept. Some find puzzles to be unnecessary. I enjoy. them.
 
Also what constitutes a "meaty" sidequest? Or even a good sidequest? That can vary depending on the gamer. Many of the suggestions on so-called trimming the fat means removing parts that some gamers find engaging.
 
So how does the developer decide what is and what is not fat?

  

People have been posting what they consider good criteria for "well done" side quests for the entire thread. A good list is in this post
http://forum.bioware...sts/?p=20105991

I don't know what else to say, people are listing examples of quests and criteria for them, and the naysayers are either ignoring them or repeating the same questions. For me, astrariums were the most enjoyable of the collection quests, but that was in play through #1. After that, it was exactly the same for future play throughs and the rewards for completing all of them were pretty poor. Replayability is a big factor for me, with options during the quest. All of the collection quests are straightforward with no alternative choices and are exactly the same every time I play the game. The astrariums could even change the pattern each game so we have to complete a new puzzle every time instead of the exact same puzzle.

I think it's in Bioware's best interests to make their games as replayable as possible; if they implement new features like the trials and release DLC up to a year after release, they want their fan base still engaged and playing the game, not complete after one playthrough and onto a new game. So from a business perspective, their side quests would benefit for including more choices and variation rather than basic "collect X and done" or "complete Y puzzle and find the treasure and done" quests.

Slight correction on the companion resource issue. While DA2 did have those companion quests, and associated companion dialogues, it didn't have random discussions with companions and DAI actually not only has double the amount of companions/advisors, it also has more discussions scenes with them. Before DAI came out, I remember reading an interview with Gaider that the resource allocation to companions was about the same in DA2 and DAI. He also mentioned that one of the reasons they had to give up on the detailed companion quests was to allow having those always discussions in camp.

Which makes the banter issues a real shame. There's so much content many gamers are missing and it's such a waste of developer resources. I can't believe Bioware didn't perform better testing to make sure something so resource intensive actually worked. Maybe they'll follow their typical strategy and "eliminate" the issue by reducing companion banter in DA4. Bioware sledgehammer solutions.

[Guitar-Hero]

  

People have been posting what they consider good criteria for "well done" side quests for the entire thread. A good list is in this post
http://forum.bioware...sts/?p=20105991

I don't know what else to say, people are listing examples of quests and criteria for them, and the naysayers are either ignoring them or repeating the same questions. For me, astrariums were the most enjoyable of the collection quests, but that was in play through #1. After that, it was exactly the same for future play throughs and the rewards for completing all of them were pretty poor. Replayability is a big factor for me, with options during the quest. All of the collection quests are straightforward with no alternative choices and are exactly the same every time I play the game. The astrariums could even change the pattern each game so we have to complete a new puzzle every time instead of the exact same puzzle.

I think it's in Bioware's best interests to make their games as replayable as possible; if they implement new features like the trials and release DLC up to a year after release, they want their fan base still engaged and playing the game, not complete after one playthrough and onto a new game. So from a business perspective, their side quests would benefit for including more choices and variation rather than basic "collect X and done" or "complete Y puzzle and find the treasure and done" quests.


Which makes the banter issues a real shame. There's so much content many gamers are missing and it's such a waste of developer resources. I can't believe Bioware didn't perform better testing to make sure something so resource intensive actually worked. Maybe they'll follow their typical strategy and "eliminate" the issue by reducing companion banter in DA4. Bioware sledgehammer solutions.

I like you man, you've got some well thought out points, don't spout stuff like fanboy or fanatic and generally seem like a reasonable sort 

[vbibbi]

I like you man, you've got some well thought out points, don't spout stuff like fanboy or fanatic and generally seem like a reasonable sort

Thanks! You obviously don't know me well, then!

I get that people defend Bioware and the game because they love the company and the products they make. So I'm sure it's not fun for them to listen to us complainers all the time when they come here. But I honestly do complain because I care about the games and want to make sure future games are the best that they can be. If I didn't care, I wouldn't come to the forums and spend so much time posting.

[Realmzmaster]

I also love the games and want to make sure the complainers do not end up eliminating the content that other gamers think is good. If that makes me a fanboy  then paint me in Bioware/EA colors.

 

I try to reasonable present my opinion. If that makes me a fanboy then so be it, I have been giving my opinion to Bioware since Shattered Steel. I will continue to do so. I have agreed and disagreed with many posters on this forum and will continue to do so. If that means I am the counterbalance to the complainers then so be it.

 

I will not go quietly into the night if posters are trying to eliminate something I think is good.

 

I also find it funny that some posters are extolling the virtues of DAII when those of us that did that when it was released got roasted, but hindsight is 20/20.

[BansheeOwnage]

 

I'm actually one of the (probably few) people who thought the wicked grace scene was super cringy. The way each companion slowly and individually reacts to something that was said 10 seconds ago is just weird. Not to mention, I don't see these characters as a close group of friends, so that scene didn't really have any effect on me. In fact, I found it all very forced. But well, I can see why most people love that moment.

It's one of my favourite scenes in the game, but I agree that it has its faults, like companions reacting after each other instead of at once. Bioware, wut? Das not how peepl werk.

 

Anyway, it's clear from banter that some of the companions are friends, but we don't get to see that much otherwise (and even in banter, since it's hard to get to work properly). I finished the game not really knowing what most of the characters thought of the other characters. So it would have helped a lot if there were more of these scenes, not necessarily with all companions, but groups, to establish that they are indeed a close-knit team. And it just would have been nice on its own, because sadly, I can't remember many times you had conversations with more than one inner-circle member at once

 

There was that scene, Cole's quest, Cullen's chess game for a minute, Varric in Cassandra's book quest + one line from Dorian or Cole as well. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Maybe Bioware should have a smaller but tighter cast next time, it would make it easier for everyone to have a known relationship with everyone else.

 

Edit: Just saw this post and wanted to add that...

Nah, you're definitely not the only one but I can overlook stuff like that. I also hold BioWare to a lower standard with each game >_< I thought the wicked grace scene was nice because I like more time with the companions but I agree that they didn't feel connected to each other. They didn't feel connected for most of the game IMO. Some exceptions were Cole, Varric and Solas for Cole's quest and Varric in some of Cassandra's conversations. I definitely missed that close knit feeling of DA2 or even DA:O (some of the camp conversations).

I can also somewhat overlook things like that, and bad animations, but at the same time, it's getting harder and harder to, when I play other games that have ridiculously good animation (because it's mo-cap). Bioware is still using a lot of ME1-level animations, and if this still isn't vastly improved by ME:A, well... ugh. 2007 animations were fine in 2007. Hell, fine in 2011. But almost 10 years later? You can and should do better Bioware.

 

I understand that there are a lot of cutscenes in Bioware games, but they can't use that as an excuse to stagnate their quality forever.

[vbibbi]

I also love the games and want to make sure the complainers do not end up eliminating the content that other gamers think is good. If that makes me a fanboy then paint me in Bioware/EA colors.

I try to reasonable present my opinion. If that makes me a fanboy then so be it, I have been giving my opinion to Bioware since Shattered Steel. I will continue to do so. I have agreed and disagreed with many posters on this forum and will continue to do so. If that means I am the counterbalance to the complainers then so be it.

I will not go quietly into the night if posters are trying to eliminate something I think is good.

I also find it funny that some posters are extolling the virtues of DAII when those of us that did that when it was released got roasted, but hindsight is 20/20.

I'm not calling you a fanboy. I don't know if me describing people in this thread with differing opinions as defenders suggested such, but I'm not trying to label anyone or call anyone out as "wrong" as much as having a differing opinion.

I will say that it's frustrating, though, when I and others post points which are then just ignored or responded to with a brief "no you're wrong" without anything further. Especially since some people against the opinions of the article are taking offense that it's trying to claim objective facts over subjective content.

But when dissenters just say "no" and get offended by someone voicing their dislike of something, how about responding with reasons why you feel the game worked, instead of taking it as a personal attack?

Also, I really like DA2 and consider it one of my favorite Bioware games. But I can see where a lot of the complaints came from and am not offended by people who complain about certain aspects of it. A lot of people on these forums who defend DAI seem to feel that any and all criticism against the game in unfair and untrue, instead of bothering to impartially listen to the criticism and see where the complaints are coming from.

[gldartt]

I wonder if the side quests would have worked better if the characters could have been a little more involved with them. Then perhaps it wouldn't matter what the quest was.

 

For example, the druffalo quest. I think I would have found it amusing and charming if the characters had been commenting the whole time. For example, if Sera had been bitching about herding along some animal just for the sake of some farmer. (The same with Viv.) Or if Iron Bull had been in the party, and it kept nuzzling him and nearly knocking him over and being all adoring much to his chagrin. Even funnier if it had been overly fond of Solas the entire time you're trying to herd it back to the farmer. Or if Varric kept trying to convince the Inquisitor to kill it instead for the hide and meat. Or if Dorian stepped in droppings and complained the whole time about how smelly it was. Then I would have enjoyed the quest. Not as much as others, but I wouldn't have found it so tedious.

 

Putting flowers on a grave would have been more touching if the characters had something to say about it. If Solas had mentioned that it was a kind thing, or if Sera had been all sarcastic about it as the party headed for the grave, but then got all sniffly and defensive once the epitath was read while Cassandra tormented her a little bit about it. Then it wouldn't have felt like so much work for such little reward. (And if I could think of this just off the top of my head, why couldn't people who get paid to do this for a living think of it?)

 

Could have done all the same quests, but some participation and input from the characters would have made all the difference, to me, anyway. I know that would require so much more dialogue to be recorded, etc, and more costs, but perhaps people wouldn't have been so aggravated doing them?

 

Edited to add: Sorry, I just realize people have already brought up the lack of banter as a reason the quests weren't good. I guess though, my point is, would the quests that were there be more palatable if dialogue and a tiny bit of character interaction had simply been added to them?

[Reighto]

Salty? Salty about what? I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in the gaming consumer base.

Calling you salty was wrong of me but it seemed like you were annoyed by what i wrote. I'd like to apologise if i offended you, i meant no harm.

[Reighto]

  

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.

Yes that's exactly how i feel! The DA world and lore is so interesting that i often spend hours on the wiki reading stuff.

[Toasted Llama]

Calling you salty was wrong of me but it seemed like you were annoyed by what i wrote. I'd like to apologise if i offended you, i meant no harm.

 

No, wasn't annoyed at what you wrote. Only somewhat annoyed at/tired with the "Gah this game/dlc/idea sucks!" *buys it anyway* (see: CoD) trend that happens. I think I wrote my comment a little too personal and rude, probably shouldn't have used 'stupid consumer' So I'd also like to apologize for my rude comments.

 

Gah! What is this civilized manners doing on the forums?! Not enough fanboying and ad-hominems!

[Nefla]

I also love the games and want to make sure the complainers do not end up eliminating the content that other gamers think is good. If that makes me a fanboy  then paint me in Bioware/EA colors.

 

I try to reasonable present my opinion. If that makes me a fanboy then so be it, I have been giving my opinion to Bioware since Shattered Steel. I will continue to do so. I have agreed and disagreed with many posters on this forum and will continue to do so. If that means I am the counterbalance to the complainers then so be it.

 

I will not go quietly into the night if posters are trying to eliminate something I think is good.

 

I also find it funny that some posters are extolling the virtues of DAII when those of us that did that when it was released got roasted, but hindsight is 20/20.

I don't think you're one of the ones being criticized. As for the content you're afraid will be cut, the only thing we're rallying against in this thread is the fetch quests and we're not even saying we want them all cut, just that we want something more substantial (see previous posts for video examples) to go along with them and we don't want to be forced into doing them (or do you mean you love the power requirements system and want to keep it? ). Even if we did want the fetch quests gone, that's never going to happen. They're fast, easy, and pad out game time so they're never going to go.

 

Edit: Just saw this post and wanted to add that...

I can also somewhat overlook things like that, and bad animations, but at the same time, it's getting harder and harder to, when I play other games that have ridiculously good animation (because it's mo-cap). Bioware is still using a lot of ME1-level animations, and if this still isn't vastly improved by ME:A, well... ugh. 2007 animations were fine in 2007. Hell, fine in 2011. But almost 10 years later? You can and should do better Bioware.

 

I understand that there are a lot of cutscenes in Bioware games, but they can't use that as an excuse to stagnate their quality forever.

BioWare is definitely behind the curve when it comes to graphics (especially hair...) and animations. It would be one thing if they had just put that stuff on the back burner because they wanted to make a ton of amazing quests or a really long and involved main story but...they didn't. I feel like every time they make some progress in the graphics department the story elements get worse.

[AlanC9]

Not sure how anyone would disagree that the companion quests in DA2 were flat out the richest, best companion quests in the series

They were. Though even if we agree with that, it doesn't mean that we agree that this is the best way to spend zots.

[robertthebard]

I have to admit, until I got to the second paragraph of the article, it was the most well disquised "The Witcher does it better" article I've seen, lately.

[Addictress]

The basic point is that what is and what is not a good sidequest is subjective. There is not objective standard that says this is how good sidequests are done. Some say that the keeps are pointless while others others like the keeps.

Some say that the astrariums are unnecessary fat. Others on the other hand found them to be awesome in concept. Some find puzzles to be unnecessary. I enjoy. them.

 

Also what constitutes a "meaty" sidequest? Or even a good sidequest? That can vary depending on the gamer. Many of the suggestions on so-called trimming the fat means removing parts that some gamers find engaging.

 

So how does the developer decide what is and what is not fat?

You're pointing to a side quest that is blatantly

 

*lacking animation

*lacking any type of cinematic direction

*strictly collection

 

And you call our disgust a subjective reaction?

 

At what point is it obvious to you that the side quest is not only lazily implemented but completely scarce? If I gave you a 300-page novel and a 5-page booklet with simple and rudimentary illustrations, and I told you I thought the 300-page-book was higher quality, would you really want to say "oh it's just subjective?"

 

Clearly one is higher quality, even if you hate reading voluminous novels rich with Russian history.

 

Perhaps you simply don't like large Russian novels. So in that extent, it is subjective, but the objective point remains that one side quest model clearly is more complex and engaging than the other and that, given a set of basic standards, should be deemed higher quality.

[UniformGreyColor]

I also love the games and want to make sure the complainers do not end up eliminating the content that other gamers think is good. If that makes me a fanboy  then paint me in Bioware/EA colors.

 

I try to reasonable present my opinion. If that makes me a fanboy then so be it, I have been giving my opinion to Bioware since Shattered Steel. I will continue to do so. I have agreed and disagreed with many posters on this forum and will continue to do so. If that means I am the counterbalance to the complainers then so be it.

 

I will not go quietly into the night if posters are trying to eliminate something I think is good.

 

I also find it funny that some posters are extolling the virtues of DAII when those of us that did that when it was released got roasted, but hindsight is 20/20.

 

FWIW I find pretty much all of your content you provide to be completely reasonable and with a balanced head on your shoulders. People who are saying you are being unreasonable are the unreasonable ones, honestly. You don't post with undue emotion that demands that only your opinion is the one that matters and I do not understand why people think that it is so.

[UniformGreyColor]

I have to admit, until I got to the second paragraph of the article, it was the most well disquised "The Witcher does it better" article I've seen, lately.

 

You bring up the article. I'd say it doesn't do DA:I justice and the very comparison that the article writer has made between two quests that are largely the same is an erroneous comparison and what is said about the goat quest could very well be said about the Druffalo quest. People like this comparison because it seemingly looks like the article writer is making a strong point, but you don't seem him at all saying "Watching the druffalo demolish the demons was so funny" which, is a matter of opinion that the article writer fails to observe. My guess is that the article writer is simply feeding off of the comparisons that he has already heard about and is not making an honest comparison between the two.

[BansheeOwnage]

You bring up the article. I'd say it doesn't do DA:I justice and the very comparison that the article writer has made between two quests that are largely the same is an erroneous comparison and what is said about the goat quest could very well be said about the Druffalo quest. People like this comparison because it seemingly looks like the article writer is making a strong point, but you don't seem him at all saying "Watching the druffalo demolish the demons was so funny" which, is a matter of opinion that the article writer fails to observe. My guess is that the article writer is simply feeding off of the comparisons that he has already heard about and is not making an honest comparison between the two.

Amusing though it may be, to be fair, it's not actually part of the Druffy quest. Buuuuut there's an idea of how they could have made it more interesting! Druffy killing demons for you is part of the quest, and rewards you with a Druffy mount

[In Exile]

You bring up the article. I'd say it doesn't do DA:I justice and the very comparison that the article writer has made between two quests that are largely the same is an erroneous comparison and what is said about the goat quest could very well be said about the Druffalo quest. People like this comparison because it seemingly looks like the article writer is making a strong point, but you don't seem him at all saying "Watching the druffalo demolish the demons was so funny" which, is a matter of opinion that the article writer fails to observe. My guess is that the article writer is simply feeding off of the comparisons that he has already heard about and is not making an honest comparison between the two.

I'm pretty sure the goat quest is a critical path quest, isn't it?